Welcome!

Hello, Garsanllean, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! , SqueakBox 18:30, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome! Is this standard proceedure or was I lucky you spotted me?--Garsanllean 20:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your Comments[edit]

Please make any general comments you may have here:

My Edits[edit]

I've copied edits that I've made and want to keep an eye on. Further adjustments to be made in the relevant article discussion page.

Popper's Critical Tests[edit]

Removed from the article:

In demarcating science from non-science Popper suggests we determine if statements have associated critical tests. If they do, then the statements are potentially falsifiable, and therefore scientific because the test is critical to the continued existence of the theory. For Popper’s theory of demarcation to survive, critical tests must exist.

Critical tests are comprised of basic observational statements. The falsificationists insist that these statements are theory-dependent. That the observation of a rise in electrical current, requires some theory of electricity, or that the observation of Jupiter’s moons with a telescope, is based upon the laws of optics. This means that if the observational statements comprising a critical test appear to falsify a theory X, there is no way of knowing logically if the falsity resides within the theory X or within the theories and assumptions that were required for the test. In science the tendency is to doubt the test rather than to refute long established theory. However, even if great confidence resides in new tests, and a theory is thus overthrown, this move cannot be logically supported. For it will always be conceivable that advances in scientific knowledge might reveal new inadequacies in the tests that overthrew the theory.

This is an oversimplification, which misses some of the points carefully made in the article. What is falsified is the complete hypothesis, which consists of theory X, together with all other theories needed to predict the result of the observation. For example, this is clearly the case in cosmology, where even apparent fundamentals such as the speed of light and other physical constants may be considered to be variable in some theories. -- The Anome 10:00, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

I have only read a little in this area but this was not my understanding of Falsificationism. If you falsify the theory plus all other theories then you may be disregarding theories that were true. It is unlikely that they are all wrong. This total deconstruction via falsification of a theory plus all theories which lie behind it has the qualities of a Kuhnian paradigm change but not I thought of Popper's Falsificationism. Perhaps my problem is that I am only familiar with Popper and not other falsificationists?

I'm new to all this. In the future if I think an article should have a paragraph or sentence added should I put it up for discussion first?--Garsanllean 10:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guevara death order[edit]

"The CIA wanted to keep him alive for interrogation, but he was executed by the Bolivian army" was recently changed by User:Db pr, who has no other contributions to Wikipedia, to say, "And he was later killed by a bolivian soldier under CIA orders." No comment was made, no citation was provided, and I believe the change is factually wrong. I am reverting, but will happily yield if there is solid citation to back it up. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:10, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

(Indeed i have seen from a documentary on Che made by a german film crew ( i can give you the name of the video, i beleive its called the Bolivian Diary) and also from a large work on Che simply titled "Che: A revolutionary life" by john lee anderson. the account of his death is also consistent with the documentary. Che was killed by a bolivian soldier under orders from the president of Bolivia and a CIA man was present.)

But where is the evidence to support the assertion that the CIA "wanted to keep him alive for interrogation"?--Garsanllean 11:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Guevara Birthplace[edit]

I see this was recently anonymously changed from Rosario (I know where that is, it's a city, it's where I thought he was from) to Lancia. No citation (or even edit summary) was given. Does anyone have a citation either way? -- Jmabel | Talk 21:25, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Rosario is correct according to The Che Handbook ISBN 1-84072-502-8 and several other books I have.--Garsanllean 17:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Granma survivors[edit]

A recent anon edit changed the number of Granma survivors from 12 to 16 without citation. Since the old number wasn't cited either, I have no idea which was correct, but I presume someone has a citation on this; could you please present it? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:58, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

The Granma arrived on 25th November 1956. According to The Che Handbook ISBN 1-84072-502-8 by the end of December "only 15 of the original 82 guerillas remained, the others being either dead, missing, or taken prisoner".--Garsanllean 17:09, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bolivia Dates[edit]

Can someone expound on the dating of events in the section on Bolivia. Not a single year is mentioned throughout that section. The last previous date is 1965, the year he went missing. And there's not even a year of death given; one has to glean that from the headers at the beginning of the article. This all leaves the reader knowing month/day dates, but left wondering which years between 1965 and 1967 all of it really took place. Thanks --patton1138 20:24, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

He died between the 8th and the 10th of october 1967

I've added dates to The Bolivian Diary section and reworded it slightly:

"Also removed was Guevara's diary, which documented events in the guerrilla war being fought in Bolivia. The first entry is on 7th November 1966 shorty after Guevara's arrival at a farm in the Bolivian jungle and the last entry is on 7th October 1967 just before his capture. The diary tells how the guerillas are forced to begin operations due to discovery by the Bolivian Army, the eventual split of the group, and their general failure."--Garsanllean 13:28, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Acetic acid as a featured article?[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you contributed towards the Cativa process and Monsanto process pages- you might be interested to see that we are trying to get acetic acid up to the standard of a featured article. You can see the peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Acetic acid/archive1. Cheers, Walkerma 04:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Monsantocycle.jpg[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Monsantocycle.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 09:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]