Talk:The Motorcycle Diaries (book)/Archive 1

"Vagabond" vs "vagabond"

Second-to-last paragraph of "Expedition" section; should vagabond be capitalized like this? Is there a specific quote in Guevara's book that uses the word vagabond with as a proper noun? If not, the capitalization should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.215.22 (talk) 10:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Tense is article is incorrect - use of present + future tense is not encycloypedia

This article uses the present tense and future tense e.g. "would" which is not concerted appropriate for an encyclopedia. Further the article appears to be written like a personal, rather worshiping essay and the tone is not encyclopedic. It is not presented as neutral in its point of view. –Mattisse (Talk) 14:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"Would" can be appropriate depending on its context, but yes I see what you mean and fixed that. Thanks. Redthoreau (talkTR 16:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

As for the tag of an "Essay" you have provided no justification for such a tag. And the diagnosis of a "worship" essay, to me is a matter of POV, for which I am still open to your suggestions of ways to improve that. Redthoreau (talk TR 16:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Lets get a third opinion. I work with a lot of book articles and book articles are to read like a book review with both pros and cons. Also read Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. Here and other places wikipedia guiidlines state avoid plot summraries, or make them samll. WP:NPOV says your writing should be neutral. I should put a POV tag on it but I did not, giving you a chance to make it more newtral first. –Mattisse (Talk) 17:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it would be helpful for you to read this: Wikipedia:Notability (books) Meanwhile, since I noticed you have removed the tages - which you are not supposed to do with out fixing the probken of the essay tone. You do not have reliable third party rrefences. This article Is Original Research while is expressly forbidden by WP:NOR, so I will tag it as such. –Mattisse (Talk) 18:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

References are provided. You have not provided any justification for the diagnosis of "essay tone" --- also there is NO original research there ... everything is from the book in question, thus I will continue to remove the tags as they are not relevant. Redthoreau (talk TR 18:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering our troubled recent history, it is clear your edits are in bad faith, and meant to harass (which you were warned about once before). Please desist and move on. Redthoreau (talk TR 18:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I don't know what is the best way to raise problems (by tagging or whatever) but there are deficiencies in the article as it stands now, including some that I think can fairly be labelled as original research or essay tone issues. In the "Lighter moments" section, it is stated that Guevara "is equally at home ruminating on the plight of the downtrodden during his passage", that writing is "in a fluid and colorful style". It is commented that "Guevara comes across as someone who likes nothing better than consuming heroic amounts of mate, telling tall tales, and getting into trouble." And "Guevara relates his tales in such a matter-of-fact manner, that he almost convinces you that it's entirely normal behavior." These comments appear to be the opinion of the reader/editor. They are interesting observations to make in an essay, certainly, but may not be appropriate for an encyclopedic article, especially if they are not quotes or otherwise sourced from published book reviews. Also, I wonder if it would help the article to retitle sections to clarify which are plot summary sections. Was the pre-expedition part of the book? If so, perhaps: "Plot summary" could be a section, with subsections "Pre-expedition", "Expedition", and "Lighter moments". Also, I agree with the sense of a comment in the Village Pump discussion of this article (which brought me here), that the transformation of Che, mostly relegated to the Transformation section, could usefully be incorporated into the intro of the article. Hope these comments are helpful. doncram (talk) 22:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to point out suggestions. Hopefully we will work on them. –Mattisse (Talk) 23:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Article appear to be Original Research -read the guidelines in Wikipedia:Notability (books) -example

An American Life is an example of how an article should be if written neutrally. This article needs to follow the guidelines in Wikipedia:Notability (books). I'll start listing other examples as I find them so the editors of this article know what to strive for. Regards, –Mattisse (Talk) 20:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hum, I think that's not the same type of book, because it does not mention what events caused Reagan to become conservative, so its article does not need to go all over the contents like this needs, or the Mein kampf needs. Notice how this article *needs* to list what happened to Che Guevara along the journey described on the book, since the political conciensce of Guevara must have formed slowly along those events. It's a very specific sort of book, so there are very few similar to it.

Btw, can you tell us what section exactly of Wikipedia:Notability_(books) needs to be applied to this article? I don't undertand how it applies. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes: (see below) –Mattisse (Talk) 23:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This page in a nutshell: A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria:

1. The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial[ published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary.
   • The immediately preceding criterion excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
2. The book has won a major literary award.
3. The book has been made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture that was released into multiple commercial theaters, or was aired on a nationally televised network or cable station in any country.
4. The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.
5. The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources.

The article does not do this. Che is very notable to a subgroup only. Wikipedia is supposed to take a world view. I'm not saying it cannot be done. –Mattisse (Talk) 23:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Mattisse, Enric Naval has already warned you about continuing this line of WP:POINT reasoning Here. It is unfortunate you did not heed his advice. Redthoreau (talk TR 00:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think he warned both of us. Please coment on content and not on the editor. –Mattisse (Talk) 00:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That is "content". Your rationale is faulty and incorrect. This book clearly meets the motion picture and historically significant author requirement. That is indisputable.       Redthoreau (talk TR 14:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Talking about content. From the notability criteria that you listed, the book meets criteria 3 because there is a film about it that meets the criteria. It also meets criteria 5 because it was written by a man that has appeared on the Time magazine cover, and Time lists him as one the 100 most influential people of 20th century. That meets wikipedia's notability criteria for persons and for books by a wide margin. Your opinion that he is not notable is not a criteria for questions on wikipedia's articles. I hoped that cleared the matter.

Adenda: ffs, we even have an article about a photography of him: Che_Guevara_(photo), and there are attributions to a museum calling his photography "the most reproduced image in the history of photography." and many other attributions. Please stop saying that the Che is not notable. May you consider him not notable by your personal standards, but by wikipedia standards he is *very* notable and, accordingly, he has to get *extensive* coverage on wikipedia. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Why your tags lack merit

PLEASE READ CAREFULLY: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 42#another_use_of_POV_tags_and_other = There you have it. I expect you to cease your abusive use of article tags without justification, so that reporting you will not be necessary. Redthoreau (talk TR 21:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the tags, the OR one was the only one that needs a talk page explanation. But I will be happy to oblige. Lets follow the other suggestions about reorganizing etc. –Mattisse (Talk) 21:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Lets start with notablily. That should be easy enough to do. Then tackly the OR problems. Meanwhile I will start a separte section to list the OR problems. –Mattisse (Talk) 21:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with dispute template policy

Wikipedia:Dispute templates They should normally not be used without a clear description from the applying editor of the rationale, preferably presented in a numbered list form in a separate section which includes the template name. As these items are dealt with, it is suggested each line be struck through. Some guidance should be given by the posting editor as to what action will resolve the matter when using section and article (page) tagging templates.

Redthoreau (talk TR 21:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Copied the rest from Technical Pump as they gave some good suggestions

(copied from Village Pump)

Please let's center the debate on wheter you placed the tags correctly. Below I comment that the summary tag looks justified, and made some suggestions to address the problems on the article. About the "OR" tag, I see that you didn't justify exactly what the original research was on the talk page of the article. The {{OR}} page says:

Note: This template should not be applied without explanation on the talk page, and should be removed if the original research is not readily apparent when no explanation is given.

you should try to go to the talk page and provide an explanation. Please try to cite exact places where this OR happens. It's posible that the other editor gets convinced by your arguments and changes the text himself to remove the OR.

About the NPOV tag on the section above. The NPOV pages says clearly that the tagger must provide an explanation on the talk page "pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies,". Just point to those issues on the talk page before re-adding the tag.

Finally, Matisse, since the book is different from other books (it's famous because it describes the youth experiences of a person that later became famous and not because of its intrinsec value), then of course the article is different. Just compare with articles of books that are famous because of "strange" reasons like Quotations_From_Chairman_Mao_Tse-Tung or Mein_kampf. This sort of books needs a different format for them, with way more attention to the actual contents, in order to understand how it relates to the notable character behind them. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the "summary" tag (I didn't evaluate the other tags). I have skimmed the article a bit, and the summary of the plot is almost the whole article. However, it's a book about the life of Che Guevara, so the extension is very justified because of him being a very notable person, and this book is helping us to understand how he got those ideas of freedom. The article should be edited to explicitely explain this (and mention it on the lead), and then remove the "summary" tag, since the lenght is justified. If the sources at the bottom explain how the experiences on the book shaped the ideas of Che Guevara, then they should be cited and attributed (p.ex.:"The New York Times thinks that xxxx experience on the book made Che think xxxxx which was later important on the revolution."), maybe a section explaining the importance of the book to understand the Che damn, move the "transformation" section to the top of the article, and put the plot below, dudes, what is the most important part of the article doing at the end, I almost skipped it because it didn't look important :P . Also the paragraph starting with "Witnessing the widespread endemic" should be in the transformation section and right at the top. On that place it looks like a part of the plot that only people that read the whole plot will see. The more important parts are hidden at the end of the plot, so the summary tag appears to be justified. Just edit it to bring the important part at the start, and then the long plot at the end for people who want to read the whole thing. As the summary tag says, "focus on discussing the work". --Enric Naval (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Those are good suggesting you have given regarding the article. Improved organization would help and give it less of a POV cast at the beginning. I have looked at Mein_kampf. It has footnotes and references and presents contrasting points of view. It is not so clear how the writers feel. The Quotations_From_Chairman_Mao_Tse-Tung article is certainly far from perfect, but it has at least on {{citations needed}} I have placed an example of a fair book article on the article talk page and also suggested the consultation of Wikipedia:Notability (books). Are you saying that I am allowed to edit the article, as I have not been so far? Thanks, –Mattisse (Talk) 21:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I guess you are saying that the justifications for the OR tag are placed on the talk page first. Perhaps that would prevent the revert seconds later. If I am allowed to edit the article, I would fee less helpless about it. Thanks, –Mattisse (Talk) 21:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Quit the "If I am allowed", it is disingenuous. You have always been "allowed" just as I have been "allowed" to edit back. What you have not been allowed to do is what you have been doing. Which is clicking on hundreds of articles in an hour and copy and pasting tags all over them without any talk page rationale. Redthoreau (talk TR 22:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You can always edit the article, of course, it's part of the spirit of wikipedia that anyone can edit the articles, see the third section on WP:PILLARS. It's just that other editors felt that your edits were not correct and they reverted them. Just make those suggestions first on the talk page, and don't get too obsessed on getting your changes into the article. This will help you to reach a consensus with the other editor about the article. Even if the tag gets removed anyways, at least your objections will be on the talk page, and other editors can later read them and edit the changes into the article in ways you didn't think about. This is a collaborative work, so you can't always edit the articles the way you would like to, it's better to accept that other people will always make it different than you. I don't know why you mention the notability policy, since it's obvious that book is notable, so I don't see how that policy can help to improve the article --Enric Naval (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflice}

Obvious meaning it is like saying "The world is round" or obvious because the proper citations are there. This is mostly material taken out of the Che Guevara as not significant enough about his life. –Mattisse (Talk) 22:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the New York Times says "The phenomenon began a decade ago with the publication of his long-suppressed memoir known in English as "The Motorcycle Diaries," which has become a cult favorite among Latin American college students and young intellectuals. But it is being catapulted ahead now by the release this month of a Latin American-made film version of the book, enthusiastically received both in the region and last week at Cannes.". This source alone would already justify an article on the book. The movie made out of the book seems to be making Che popular again [1] --Enric Naval (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) So you are saying notability can be taken for granted. Are there not people who may read Wikipedia who would not know? So if notability can be taken for granted by English speaking people familiar with Latin American and Cuban history, are we to assume everyone who may read the article would know? I thought wikipedia was more inclusive then that. –Mattisse (Talk) 22:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)No, I have read The Motorcycle Diaries (twice), and the info comes from the book. Have you read it? Redthoreau (talk TR 22:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

SOURCES - You accuse the article of lacking neutral sources. They are BBC, NY Times, Natl Geographic etc. Not communist.com or on the flipside worldnetdaily.com. Something is not POV, just because it does not match yours. Redthoreau (talk TR 22:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Notability is irrelevant, as the book is recognized as notable. Redthoreau (talk TR 22:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do read WP:V and WP:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (books). Notability does not come from personal experience. I am well aware that you may be overly involved with the subject. –Mattisse (Talk) 22:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I have read them. Also nice "snide" remark with the "overly involved" ... I guess for you that is anyone who has actually READ the book the article is based on, which you clearly haven't. Redthoreau (talk TR 22:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

NOTABILITY refers to whether the article should exist in the first place. Of course it should. It is a best selling memoir of one of the world's most famous/infamous historical figures. Redthoreau (talk TR 22:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Does that mean that you don't have citations to back up your statements. Suppose I have never heard of him. Surely you acknowledge that there may be people reading Wikipedia who have never heard of him but have heard of Britney Spears? –Mattisse (Talk) 22:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The great thing about my edits, is that I am so well versed in the material, that I KNOW everything can be easily sourced. You tell me what you want a source for, and I'll provide it, as I did already for the first sentence. Redthoreau (talk TR 22:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't know what else is going on here, but the book clearly meets Wikipedia standards for Notability. That it was made into a major motion picture is sufficient on its own, but it would easily, in my view, meet notability standards without that. It is important for understanding Che Guevara's own transformation, as was noted in the Village pump discussion. But it further is a "tranformative" book for many people who read it, and, being a well-read book, it is important for understanding the common perspective that it provides to all of those readers. P.S. The revision to the first sentence is an improvement, IMHO. doncram (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

unsourced opinion in first sentence

The first sentence uses the passive voice plus cites an opinion without a reference as to where the opinion came from. –Mattisse (Talk) 22:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Just to be clear, I am refering to the first sentence in the article which begins The Motorcycle Diaries, which has been described as "Easy Rider meets Das Kapital"

Read the picture of the book, it is on the cover. The source is The Times. Redthoreau (talk TR 22:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I added the source. Redthoreau (talk TR 22:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the whol first paragraph is almost all a word-for-word from the same source, so you should credit that also. –Mattisse (Talk) 23:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Where did the article info go?

Mattisse made an edit, and now most the article is gone ?Redthoreau (talk TR 22:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Mattisse you need to revert your last edit, as it erased most of the article. Redthoreau (talk TR 23:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I can fix it. I know what the error is. Sorry about that. I'll fix it now. –Mattisse (Talk) 23:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I mended it. The ref tag lacked a "/" so it was a self-closing tag. I'm going to sleep now, I leave you to try to work together on the article. Try not to get into fights :P --Enric Naval (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Lets work on doncrams objections - I have copied them below

(unindent) I don't know what is the best way to raise problems (by tagging or whatever) but there are deficiencies in the article as it stands now, including some that I think can fairly be labelled as original research or essay tone issues.

• In the "Lighter moments" section, it is stated that Guevara "is equally at home ruminating on the plight of the downtrodden during his passage", that writing is "in a fluid and colorful style".
• It is commented that "Guevara comes across as someone who likes nothing better than consuming heroic amounts of mate, telling tall tales, and getting into trouble."
• And "Guevara relates his tales in such a matter-of-fact manner, that he almost convinces you that it's entirely normal behavior." These comments appear to be the opinion of the reader/editor. They are interesting observations to make in an essay, certainly, but may not be appropriate for an encyclopedic article, especially if they are not quotes or otherwise sourced from published book reviews.
• Also, I wonder if it would help the article to retitle sections to clarify which are plot summary sections.
  • Was the pre-expedition part of the book? If so, perhaps: "Plot summary" could be a section, with subsections "Pre-expedition", "Expedition", and "Lighter moments".
• Also, I agree with the sense of a comment in the Village Pump discussion of this article (which brought me here), that the transformation of Che, mostly relegated to the Transformation section, could usefully be incorporated into the intro of the article. Hope these comments are helpful. doncram (talk) 22:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Please let us heed these suggestion and get to work on the article. –Mattisse (Talk) 00:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

My objections to para one

Here are my problems with para one:

• Why the quotes are 'symbolic' in para one - what is symbolic about it

• Every thing in the lead should be referenced there or elsewhere in the article.

• Why is "revolutionary" in quotes

• Why is the present tense used in para in most of the para

• He encounters and is transformed (need citation}

• Is there evidence it was "bestselling" in the general meaning of the word.

• Who says the mineworkers were exploited - "persecuted communists" - I'm not doubting this but when you get this specific you need an biased, reliable, third-party source.

• "and the tattered descendants of' - a little flowery for an intro to an encyclopedia article.

• "orignially (sic) born in an upper middle class family" seems out of place here. It does not flow from anything.

• I also agree with doncram's comments.

Thank you, –Mattisse (Talk) 01:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

RESPONSE: "symbolic" in the sense that his trip was for 9 months (the same time period a baby is in the womb) before being "reborn" as he believes he was.

"Revolutionary" utilizing the pun that he became a "revolutionary", and that the book has been seen as a "revolutionary" in the general sense.

His encounter and transformation is the main theme of the book.

It was rated a New York Times bestseller. "Best selling" is mentioned 3 times on this page alone. Use Ctrl F. Ocean Press, publisher

Guevara describes the mine workers as "exploited" and the communists as "persecuted" (as even seen in the included quote from the book.

Flowery language can be part of brilliant prose.

The upper class family is crucial, because it shows why he would be so shocked and transformed by witnessing the widespread poverty that he did.

Redthoreau (talk TR 05:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Attribute the mine workers thing, instead of "the exploited miners", use "the miners, described by Guevara as exploited" or, depending on the context "the miners, seen by Guevara as exploited". The same with other descriptions used on the book, and with statements that appear to be done by the editor when they are really made by Guevara. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't find the guideline for it right now, but you should avoid, erm, "flowery prose". I think the guideline says something like "avoid elogy", which means that you shouldn't be saying how well-written the book was, etc. Not sure if you do it here.

If "tattered descendants" is used on the book, then you should attribute the sentence from "He encounters and is transformed by witnessing" to something similar to "The book describes/narrates how he encounters and is transformed by witnessing". If a certain description is taken literally from the book and put in the middle of a sentence then it should be between quotes. You don't need to source the statements as long as they are on the book and they are attributed to it.

I'm afraid that Mattisse is right in that the "revolutionary" pun should be either attributed or left out, even if it looks good. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Some statements about the book can be attributed to this person (Guevara's son?) [2]. A paragraph like this can be added "Che Guevara didn't intend his diary to be published, Since the 1980's, we - Che's family and others - have been working on his unpublished manuscripts. A Cuban publishing house published "The Motorcycle Diaries" for the first time in 1993.", it would make the article talk more about the book itself and its circunstances than about its contents (this is the current problem with the article). This can also be added and attributed "the conditions in Latin America that provoked a profound change in the young Che Guevara " --Enric Naval (talk) 09:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Read MoS. Nothing should be in quotes for no reason or to emphasis it. That is frowned up. Therefore I will change it. I will change some of the oher MoS violations also. –Mattisse (Talk) 21:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I mended the "journey" section, and removed "revolutionary", since it looks like it was a pun, and not an actual statement of fact. The book is not revolutionary by itself. This shoud be attributed when restoring it. Probably some article on the NYT has that same pun, and can be attributed from it. Same with the symbolic nine months, there is probably somewhere notable where they make the same comparison, i'd bet for one of the articles commenting on the movie. I left since it has some factuality on it (the journey lasted nine months). Sorry, thoureau, I think you were proud of that pun, but.... It can be restored with an attribution, of course, so it doesn't get deleted again. The nine months statement can be moved to "Transformation" --Enric Naval (talk) 22:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

In other Guevara articles, opinion peices were to be used only to support a point of view e.g. some people thing this (citaion), so thing that (citation). Never is an opinion piece from the Travel section been used to cite facts. If the NYT's opinion piece thinks it is "symbolic" that should be cited and then a counter view should be offered also. NPOV applies here also. –Mattisse (Talk) 22:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Which translation?

Re "We are looking for the bottom part of the town" and "great amount of dollars": Presumably Guevara didn't write in English. I wonder whether a better translation is available. (Or is there a definitive English version of the book containing these phrases?) I wonder whether "bottom part of the down" means "downtown" or perhaps "downtrodden part of the town" -- or is it really referring to the part of lowest geographical elevation?

That is verbatim from the English translation. The vernacular was different in the early 1950's and Guevara had a very "poetic" vocabulary ... in its context he is clearly making inference to looking for the shadier more impoverished area.       Redthoreau (talk TR 14:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the reason I'm here is partly that, while editing the Che Guevara article over the past few weeks, I've been thinking that I would eventually also work on some of the other Che-Guevara-related articles, and partly that I've had Mattisse' talk page watchlisted and saw that Redthoreau had posted to Mattisse' talk page mentioning this page. --Coppertwig (talk) 10:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I am glad you are here, as I trust your judgement and objectivity ... and appreciate your wiki-knowledge and commitment to ensuring quality within an article. You can also possibly act as a "buffer" between me and Mattisse who seem to always "butt heads" when editing together.       Redthoreau (talk TR 14:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

OK I can see that I will not allowed to edit here either

Redthoreau, it must be nice to have friends that revert instantly everything I do. And now at least, Coppertwig admits openly he is on your side while setting me up to fail, in my opinion. So I am to be driven away from here also. Note, not once on Che Guevara nor here were any of my suggestions taken seriously, although if the same suggestion was make later by someone else, it was. –Mattisse (Talk) 22:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Accept Personal responsibility for your poor behavior and disruption. PLEASE READ Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point = that is what you are doing. It is vandalism to go through an article and say "according to an opinion" etc or make snide remarks throughout. Either "take your ball and go home" like usual ... or be a productive editor. Notice how nearly every editor that works with the two of us ... in your mind always (turns on you and takes my side). I'll give you a hint ... it isn't me ... it isn’t “my side” … it is you. I hope that in the future you can learn to edit responsibly and put the talents I know you do have to good use.       Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 22:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I edited a bit of what Mattisse wrote back into the article, and Thoreau only removed part of what you wrote, and left other words in the place you put them. We are not just reverting your work, we are just editing it. Btw, did you really mean to imply that Che Guevara was transformed presumably into a revolutionary? [3] Man, it's OK if you don't like Che or his ideas, but you should not let your likings be noticed when writing the article..... --Enric Naval (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Tense is still wrong in para one - present tense is not correct

I should not be in the present tense. We already went through this once before, and I was supported by another editor. That is not controversial. Please change, since I am not allowed to edit the article. –Mattisse (Talk) 22:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean: "the book traces the early travels", and "The book ends with a declaration by Guevara" and "It has been a New York Times bestseller"?(oops, past tense) Those look to me like adequate usages of present tense. Can you indicate the exact verbs that are on the wrong tense? --Enric Naval (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Key information missing from the first paragraph.

I went to this article to find out more about this book, and at first wasn't sure if I had found the right article, which isn't a good first impression to give. The very first sentence should mention that it is a book, and that it was written by Guevara. It should probably have in parentheses the name of the title in the original Spanish. The date of original publication should also be mentioned somewhere in this opening paragraph, along with the notable circumstances of its publication (posthumously published, who edited it etc.). I would change this myself, but am not 100% certain about the information, so would suggest instead that someone more knowledgeable make the necessary modifications. Genedecanter (talk) 10:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The very first line of the article is "This article is about the book." RT 13:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

True, although that is the disambiguation statement, not the article proper. Generally speaking, I feel that this introductory paragraph is not very encyclopedic in tone, and makes too many presumptions of prior knowledge. The very first piece of information in the article, for example, is a marketing quote by the book's publisher, and Guevara's authorship is nowhere mentioned. Genedecanter (talk) 04:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

POV tag applies

I agree with the POV tag for the section Lighter moments as the tone and content of that section makes it seem to be a personal essay and not encyclopedia content. Further, it is not referenced. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted the entire section, and agree with your assessment. If someone disagrees, then please revert and attempt to alleviate the editorial "style" of the section.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 20:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)