Talk:Augusto Pinochet/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Domestic support for the coup

Okay, i'm DEFINITELY not neutral here, but I'm somewhat skeptical of how NPOV is the passage beginning

A large fraction of the population expected an intervention of the military to end the chaos caused by Allende's economic policies and foreign-backed domestic political opposition to them, culminating in a national transport owners' strike.

Specifically, the use of the word "expected" suggests "wanted" - is this true? I would hardly think so.

Yep, it is true, there were celebrations after the coup. Even people that became oppositor to Pinochet after it was clear he was going to stay a long time, considered at first a welcome change. It doesn't say a mayority, though, just " a large fraction". I guess it was at least in the tenths, but I don't have hard data about that.

Also the passage suggests that the economic chaos is entirely the result of Allende's policies, and somewhat glosses over concerted efforts by business interests to make Allende pay for his decisions. Graft 16:29 Oct 6, 2002 (UTC)

I don't think that. It says "foreign-backed domestic opposition to them". The internal opposition had to do with the economical chaos too, and they received money from abroad. i don't see how that puts all the blame on Allende.--AN

Needs editing

Moved this here - it needs more work than just a copyedit:

It's being juged for his crime to the humanity. Actually 30% of the actual population still beleving in him, but less every time, due to the public aceptation of the systematics tortures and assesinats comited during his regime.

Dementia

Two things I was unable to do anything about.

(vascular demency)

I have no idea.

his partidaries try to explain them

should this be 'partisans'?

A start...the following quote is from CNN:

"[Chilean] law excuses people from trial only if they are certified as 'mad' or 'demented'."

I would guess "demency" an attempt by the original author at translating a term with a technical sense in the Chilean courts, "demented" being CNN's go at the same trick -- the quotes around it imply that this is Chile speaking, not CNN. -- Paul Drye

dementia, maybe? 'Vascular dementia', as opposed to (I have no idea how - I'm no m.d.) 'senile dementia'?

We may have a winner. A Google check turned up "vascular dementia", and a legitimate-looking advocacy page says it is the second most common form of dementia in the States after Alzheimer's. -- Paul Drye

I'm pretty sure it is vascular dementia -- it is the same type of dementia claimed by the last surviving person indicted for the 1968? curch bombing in Alabama -- I think his name's Cherry. Anyway, It was reported on the news the other day that he would stand trial because he wasn't suffering from vascular dementia. JHK

Torture on Spaniards

34 cases of torture of spanish citizens in a few months? I don't think so.

The Spanish charged him, eventually, with 94 counts of torture, but they were people of a wide variety of nationalities. This was justified under the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which says that any state can prosecute it regardless of where it took place or against whom. Similar idea to the "crimes against humanity" thing that allows the trial of Slobodan Milosevic.

The British 1988 Criminal Justice Act was when this convention entered into force in Britain, so this is why they stuck to charges alleged to have taken place after that time. -- Paul Drye

Bloodiest coup

I'm not sure i'm willing to take BBC's word that the 1973 coup was the "bloodiest in 20century southamerica". The actual fighting was little. All branches of the armed forces supported the coup, the were no "loyal forces" defending Allende, except for Allendes personal guard the "GAP" (Group of Personal Friends) (and maybe a few others). The actions were on large scale because more resistance was expected. If the idea is to consider not only the coup itself, but also the aftermath, to compute the number of casualties, Argentina's "Guerra Sucia" (Dirty War) had several times the number of deaths and dissaperances. I'd said that what it did have was one of the largest (if not "the" largest) psycological impact: the fall of a democratically elected socialist president in a country with a long democratic tradition. --AN

Rettig Commission

"Rettig Commision"

If we use the name "Rettig Commission", we should explain what it is. What is it? DanKeshet

The "Rettig Commission" official name was "Comision Nacional de Verdad y Reconciliacion" , National Commision of Truth and Reconciliation. It was created by the government of President Patricio Alwayn, and its aim was to "establish the most complete frame about the most serious violations to the humans rights with result of death or dissapereance, performed by agents of the State or particulars with political purposes, to obtain infomation that would make posssible to identify the victims and establish their fate or location, to recommned reparations and reivindications that would be considered fair and those that should be adopted to prevent the ocurrence of new violations". The period under study was between September 11, 1973 and March 11, 1990. The Rettig report documented 2,920 cases of dissapearances and deaths (included in this number there is a small number of military killed in attacks by guerrilla forces).--AN

Anonymous POV edits

Oh great. The adder of extremist POV links to this page is back again, *sigh*. I've temporarily protected it. FearÉIREANN 18:08, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The user has been adding in links all over the place. I have blocked his IP. Others have removed his links. I have now unblocked this page. FearÉIREANN 18:16, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I haven't really checked out his Pinochet links prior to now. Two of them are crap links, but one looks possibly useful as a "Defenses of Pinochet" link (the http://www.thenewamerican.com/focus/pinochet/index.htm link). We added a similar "alternate theories" section to the Attack on Pearl Harbor article and I think the result was good. The other ones aren't source-able or verifiable, etc.

Re: protecting the page, I don't think that's really necessary. We seem to be tracking his edits well enough. Oh, I see you've unblocked it and blocked his IP. That's a nice gesture, but the guy has rarely, if ever, used the same IP address. He roams all of 67.31.x.x. Check my (incomplete) listing on the vandalism page about 67.31.x.x.

Whoever you are, could you please at least sign up for an account and use it to make your changes? Daniel Quinlan 18:35, Aug 13, 2003 (UTC)

Euphemisms

Regarding "terrorist attacks" -> "violent attacks". Um, isn't violent redundant? "terrorist" told me something useful about the attack -- they're attacks against non-military and/or civilian targets. However, aren't pretty much all attacks violent? I realize you could have a "non-violent attack", but that's pretty much an oxymoron. Daniel Quinlan 23:01, Sep 11, 2003 (UTC)

In this context, 'terrorist' is a POV-loaded term. Many saw Pinochet and his regime as an illegal entity of state-backed murderers. It is one thing to talk about those engaged in armed violence against a legally empowered state, where the state demonstrably has legal and constitutional legitimacy, as 'terrorists'. But it is more problematic where the 'state' is made up of a military junta that seized power contrary to law and was responsible for the death of tens of thousands, to describe their opponents who also practiced voilence as terrorist. Saying they engaged in violence is a statement of fact, calling them terrorists when they were acting against a military junta that had no democratic mandate, is dangerously judgmental. In their eyes they were the equivalent of those who fought against German control of France during WWII. I am not saying they were and I am not saying their actions were justified, but the situation under Pinochet was not akin to ETA fighting the democratic Spanish state, or the IRA fighting a democratically elected and accountable UK. FearÉIREANN 00:36, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Disappointments

I have little dissapoints with the article:

1. The assasination intent against Pinochet by the Frente Patriótico Manuel Rodríguez was the ONLY ONE intent in the 17 years of dictatorial government.

2. About the chilean opossition to Allende and the "economic chaos", thats very inexact. Allende wons the 1070's presidential ellections with a 36% (was no second election system in chilean constitution in 1970); at 1971 the government parties won the legislative ellections with a 42%, 6 percentile points more in just one year. The civil opossition was hard, but not come from active majorities; come from high-level chilean and US enterprises and who sabotage the government with a deploy block, stacking the production (for that was the US dollars, to support the blocking enterprises). The economic chaos come from this, and so the oposittion. Inclussive in this situation, with a terrible support crisis, the day of the coup d'etat great portions of the population come to the "industrial cordon's" (an industrial colective structure of the socialist democratic government) in expect of weapons to resist the military intervention. In fact, the popular support to Allende growth continually from 1970 to 1973 because the Allende's program prove to be very similar to the Christian Democracy party (the last party at the government). All this, of course, in the fragile atmosphere of crisis and conspiration who the enterprises generate.

About the discussion here, i just want to say two more things:

1. Was a hard resistance inside the chilean's army forces. It's not true that was no loyal forces to Allende. Great groups of the naval army was enclosed at Valparaiso port by the golpist, grat groups of the Carabineros (uniformed chilean police) and Investigaciones (chilean not uniformed police) resist in santiago, entire batallions of the terrestrial army was enclosed too at their cuartels, important groups of the air force was arrested in their own homes and incomunicated during the night before the attack, and a lot o loyal soldiers was executed; this assasinations do not figure in any lists because the chilean army statutes authorize vertical executions without judge at alert or emergency state. Anyway, the Pinochet coup has been named the "most bloody" not because numbers. Its because it's proved the sistematically planned assasination of people, and the coordinated use of assasinations and torture of great ammounts of people to generate social and political effects. In fact, from 1973 to 1985 in Chile was not a serious armed resistance; so the golpist force do not confront little armies; use planned assasinations series to dismount civil organizations killing great numbers of selected objectives. The practice of torture and assasination against civil organizations in latin america was common, but in the "crisis-control-mode", not in the periodic and constant model of the chilean golpist, who use them until at least 1987.

2. The FPMR - Frente Patriótico Manuel Rodríguez - was an armed side of the Chilean Communist Party (PC). In Chile, the PC was the most moderate of the socialist coalition (Unidad Popular), and a republican party with a long democratic tradition. In fact, the FPMR organize it self at 1983, and operate first at 1985, after 12 years of cruel repression, torture, assasinations, people who's burned alive in the streets and pregned womens who're tortured until die, 12 years of day after day tryng a democratic way to change the situation. This guys, the FPMR, was primely young chileans who leave from their 7 to 9 years old under a hard repressive dictator. No one can say these guys was terrorist; in no one, really, NO ONE of the FPMR operations a civil was murdered, they NEVER use explosives in urban objectives and the few times who take hostages they where returned with no damage and telling about the polite manners of their captors. It's not possible to equal a patriotic resistance group against an illegal government supported by external interests with the ETA or similars.

You'll see, im not really neutral, i'm chilean (my english its very bad), but i think i know about my country history. I`m not socialist, but i've seen the FPMR history with my eyes and the historical context of their actions. It's because this I tell the FPMR its proudly remembered by a lot of chileans, not only socialist, even by important sectors of the chilean catholic church (the most "people-like", of course). They was a dignity bastion against repression when appeared to not exist hope.

Dictatorship vs. democracy

The article had:

was a military dictator who...

I cut this, because dictators don't generally create constitutions which result in their getting voted out of office! --Uncle Ed 19:06, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 29, 1936 - Hitler gets 99% approval in a "free" plebicite approving Nazi rule Mintguy (T) 19:16, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Balanced perspective

Okay, maybe I'm all wrong about Pinochet, but check out talk:Chile for the current state of the country.

My POV is that Pinochet stopped Allende from turning Chile into a Marxist dictatorship. Ah, if only Germany had someone who could have stopped Hitler from turning Germany into a fascist dictatorship!

Let's discuss how we can balance the two main POVs:

1. Pinochet is bad because he overthrew an "elected president"; and because he prevented socialists from establishing a worker's paradise; and because he brutally suppressed revolutionaries trying to overthrow his dictatorship; versus,
2. Pinochet is good because he stopped Allende from seizing power and creating a dictatorship; he reversed the damage Allende's ill-advised socialist reforms caused; he stepped down voluntarily after holding free elections

--Uncle Ed 19:25, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ed - you are embarking on revisionism. Pinochet expected to win the plebicte, otherwise he wouldn't have held it (just like Hitler in 1936). He was surrounded by sychophants who told him he would win. Many members of the opposition has just been executed after the attempt on Pinochet's life the previous year, the remainging figures in the opposition movement were not united. Mintguy (T) 19:26, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Good. Put that in the article! "Pinochet had no intention of giving up the perverse thrill of being a dictator. He thought that like Hitler he could consolidate his power by holding a special election that would forever trample democracy under his boots. In an incredible quirk of fate, democratic forces jerked the rug out from under him."

Just make sure that it's labelled as the point of view of its advocate -- and, oh yes, balance it with the point of view of its opponent. We want a neutral article, right? Not just one which praises or condemns Pinochet... --Uncle Ed 19:42, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm banning myself from this article for the rest of the week. My rule is: if there's even a 10% chance that I'm biased and don't know it, I stop work and search my conscience. --Uncle Ed 19:45, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The plebiscite was programmed since 1980, it was among the transitory articles in the constitution aproved by referendum on that year (that also gave Pinochet 8 more year, so he was elected in a sense for the period 1981-1989). Pinochet didn't govern alone, the "Junta" (the other commanders in chief) were the only ones that could have prevented the plebiscite, and with difficulty, because it would have meant a constitutional reform. The "many members of the opposition executed" were three comunists (only a small part of the opposition) that didn't help important positions, and who were murdered, the crime was investigated. The opposition had access to free time on TV for the plebiscite, the same as the "yes" option (half an hour each everyday for a month or so). Of course there was unnoficial tv time for the yes option in news or so, but I don'tr think that that is so unusual. Recent versions say that Pinochet thought of not accepting the results, but he was not the sole ruler, the Junta would have had to approve a break of the constitution, and they didn't. --AstroNomer 19:49, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

CIA role in coup

This page at George Washington University has a number of important declassified documents that provide information on the involvement of the CIA in supporting the coup on September 11, 1973: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8.htm -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 19:18, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

The CIA, and the government of the US in general did contribute the the conditions that led to the coup, that is very well documented. It is also documented relation of the CIA with the repressive apparatus. But the involvement of the CIA in the coup itself is not documented anywhere. It might be in the still not declassified documents, but until they are declassified (if they exist) there is no proof of involvement of the CIA in the coup. If I am wrong, please point me to the appropiate sources.--AstroNomer 17:00, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

Give me a break...US and CIA support of the coup is not even a topic of dispute. I can go beyond that and say the US government handed the Chileans the name of American journalists and the like in Chile who were subsequently executed is not in dispute. The US also let the Chilean spooks come into the US and assassinate an American, Ronni Karpen Moffitt on a street in Washington DC during a time that they were assassinating Chilean exiles and pro-Chileans all over Europe as well, something the US government gave less of a damn about, although there is no smoking gun to speak of. But of course, someone was killing Chilean exiles and supporters all over the world and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. The US support of Chile's coup is braindead, you should stick to arguing about DINA's hit on Moffitt and the like. -- Hanpuk 17:55, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The best collection of declassified material can be found in the National Security Archive, also online here: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/latin_america/chile.htm. The website collects numerous declassified documents that show US support for an overthrow of Allende and other measures to bolster a dictatorship in Chile. AstroNomer is correct that there is little direct evidence that the CIA had a hand in the actual coup, but that is not the issue - we are talking about the phrase "CIA supported", which is certainly warranted by the available evidence. To quote:

• Cables written by U.S. Ambassador Edward Korry after Allende's election, detailing conversations with President Eduardo Frei on how to block the president-elect from being inaugurated. The cables contain detailed descriptions and opinions on the various political forces in Chile, including the Chilean military, the Christian Democrat Party, and the U.S. business community.

• CIA memoranda and reports on "Project FUBELT"--the codename for covert operations to promote a military coup and undermine Allende's government. The documents, including minutes of meetings between Henry Kissinger and CIA officials, CIA cables to its Santiago station, and summaries of covert action in 1970, provide a clear paper trail to the decisions and operations against Allende's government

• National Security Council strategy papers which record efforts to "destabilize" Chile economically, and isolate Allende's government diplomatically, between 1970 and 1973.

• State Department and NSC memoranda and cables after the coup, providing evidence of human rights atrocities under the new military regime led by General Pinochet.

• FBI documents on Operation Condor--the state-sponsored terrorism of the Chilean secret police, DINA. The documents, including summaries of prison letters written by DINA agent Michael Townley, provide evidence on the carbombing assassination of Orlando Letelier and Ronni Moffitt in Washington D.C., and the murder of Chilean General Carlos Prats and his wife in Buenos Aires, among other operations.

Now, as to whether it is justified to speculate about very direct involvement, I think the orders to the CIA station chief in Santiago, Henry Hecksher, are quite clear: "It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup." These operations were explicitly ordered to be conducted to hide the "American hand". Given that not all material is declassified, and given that the evidence is clear, informed speculation about direct involvement is certainly on solid ground and has a place in the article about the matter.

—Eloquence 18:02, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

Informed speculation is on firm ground, and has a place in the article, no doubt about it. But do we want speculation on the first paragraph, that defines the article? I belive that the coup would have happened even without CIA involvement, (not so sure without the whole US involvement in international organizations) and given that, also, there is strong suggestion that Pinochet wasn't even involved in the planning until shortly before (lower officials in the Army, and the Navy and Air Force apparently did most of the planning) I do not like the impression that Pinochet was simply doing the CIA's bidding in the coup, epecially when there is no proof about that. --AstroNomer 18:23, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

We do not imply that the CIA carried out the coup, or that it would not have happened without them. That the CIA supported the coup is a fact. And that fact belongs into the introduction.—Eloquence 18:26, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

Agree with AstroNomer. The CIA role is a complex topic, and simply saying they "supported" it is not clear, and could be misconstrued as saying they supported Pinochet specifically. The CIA in fact claims they did not know about it until just before it happened, and barely knew who Pinochet was, so how could they "support" it, except in a vague sense that they wanted some sort of coup to happen (and in 1970)? By this standard, millions of people all over the world "supported" the coup, perhaps it was "Willy Brandt-supported". The possible influence of the CIA is discussed later on in fuller detail. This unclear and off-topic claim does not belong in the introductory paragraph. -- VV 02:12, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There is documentary evidence for CIA support of the coup. See [1], and in particular [2]. I quote:

The President asked the Agency [the CIA, presumably] to prevent Allende from coming to power or to unseat him. The President authorized ten million dollars for this purpose, if needed. Further, the Agency is to carry out this mission without support from the Departments of State or Defense. (emphasis mine).

This document [3] mentions CIA agents establishing contacts with coup supporters. If no-one can provide any evidence to the contrary, I will amend the page to show that there is very little doubt over CIA support of the coup. —Cadr

I see some of this has been discussed on the talk page before (sorry for not noticing). I think there's overwhelming evidence to justify the phrase "CIA support", and it is important to mention it in the first paragraph, becuause it is possible that the coup would not even have succeeded without CIA support. How it can be considered "off topic" I'm not sure. —Cadr

Hmm, I've changed my mind. It's probably better to leave it out of the intro, if only to prevent the constant edit wars.—Cadr

"Dictator"

Just to return to the question of why we can't call him a "military dictator". He clearly was a military dicatator. Holding a plebiscite when you feel like it does not stop you from being a dictator. —Cadr

He didn't hold a plebiscite when he felt like it, the plebiscite was decided in 1980, when the constitution (that still rules) was approved. Anyway, you can call it a military dictator, but please do the same with Fidel Castro. I put dictator there but was reverted telling he is "elected". In competition with whom? In Cuba there isn't even a "no" option like there was in the 1980 and 1989 plebiscites...--AstroNomer 18:12, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

Maybe we can't call ANYONE a "dictator", if it's one of those inflammatory words no one can agree on, like "terrorism". Words like ruler and leader are still relatively uncontroversial.

If we are using "dictator" in the sense of "unelected leader who is accountable to no one", then only Idi Amin comes to mind. Unless Fidel Castro's 45-year reign over Cuba counts...

Anyway, with the legitimacy of the regime so highly contested, we're probably better off not making an evaluation. Just say that "X calls him a dictator, Y calls him a whatever". Editorial neutrality means rising above controversies. Assume an air of Olympian detachment, eh? --Uncle Ed 19:50, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"military ruler"? "de facto ruler"? –Hajor

"military ruler" or simply "ruler" would be the most indicated. "de facto ruler" would only cover the period 1973-1981, as after that he was "de jure" ruler according to the still current constitution. And somewhere else in the text say he was considered a dictator by opponents. When asked if his government was a "dictadura" he replied it was a "dictablanda" ("dura" means "hard" in spanish, "blanda" means "soft").--AstroNomer 20:32, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

AstroNomer, I recommend you read the following three pages, from Country Studies: Chile, by the US Library of Congress. They may be clarifying:

-Imposition of Authoritarian Rule

-The Constitution of 1980 and...

-Authoritarianism Defeated by Its Own Rules

The original article in at the LOC web site (and listed at Chile), however those pages aren't bookmarkable as in the above mirror. --Cantus 21:22, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the strong presidentialism and authoritarism of the original 1980 constitution, as well as how they were softened to more acceptable levels by the 1989 reforms. My point is, with his imperfections, it has been the law of the land since 1981, and you can't deny its validity without denying the legitimity of the current political system. --AstroNomer 21:48, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

Did you read the pages? The 1980 constitution had thirty-four "transitional" articles that would only apply from 1980 until 1990, a time Pinochet had assured he'd be in power, and that were largely undemocratic. And I'm not denying the current system, but it has many faults, and most are due to the 1980 constitution ( ie. the undemocratic binomial legislative system.) --Cantus 22:03, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have never said that the transitional articles were democratic, nor the military regime said that. The fact that Pinochet would be the president in that period and the military junta would be the legislative power was in those articles, as was the way in which at the end of the eight years of "transition" ( in which the proper laws that would regulate the functioning of the permanent institutions and political parties would have been enacted) the power would be returned to civilian rule. The description of the binomial system as "undemocratic" is subject to discussion. I consider the US electoral college highly undemocratic, but almost nobody says the US is not a democratic country because of that.--AstroNomer 22:15, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

[OFF-TOPIC] The US gov. is pure propaganda. That's how it's gotten away with so many criminal acts in and out of their frontiers: by lying to their people. They preach on freedom and democracy, but it's just a cover, and everyone around the world has gotten really tired of it. --Cantus 22:32, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If I may butt in, guys, I think Cantus has hit the nail on the head. The issue is what sort of government is considered "democratic". For some, it means (A) having a written constitution which provides for orderly transfers of power and/or provides for the dismissal and appointment of top official in response to votes cast by ordinary citizens. On this basis, US is generally considered the pioneer and champion. For others, it means (B) pursuing policies which socialists/Marxists, environmentalists, multilateralists, etc. APPROVE OF -- regardless of constitution or elections; in the latter sense, North Korea, Cuba and a dozen-odd states calling themselves "The People's Democratic Republic of This or That" are considered democratic. Wikipedia shouldn't take sides, but can help analyze the reasons for the dispute. --Uncle Ed 13:06, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

America the champion of "people-powered" democracy? That perception is popular within the United States. Around the globe, America is by now pretty much the most hated country (perhaps next to Israel), and certainly not looked upon as a model of democracy, but as a model of hypocrisy, especially after the last election.—Eloquence 13:31, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)

Kerry was educated at a boarding school in Switzerland, where he learned to speak fluent nuance, and this skill naturally endears him to the average French official who has been taught to say "I surrender" in several languages. --Uncle Ed 13:48, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What are you on about, Ed? No-one mentioned Kerry or France, did they? Re democracy, I expect critics of US democracy would not claim that North Korea and Cuba are democracies, as you offensively and inaccurately suggest, but would rather point out that American electoral politics (although it is by no means alone in this respect) is a farsical contest between two parties and their robotic flag-waving stoodges, each whoring themselves to slightly different shady business interests. The Simpsons hit the nail on the head with their "Kang and Kodos stand for president" Halloween episode. --Cadr

You can call California's governor "robotic" and he'd probably grin at the reference to his Terminator screen roles, but "flag-waving stooge" is a bit much. And what about all the non-Republican, non-Democratic politicians who have risen to state and local office? (Not to mention the occasional independent in Congress?) Shall we create an article on American democracy? --Uncle Ed 15:00, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Another off-topic comment by 'Uncle Ed.' You obviously didn't understand the 'robotic' reference if you thought the poster meant Arnold Schwarzenegger. --Cantus 05:48, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I was being a little tongue-in-cheek of course ;) Obviously America is constitutionally a democracy (unless you're a strong believer in proportional representation, perhaps) but I think its fair to say that many major policy issues are decided, or at least heavily influenced, by elites who persist in their influence despite changes of government. There is also a general right-wing bias to the media, which tends to marginalize whole spectrums of political thought and the people who represent them (although not being an American I don't have any very direct experience of the America media, but I do read American news websites fairly often). So you could quite plausibly argue that American democracy was little more than a legal technicality in many ways, though this is not to say that America isn't one of the most free (whatever exactly that means), democratic, etc. countries in the world — even Chomsky is quite clear on that point. Anyway, my point is that I think your original summary of opinion was incorrect: people who criticize America as undemocratic do not, generally, regard North Korea or Cuba as democratic. —Cadr

Hmm, one little thing. It's quite possible to democratically elect a government who have no concern for democracy. A lot of criticism has been directed at undemocratic actions of elected governments (e.g. the Patriot Act) rather than a lack of a democratic system of choosing governments.—Cadr

Let's choose a random sample of a democratically elected leader who have no concern for democracy : Adolf Hitler. Of course, "random sample" is a bit tongue-in-cheek. Ericd 18:49, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Pinochet victims

Pinochet didn't murder only communists. For reference about the victim of Pinochet see: http://www.lakota.clara.net/derechos/victims.htm Ericd 09:20, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Massive rearrangement

I made over a dozen edits today, mostly moving entire sentences and paragraphs around. I also laid out what I regard as the major bones of contention -- right after the 1st paragraph.

I hope everyone finds the flow of the article easier to deal with now. --Uncle Ed 20:02, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Some POV in the intro introduced by Ed Poor's latest edits

I have to say I rather preferred the article as it was (just so you see where I'm coming from here...) Anyway, here's a list of POV stuff:

• "Was the overthrow of Allende "anti-democratic" (as critics charge) or "democracy-preserving" (as supporters maintain)?" — Oversimplified. Do we know that all his supporters maintain he was a democrat, and that all his detractors do not?
• "Did Pinochet's economic policies help the country (as free market advocates generally claim) or hurt it (as socialism advocates charge)?" — Not so bad, but far too bipolar. You don't have to be a socialist to object to Pinochet's economic reforms (you could just as well be a Keynesian, for example), and are we so sure that a significant majority of free market economists liked them either? The article identifies his economic policy quite specifically with Friedman and the Chicago Boys, not free market capitalism in general.

Generally this article has far too much of this "socialists/working class people hated him and everyone else thought he was great" stuff (not that all of this is down to Ed, it's a general comment). I have to say Wikipedia is the first place I've ever heard a good word uttered about the man; let's try not to make it look as if opposition to Pinochet is an exclusively left/liberal position. --Cadr

Thank you for your thoughtful observations. I was at least trying to mention the fact that there is controversy. Rather than just saying he's obviously a bad guy. If I've over-simplified the controversy, it's due to my numerous and lengthy conversations with campus radicals dating back to the mid-1970s. The left demonizes Pinochet as "anti-democratic, CIA-supported, anti-poor butcher" for daring to overthrow an "elected socialist". It's part of their argument that people would vote for socialism if only the capitalists would let them; in other cases, they must OVERTHROW the ruling class to get their rights.

Although I am trying to follow the NPOV, I (obviously) subscribe to the opposite POV: i.e., that democracy and free markets get people their rights MUCH better than socialism and dictatorship.

I'm open to suggestions; but please don't revert ALL of my work -- just the mistakes, okay? --Uncle Ed 20:32, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't planning on reverting it all, don't worry ;) I sort of see where you're coming from regarding the campus radicals, but try it like this: replace "elected socialist" with "elected government" and their argument seems a lot better, IMO. I guess the point is that Chile did have a democratically elected government before Pinochet took over — and in fact the people did vote for socialists when given the chance, on that occasion. So, even if you didn't like Allende's government at all, the coup is hard to justify purely in terms of bringing democracy. The thing about your POV which I disagree with is the association of socialism with dictatorship and free markets with freedom in general. I do repsect that POV — it's not completely crazy by any means — but I think it may be responsible for some (fairly subtle) bits of POV in the article (as I outlined in my previous comment). You can be an opponent of socialism/Communism, a supporter of democracy and of free trade, and still have numerous perfectly legitimate objections to Pinochet, although if you held these views you might be inclined to see him as the lesser of two evils. I think the lesser of two evils POV may be what yours is, at a guess, i.e. you are more anti-Allende and anti-Communism than pro-Pinochet. I'd like to suggest a strategy for summarising the various POVs on Pinochet, which I think we're both making an honest effort to do. It might be better not to try and characterise in terms of supporters' and detractors' overall POVs in the introduction, which tends to distort the POV spectrum towards extremes, but rather mention specific aspects of his policy individually in the intro. For example: "His economic reforms were inspired by so-and-so and were less well regarded by X, Y and Z" — that sort of thing. Cadr

I see this page is protected now, on account of basically one user (172) who has no interest in neutrality and is trying to reinsert highly disputed assertions into the intro against a litany of users who are trying to actually work on the article and make it fair. 172 has not defended his actions here, nor shown awareness of the long conversation we've already had on this page. -- VV 01:36, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Unprotect now

I have no idea why Raul654 felt compelled to protect this page when no revert war was ongoing. I ask administrators to please unprotect this page now. --Cantus 02:06, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have put in a request at Wikipedia:Requests for protection. You can add your voice there. Basically, 172 got the page protected by lying. -- VV 02:07, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I protected because it was requested on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. I checked the edit history, and I saw a lot of reverts, which implied an edit war. I will unprotect if participants in the dispute wish me to. →Raul654 02:08, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

I think you'll find 172 will be the only one involved who favors continued protection, as he is using it as a blunt tool to push his own POV with no respect for Wikipedia's policies. The reverts in recent history have all been by or because of him. -- VV 02:33, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Agree — the disputes have (almost) been resolved on the discussion page, but 172 is ignoring this page entirely. The article had been in a perfectly stable state for some time before he made edits. Cadr

It's funny, but you can thank user:Wik for my involvement here yesterday. I saw on his page a call to action, for people to help him, er, circumvent the 3-revert-per-day limit on various articles -- and this was one. --Uncle Ed 14:22, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Protected

This page has been protected and reverted to a version edited by Ed Poor at 10:22, April 16, 2004. It will remain protected pending the outcome of the 172 and VeryVerily quickpolls. --Flockmeal 03:59, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)

As VV has been temp-banned, and 172 is taking a temporary holiday from Wikipedia, and as this is a discussion page which (per policy) should typically not be protected, I unprotected. Martin 23:13, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

172's holiday is a bit suspicious. He came back a little while ago and posted a comment to the Quickpoll page, so I wouldn't be too surprised if this page was vandalized again by him. --Cantus 00:29, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

172 is (apparently) gone. Please unprotect the article. --Cantus 06:44, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

172 is not going anywhere. It was an idle threat to get the quickpoll to go his way. -- VV 10:44, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That compromise

I remember that once there was this notion that on Wikipedia we tried to resolve disputes in consensus, rather than by voting, whenever possible. I had made such an attempt back in March in this revision, which describes the situation with regard to the evidence for US/CIA involvement in a little more detail in the intro. That proposal was quickly reverted by Cantus with the argument that the intro shouldn't mention it at all since it takes so much space to explain and is so controversial. The simple fact is that two words like "US backed" are not enough to describe the issue in a sufficiently NPOV manner that is acceptable to both sides. So we should use a few more words. This is 100% compatible with the guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead section.--Eloquence* 22:53, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)

My last write of the intro was designed to balance all these concerns, and I think it does so fairly well. As Ed mentions, the CIA discussion is now the largest section in the article! This is just a case of 172 being out of control; I assume you've noted his contempt for consensus comments above. -- VV 02:40, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Huh? I wrote none of the content on the CIA in the artice. I only wrote the intro. 172 09:07, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think he was refering to the intro. Cadr

VV, the US support after his rise to power is not "alleged". The US support for a coup to get rid of Allende is not "alleged". These are facts. What is less well known is the precise role of the United States in the September 11, 1973 coup because the relevant documents are classified. In that way your intro doesn't make me very happy, because it presents facts as if they were controversial.--Eloquence* 13:25, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

The intelligence community surveyed the documents recently and concluded the US "did not assist Pinochet to assume the Presidency" (see ref in text). At any rate, it was an attempt to balance all sides; in fact that sentence was a revised version (not by me) of a compromise, as I feel the involvement or not of the US can be relegated to the gigantic discussion section below. If you have better wording you should try it out; at least we're talking about it. That doesn't mean 172's bully tactics and contempt and disrespect for consensus are A-okay. -- VV 19:28, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

VV, are you seriously saying that the CIA's word should be taken on whether the CIA assisted Pinochet, a murderous dictator, in overthrowing Allende? Isn't that a bit like putting Slobodan Milosevic in charge of the war crimes tribunal against him and his officers?

Regardless, this does not at all answer my above point, namely, that US intentions to replace Allende in a military coup are proven, as is support for Pinochet after he came to power. These are facts, and they do not need to be "alleged". I would appreciate it if we could agree on this before I make further edits to the article.--Eloquence* 21:49, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

You seem to be dodging the question of the appropriateness of 172's unilateralness and abusiveness. Yes, I wholly concede that the CIA under orders of Nixon sought ways to overthrow Allende in 1970. There is nothing to indicate they wanted what happened in 1973 to occur, nor even less that they had anything to do with it. Indeed, they may have been happier waiting for the next election and trying to sink Allende then. Yes, I do take the CIA's word for it, and at any rate flatly contradicting them in the intro is a violation of NPOV. Next, when saying the US "supported" Pinochet after he came to power, we have to be very careful what we mean. It does not mean they supported everything he did or agreed with all of his actions. We arguably "support" Taiwan right now, but that does not mean we sign off on all their policies. By saying things like "the US supported the right-wing military dictator of Chile", one is deliberately blurring important distinctions as to what was and what was not supported and why and how and under what conditions, and thus painting the US as the evil boogeyman (obviously the goal). If we just stick to the undisputed facts, such as the CIA section of the article mostly does, we should be okay. -- VV 22:02, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There is nothing to indicate they wanted what happened in 1973 to occur? The CIA cable from 1970 - "It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup. It would be much preferable to have this transpire prior to 24 October but efforts in this regard will continue vigorously beyond this date.... It is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that the USG and American hand will be well hidden." - has never been revoked and as such can be taken to be still in effect by 1973, under the same government. And if they wanted "the American hand" to be hidden then, there's no reason to believe they don't want it to be hidden now. A phrase like "The CIA claims .. but documents show .." is perfectly acceptable in terms of NPOV, BTW.

As for what support means, I'm sure that semantic discussion will be interesting to the mothers whose daughters were abducted, raped and murdered, and to the children whose parents were tortured and killed by the junta. Support means just that: The US didn't like Allende's socialist policies, so they sought to overthrow him, and found an acceptable replacement in a fascist junta with no moral concerns whatsoever, which - how convenient - also used its police state to get rid of any "socialist" insurgency within the country. The US built strong economic, military and economic ties with Pinochet's terror government over the next decades. Of course you can claim that it was "the lesser of two evils" (a dubious claim even to the most credulous). This does not explain why there needs to be any evil in the first place, and why Chile, Afghanistan, Iran, Guatemala could not have been transformed into democracies in the style of Germany or Japan, through education, diplomacy and economic aid, instead of replacing the respective socialist/social democratic movements with fascists and fundamentalists.

If you only look at any isolated incident, then you may be able to somehow come up with explanations which hold together if you don't poke too hard at them with a sharp stick. Of course even then, you have to try really hard to steer your eyes away from the equation that is the real basis of US foreign policy (and in fact the foreign policy of most countries): economic interests + strategic interests - morality.

I agree that this article, a biography of Pinochet, should give a brief abstract of what we know, and saying that the US supported Pinochet after he came to power, and that they sought the overthrow of Allende before is a reasonable abstract. However, the details need to be discussed somewhere, such as the article about Allende, History of Chile, CIA, History of the United States, Project FUBELT etc.--Eloquence* 22:54, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

(de-indenting) You have not addressed the 172 behavior issue, still. I'm glad we agree on keeping this article on focus. Your opinions of the US's motives (and others') are your own and I assume you realize that; I have my own opinions, too (were we in a position to install a Japan-style gov't?), but I'm not putting them in the intro. These are complex subjects, and to fully elaborate requires lots of detail, including the documents you noted, which could be an article of its own, in fact its own encyclopedia. That's why almost anything stated in a short intro on, recall, the man Pinochet will be troublesome unless it leaves a lot of room for all POVs. My final note is that documents from 1970 may talk about the future, but they're written before it and so do not prove what policies actually came to pass. -- VV 23:41, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I doubt that this will matter to him, Erik. 172 13:35, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There's strong presomptions that the US supported the extermination of "marxists" if they didn't suport all they've supported the most criminal part of Pinochet works.

Ericd 22:23, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I do not recognize the "results" of this "election" as certifying a "winner". If for no other reason than vote-tampering. 172 complained that his posts had been removed (I haven't checked, but I assume good faith on his part :-). Also, my "vote" was changed from:

• mention "US-backed" only if tagged as a POV; to
• do not mention "US-backed" at all

It makes no sense for whoever refactored this talk page to have me voting both FOR and AGAINST the same thing. It makes me look contradictory (at best).

Secondly, I think Eloquence is right about the principle of the matter: "resolve disputes in consensus, rather than by voting, whenever possible". I only created the poll to clarify the issues, not to settle them. --Uncle Ed 13:41, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ongoing problems

Have you guys come to some kind of consensus on what the article should say? Is it OK to unprotect? →Raul654 06:12, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

I think the situation is similar to before: Everyone is willing to discuss it and work constructively, except 172, who insists his intro and his alone is the only possible one. Otherwise, something close to a delicate consensus had been painstakingly reached between the partisans throughout several weeks. It's not clear whether 172 will bother to continue harassing (trolling?) this article against everyone else (his repeated promises to leave forever notwithstanding); he may have felt he "won" by gaining the protection. Anyway, see the discussion above for details. -- VV 06:26, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This article should definitely be unprotected by now. --Cantus 07:06, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The article should probably be unprotected, yes. Cadr

Protection

Silsor,

Please protect another version of the article. Right now you're enforcing the stance of one party over another's. 172 05:33, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

See m:The wrong version. 172, instead of arguing about which version to protect, I would appreciate it if you could tell us what exactly you don't like about the current one.--Eloquence* 05:35, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

I've been doing this all along - for weeks actually. Regarding the protection, when I protect pages, I scrupulously go through the page history in order to find the most recent stable version. That's expected out of me. I'd appreciate it if other admins took this effort. 172 05:39, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Protecting the top revision is a generally accepted practice. Regardless, I am still not clear what we are arguing about. Brevity? If so, some of the facts you have added are equally at disposition. Style? I'm sure the second paragraph could use improvements in that department. NPOV? NPOV is a delicate balance and depends on both sides acknowledging each other's beliefs instead of merely asserting their own as fact. Maybe you should tell us what you find the most problematic about the current intro, so that we can work from that to find a compromise that you will find acceptable?--Eloquence* 05:44, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

This is not an NPOV dispute. This is a conflict between a succinct and factual intro and a one laced with rhetoric. 172 05:49, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This kind of "rhetoric" is inevitable when dealing with controversy. You can't write any Wikipedia article like you would write a book or a paper; I know you often do, but the reason you can is that you tend to write on subjects about which few other people have an informed opinion. Here, on the other hand, many Wikipedians do have an opinion, and they would like to see it represented in the article (and its intro). The proper way to do that is to use NPOV language, which you call "rhetoric". I too would prefer "pure facts", but by NPOV standards, this would mean that we couldn't even touch upon anything controversial in the intro, which would give a warped picture of the person Pinochet, who is controversial and, yes, subject of different "mythologies".--Eloquence* 06:00, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

Of course this is an NPOV dispute. Do you realise how rude you're being, suggesting that everyone who doesn't like your intro is either a bad writer, dellusionary or stupid? How are we supposed to have a discussion with you when this is the attitude you have? Cadr

The last time it was protected was on 172's version, which was opposed to nearly all other parties. I don't remember this being an issue then. -- VV 05:36, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That makes no sense. silsor 05:40, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

Is this comment directed at me? If so, I was referring to the earlier protection of this article (by Raul654), where it was frozen on 172's version, which he was pushing against several other users. Nobody cried foul about the choice of version then. I should note 172 has done this before, try to convince admins to revert to his version on protected pages (User talk:Flockmeal). -- VV 05:52, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No, it was directed at 172, for suggesting that I was promoting someone's point of view by protecting the page. silsor 05:58, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

If you mean that we should turn the clock back, I don't think that is expected of admins or even a good idea. You should spend your energy reaching a compromise instead of complaining when the world gets to see The Wrong Version. silsor 05:43, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

Don't lecture me. If you haven't been involved in the dispute, you don't know what's going on. Advice along these lines is just going to offend all parties. 172 05:45, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This is what's going on. silsor 05:46, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

That's not going to tell you everything. Keep that in mind before you make rash judgments and piss people off. 172 05:49, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In the future I will refrain from suggesting that people discuss their differences and compromise like adults instead of bashing each other over the head with the revert club. silsor 06:02, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

Don't be a smartass. Sometimes it is necessary to engage in an edit war. Just go in being inclined to reserve judgments - that's all I'm asking. 172 06:12, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've stated elsewhere that I minimize my involvment on articles where VV is a prominent editor. My opinion on 172's habits is also known. If it weren't for this, I would happily have contributed more actively in both reasoning and editing of this article. It touches one of the most important aspects, beside the dual-decission and Papadopoulos' coup, of West-European impressions of the US (and her foreign politics) and the dwindling identification with the US (supporters of PFLP and Viet Cong don't count as they were pure leftists who saw the US as the incarnation of the devil no matter what). I don't know if Wesley Clark is considered unreliable after his attempt to get nominated for the Democrats, but in his recent Winning Modern Wars he states on pp 182-183 (in my print):

Throughout the Cold War, the United States was challenged to maintain its high principles abroad in the face of the Soviet threat. Some mistakes were made, and the United States gradually lost some of its moral edge, creating adversaries and doubters. Worried about potential Soviet encroachments into the Middle East, the United States deposed an Iranian leader and replaced him with an unpopular shah. Siding against a Soviet-oriented India, the United States distanced itself from the world's largest democracy. Fearing a Marxist takeover of Chile, the United States backed Chilean military action to throw out the democratically elected Marxist leader, Salvador Allende. In Central America the United States fought for almost a decade against Marxist-inspired governments and guerrillas using CIA and special forces personnel, as well as local movements — a struggle that succeeded, but at enormous human costs, with additional human rights violations and illegal government activities. A semantic distinction was often made between totalitarian regimes, which we opposed, and regimes that were merely authoritarian, which could serve U.S. interests — but it was an uncomfortable distinction, never fully accepted across the American political spectrum.

--Ruhrjung 09:58, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

More about the coup

An anti-Pinochet site says:

In 1973, after the Allende government moved to introduce Socialist ideals into the predominantly Roman Catholic education system, and after the leader of the Socialist party called for a barracks rebellion against senior officers, the military broke its tradition of being apolitical and staged a bloody coup, backed by Washington. [4]

I'd like to know more about those "Socialist ideals". Does this mean indoctrination into atheist Communism, or what? I can't think of anything that would get peace-loving Catholics riled up, other than messing with their belief system. I mean try telling a gang of teenagers in South Boston that the Virgin Mary wasn't a virgin, and see what happens... --Uncle Ed 19:48, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think Allende had the project to create a national education system. Some wrote "in the East German way" but this could also be in the "French way". One thing that bother me is that Allende critics consider him as an evil Marxist-Leninist while for me it seems clear that Allende project was more similar to the French Socialist Party platform of the time. According to many sources François Mitterrand was very worried in 1981 about the risk of a "Chilean scenario" in France. Ericd 21:23, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Pinochet's coup was a joint force coup : a large plot involving navy, infantery, tanks and Air Force do you seriously think there could have been a "conccurent project" backed by the CIA ? Even if there was at time several plots it seems like they all merged in one. Ericd 00:47, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

CIA poll

Q: Should the article assert that the United States backed the coup against Allende which put Pinochet in power?

1. Yes, it should be asserted:

In both the intro paragraph and the CIA role in coup section:

1. Uncle Ed (only if labelled as POV)
2. BCorr|Брайен (POV note not necessary, but is acceptable, IMHO)
3. Hanpuk (I learned about this poll due to Ed Poor's lobbying on VeryVerily's talk page.)
4. AndyL (While the US denied this at the time it has since been acknowleged as having been the case. There's no dispute any longer on *whether* the 1973 coup was instigated by the CIA, the dispute is whether the CIA's actions were justifiable.)
   • Yes there is. See the intelligence report noted in the "CIA role in coup" section. -- VV 01:15, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
5. ugen64 01:51, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)
6. Tannin 02:03, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
7. AstroNomer Only if marked as POV. It is not a proven fact.
8. Marcika 21:28, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)
9. 172 09:05, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) I should've been listed here already. I wonder if someone's been removing my postings from this page.

In the CIA role in coup section only:

1. Uncle Ed
2. VV
3. Cadr
4. Cantus
5. AstroNomer
6. Sam [Spade]

Mark as controversial

1. Uncle Ed
2. VV
3. Cadr
4. AstroNomer
5. Comrade Nick
6. Sam [Spade]

Don't mark as controversial

1. BCorr|Брайен
2. Cantus
3. 172 (WTF? What a biased and misleading attempt at begging the question. I ought to reject this question on principle. Keep controversial "views" out of the article. If facts bother you, tough shit. This vote should be read only as a statement in favor of keeping the intro posted as of now.)
4. AndyL (Again, stating that the CIA instigated the 1973 coup is not controversial and is pretty much universally acknowleged as fact. What is a matter of debate is not whether the US was involved but whether their involvement was correct. Saying it's "controversial" to say the CIA was involved in the overthrow of Allende is like saying it's "controversial" to say the US was involved in the Bay of Pigs. Yes, at the time the US denied any involvement and promoted a pretence that the Bay of Pigs was the act of independent anti-Castro Cubans without US backing but since then everyone, including the US, acknowledges the US role.)
   • It's completely controversial. We've discussed this like mad. I deny US involvement. It's a simple neutrality issue. -- VV 01:14, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
5. Ericd (This isn't controversial, this is well established. Denying it, for other reasons than ignorance is as honest as Holocaust denial. For instance see [5] or [6].)
   • You're not the first to refer to such links. They do not prove what you say they do, as we have already noted on this page. -- VV 01:14, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
6. ugen64 01:51, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)
7. Tannin - There is no controversy over the broad thrust of the actual events (bar a handful of loonie right-wingers still trying to cover up an event that became public knowledge decades ago - reminds me of Japanese school history books). The only real controvery is over whether the US backing was legal or justified.
8. Marcika 21:28, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC) - The CIA admitted seeking to instigate a coup as early as 1970, and was in tight contact with the plotters of the 1973 (according to the CIA Chile report). Denying involvement would be pushing an agenda.

2. No, it should not be mentioned

1. Uncle Ed
2. VV
3. Cadr (Assuming we're talking about that specific coup, not the idea of a coup in general.)

Current winning position

Yes, it should be asserted, in both the intro paragraph and the CIA role in coup section, and not marked as controversial.

Comments

The Nixon administration wanted to get rid of Allende they had contact with Chilean high rank officers, they had a plan for elimination of marxists or so-called marxists in South America and they had policies to destabilize Allende this is uncontroversial OK ? This has to be mentioned there. I'm in favor of being precise, let's devellop the role played by the CIA and the US administration in the fall of Allende instead of writing "the CIA backed the coup". Of course nobody will never find a written order of the CIA to Pinochet, they're not so stupid. I will oppose to any formulation like "some believe than the CIA backed the coup while other believe they were gently neutral". They were not neutral and made everything they could do to bring a coup, but Pinochet was probably not simply CIA puppet. Ericd 01:54, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think that there is some truth in this. The CIA did have a hand in the coup against Allende, but to what extent is uncertain. With that said, I also beleive that there would have been a coup with or without CIA involvement. The only thing the CIA did was ensure Allende's groupies would not win the coup. TDC 14:38, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is meant exactly by "endorse," but that sounds too much like taking sides to me. -- BCorr|Брайен 14:59, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

This is an interesting idea, but NPOV policy is crystal clear. 172 is simply being abusive. That is all there is to it. -- VV 14:48, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Agree with this, also. Cadr

Being abusive is not my intention. I just want a concise, encyclopedic intro. If that bothers people, I can't help that. 172 17:59, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It was already concise and encyclopedic. Your real problem with it seems to be that it didn't mention that the coup was US-backed. It's quite insulting to suggest that you are the only person who wants a concise and encyclopedic introduction, because everyone here does. The issue of what should be in the introduction has already been resolved. I'm sorry if you don't like the consensus that was reached, but it's a real consensus that required some long drawn out edit warring and talk page flaming to reach, so I do wish we could stick to it. Cadr

I've had nothing to do with your silly partisan flame wars over this article. Whatever had been going on before I stepped in (and I could care less), the intro required a rewrite. I scrapped the bullshit from both groupings of partisans - pro-Pinochet and anti-Pinochet - and replaced it with a concise and factual intro. If that makes you uncomfortable, you'll probably have to bear it. WP is an encyclopedia, not a toy and a soapbox. BTW, check the page history next time before you make unfounded attacks; I've also prevented attempts to reinsert anti-U.S. and anti-Pinochet rhetoric. 172 19:42, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, it is unfortunate that some unbelievers refuse to recognize you as the oracle of truth that you undoubtably are, 172. But since this is a Wiki, not a religious text, I'm afraid you must be content to let the vulgar masses trample on your tasteful and factually pure edits from time to time. The phrase "US-backed" is controversial, because although the US undoubtably supported some kind of coup to depose Allende, there is no clear evidence that they supported the actual coup that happened. It is not your rewriting of the intro that we object to (as you well know), but your insistence that the highly controversial and not-entirely-factual phrase "Us-backed" be included in it, despite the detailed discussion of the various POVs in the rest of the article. Your callous attitude to the discussion between other Wikipedians ("and I could care less") shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the Wikipeida project. Articles are revised by consensus, and your edits go against a clearly established consensus. Cadr

And some think that Elvis is alive and that Neil Armstrong's never been on the moon. So do you want to rewrite the intros in those entries? If not, the content in the intro is standard in brief encyclopedic entries. Here's one example from Encarta. [7] 172 22:08, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The kind of people who have objected to the "US-backed" phrase are not the kind of people who believe Elvis is still alive. In any case, your analogy is misleading because leaving the phrase "US-backed" out of the intro doesn't even mention the POV that the US didn't back it, so we're not wasting any space or giving unecessary prominence to minority views. If you have evidence showing that the US supported the coup that actually happened, i.e. they helped Augusto Pinochet himself, specifically, come to power, show it to me and I will drop my objections. Cadr

That's an issue for the main body of text in the article. I have to work on too many unfinished articles to become one of the writers here. 172 22:24, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What do you mean? The main body of text does not conclude that Pinochet's coup was definiteley supported by the US/CIA. No-one is making that claim except you (or at least no-one else is trying to get it into the article), so the burden of proof is on you. Cadr

No, it's not. You're reading way too much into the sentence. Look up the definition of "backing" (n) or "to back" (v). Your arguments would be valid if the intro read, e.g., "US-engineered," "US-orchestrated," "US-planned," "US-led." We're probably on the same fact when it comes to the history. A dictionary would probably better resolve our argument. 172 22:41, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

OK, the thing is that in order to clarify exactly what was meant by "US-backed" you'd have to basically copy and paste the big section on the coup further down in the article into the intro, or at least make the intro much longer. I accept that what you mean by "US-backed" is factually accurate, but unfortunately it is not necessarily going to be understood in the intended sense by everyone. For this reason, I think it's easiest just to keep "US-backed" out of the intro; it's no great loss really. Cadr

"US-backed" does not mean what 172 wants to claim, nor is it accurate even in a broad sense, nor could any sense it might claim to be accurate in justify putting a reference to the US in the intro. This has all been discussed, with the agreement to not have it, and 172 knows this. Of course, he is disrespecting process and neutrality because of personal vendettas and ideological warring. -- VV 01:07, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Translation: "I'm 172, only my opinion matters. The method of using the Talk pages to discuss an article, hash out an agreement, and reach a consensus doesn't apply to me. Neutrality is immaterial, as my opinion should be stated in the intro, no matter how many other POVs there are. Anyone who alters such edits or disagrees is a POV-pushing troll." -- VV 21:28, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If you had a valid argument, I'd change my tune. But right now it's your usual red herring. You have no basis for disputing the neutrality of the intro. It avoids emotive language and is concise and unambiguously factual. 172 21:49, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Compromise intro

Just to say that I think the new intro is fine. What does everyone else think? Cadr.

This is not an article on U.S. involvement in the 1973 coup in Chile. I did not rewrite the intro for the sake of adding a note on U.S. involvement. My intent was writing a brief, focused, encyclopedic intro that got more info across while using fewer words. I'm not going to hesitate to restore the succinct version either. The poll results clearly affirmed this stance (as if the historical record weren't enough). 172 22:08, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Articles aren't created by voting. The intro is just as long as it should be to avoid misunderstandings, and to satisfy the different sides to this issue. It does not detract from the person Pinochet (and in any case, Wikipedia:Lead section allows for two paragraphs of intro text, so we can easily add more material here). Please respect the attempts at finding a consensus solution.--Eloquence* 22:17, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

The implications of the intro that I keep restoring imply don't imply anything that isn't implied by the "compromise" version. For example, "U.S.-backed" does not imply, e.g., "U.S.-orchestrated," "U.S.-engineered," "U.S.-planned," "U.S.-plotted." In other words, it does not delineate the extent and scope of U.S. backing in and of itself. I have one question, though. Is the meaning of "U.S.-backed" is commonly misunderstood among people for whom English is not a native language? If so, I wasn't aware. If this happens to be the case, I'm willing to work around it. A footnote would be the proper course of action, not an off topic tangent in the intro. 172 22:32, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Whatever the case, it's clear that "backing" is a commonly misunderstood word on WP. So, I added a footnote. 172 22:37, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A slightly unorthodox but acceptable solution.--Eloquence* 22:38, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps it's just unorthodox here. On WP footnotes often go unused when they're necessary. 172 22:44, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think that we should go back to the special note. Perhaps the heading could be changed to "footnotes," though. By adding the first footnote, there might be the positive unintended consequence of getting users to use more footnotes to clarify things and cite references. 172 22:50, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The footnote just duplicates material which is discussed in detail in an existing section. If we move that entire section somewhere else, we should restore the note, otherwise I think it would end up confusing/annoying readers who read the article from top to bottom. Moving the "CIA role" section somewhere else may be a good idea just to centralize all the discussion about the coup somewhere.--Eloquence* 22:54, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

I'll accept that. That's the practical thing to do for now. (After all, avoiding duplicate material was my rationale for taking that note out of the intro.) 172 23:18, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I realise the intro before my edit was based on a tentative consensus, so I will not make any further changes (or re-revert any reverts of my edits) until we can sort out the issue on this page. Cadr

OK, (now 172 has reverted my edits — which is fair enough I suppose). I think that what 172 means by "US-backed" is factually accurate and NPOV, but I think the phrase, as used in the current intro, makes it sound too much like the US-supported Pinochet directly. The footnote helps with this, but the intro should be self-contained — you shouldn't have to read a big section of the main article in order to understand what it means. This is why I favour keeping any reference to the US out of the intro altogether (unless the intro is considerably expanded, as per Eloquence's edits). However,, I'm perfectly happy to accept a reference to the US in a shorter intro if some slightly less ambiguous phrasing can be found. Cadr

Oops, didn't quite see that there was now a footnote rather than a link to an article section. Could we perhaps put the footnote number directly after "US-backed", to make it clear that this is the controversial issue? Cadr

The intro is straightforward and accurate, two polls affirmed the intro, and there's even a compromise note to prevent misunderstanding. The disputes should be brought to an end now. BTW, another poll affirmed the stance that this is not a controversial assertion historically. 172 00:37, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This 172-intro is insufficient. It doesn't even in the slightest way hint at why he was arrested by the English, it leaves out why he was internationally controversial, that the constitution put out of order was a working democratic one, and that Pinochet was the ruler of Chile for quite some time.

--Ruhrjung 02:02, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I know you like the intro, 172, but why didn't you give a response to my politely worded and very minor request? Not that it matters now I guess, but it can be very hard to have a discussion with you, because you don't usually respond directly to the points people are making, you just say that your intro is better because it's "straightforward and accurate". Well like it or not, a lot of people didn't think your intro was either of those things, and we've explained why not in detail. Cadr

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the intro before 172 started trolling. The "wordiness" was a red herring; an article this length can afford a few dozen words in the intro, in complete sentences (you know, with verbs). The only questionable part was that relating to the US and the coup; this already has a gigantic section, and we do not need to take sides in the intro. The footnote is particularly ridiculous, when there is an article which says the same thing. The version we'd worked out gives a clear, concise, neutral description of Pincohet's rise, rule, fall, and perceived legacy. A new version of the short note about the US has been put in; the reader can read more later about it in the extensive coverage. -- VV 02:05, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC) (This comment was added after edit conflict with Ruhrjung.)

Just in case anyone thinks there is a substantive dialog taking place here, this is the full extent of the changes to the intro which 172 has "accepted" during this entire affair. That's right, a single superscripted 1 at the end. Quite the compromise! -- VV

While not perfect (this is Wikipedia!), the VV-restored introduction is better than most other versions I've seen – with reservation for such shortlived versions, that were edited away promptly.

--Ruhrjung 02:43, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, the intro does need to mention the US support prominently - that is one condition on my end for a compromise. Whether this is in form of a short version with note, or a more verbose one without one, I do not care. But you cannot understand Pinochet without understanding -- and that is of course my POV -- that he was a product of United States foreign policy.--Eloquence* 04:09, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

That is very definitely your POV, which I equally definitely do not share. But this is not what about what either of us think. That's why I favor the language noting a "relationship" with the US. The details and points of view on that complex relationship can then be addressed later. As I've noted, I don't even see the need to mention the US at all so early on (this is about Chile, mostly), but if it must be there, it should not presume any one person's opinion. -- VV 04:19, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think the term "backed" is perfectly factual -- we've been through the proven ways in which the US supported deposing Allende and supported Pinochet afterwards, and "backed", with a footnote explaining what that means in this context seems like a short way to express this. "Relationship", on the other hand, is unnecessarily ambiguous, because we know a lot more than this phrase suggests. Again, alternative suggestions are welcome, but a brief summary of what is currently mostly in the "CIA role" section needs to be in the intro; a good Wikipedia:Lead section should summarize all key aspects of an article, and this is one of them.--Eloquence* 04:28, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

I rewrote the intro in order to keep it concise and keep the contending leftwing and rightwing mythologies out. Two poll results affirmed my stance, and I was able to reach compromises with two additional parties in the disputes just hours ago. I am going to restore the straightforward version once again. 172 04:17, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I see plenty of evidence here for discontent with your unilateral stance, which is to push the leftwing mythology with poor writing. -- VV 04:22, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, a comrpomise with two parties is not good enough. We need to try to find a compromise with all parties. VV and Ruhrjung would prefer an intro which gives more details on Pinochet's rule. I have tried to reconcile this with the desire for a short intro by abridging their additions. Please review this revision and tell me what you don't like about it. Is the first paragraph OK? I presume your main problem is the second paragraph, i.e. the NPOV characterization of views of supporters and critics. Pinochet today is, however, effectively a religious figure - Satan and Christ - for these two groups, and I think we need to at least mention this sharp split in opinion in the intro.--Eloquence* 04:23, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

We can address his rule, while staying biographical and factual and keeping the dueling mythology out. This addresses his later career: "After losing a plebiscite in 1989, Pinochet stepped down from the presidency in 1990 and was succeeded by Patricio Aylwin. He retained his post as commander of the army until 1998 and assumed a lifelong seat in the Chilean Senate, a title that brought with it immunity from prosecution." 172 04:56, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

(Re recent alterations.) What's wrong with the language I had about "support for his government"? That's neatly neutral between whether the US installed him (the far-left view) or merely offered him some support once in power? The details can wait for the (giant) section below. Mentioning the US "support for a coup against Allende" is redundant and confusing and not really about Pinochet at all. Why not just stick to "support..."? -- VV 04:44, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, if your only complaint is that it is redundant, then I think we are firmly in NPOV territory ;-). I think this belongs into the intro about an article about Pinochet because it is one of the key pieces of evidence in the history of the coup - Project FUBELT, "it is firm policy .." etc. Even if you see no connection, you have to acknowledge that this is where many people do see a connection and a continuity.--Eloquence* 04:49, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

I don't see why pieces of evidence in the history of the coup need to be listed in the intro paragraph. Redundancy, you'll note is only one of three complaints I made, but succintness is something we both want here, no? -- VV 04:54, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Certainly. I think a length of two paragraphs is sufficiently succinct. I for one could do without the "constitution" part.--Eloquence* 05:02, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

There's a section on legacy toward the end of the article, where it belongs. The intro should stay straightforward and factual. 172 05:13, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The constitution part seems pretty important to me, and it's only a few words. Anyway, saying that the US is criticized for allegedly supporting the coup because of Pinochet's human rights abuses is presuming far too much; general support of a coup does not connect to specific support of abuses. I still prefer the paragraph I had before, but I've worked off of your language. -- VV 05:09, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You are forgetting that we are not reporting "the truth" (according to you or me) but what people see as the truth. The United States are widely seen to be responsible for Pinochet's rise to power, and as I said, the support for a coup against Allende is one key piece of evidence in that argument. To avoid getting too deep into the controversy, we briefly note just the key facts in the intro. How these facts are interpreted by the different sides is a matter for the main article.--Eloquence* 05:16, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

Let's keep the references to human rights abuses out of the intro. This can only be sufficiently contextualized in the main body of the text and relevant articles on Chilean history. 172 05:15, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I can live with the "many believe" approach regarding the CIA role (for the intro only). As for the human rights violations, I think they definitely belong into the intro. Again, the lead section should summarize key facts from the article proper, that is its purpose. We are not exceeding the length guidelines, so there is no need to be too brief.--Eloquence* 05:19, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

Well, of course I'm not wholly thrilled with its current form, as I feel the flow is imperfect and that it gives too much prominence to the US. But if we can both live with it we should probably let it sit for now. :) -- VV 05:24, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Please see the poll results above. This issue was already settled. 172 05:19, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The poll did not show a consensus but deep division. It does not trump straightforward neutrality considerations. -- VV 05:24, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As I already said, we don't solve NPOV issues by majority vote. If we did, I'm sure all the criticisms of Mother Teresa would disappear from the article if we asked a large enough sample of people. The poll tells us how much we need to approach the minority position. We do not need to approach it to the extent that we remove the claim from the intro, or add extensive rebuttals, but I do not see the harm in adding a POV attribution to the most controversial statement - that the CIA directly supported the September 11, 1973 coup.--Eloquence* 05:27, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

New poll

Since there still doesn't seem to be any kind of consensus, I suggest starting a new poll on specifically which of the two versions of the intro should be used as a basis for further improvements. That's not very wiki-like, but it will help us come to an agreement. Any objections?--Eloquence* 12:49, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

I do think this is not very wiki-like. We should try to come up with a new introduction that everyone can agree on, rather than voting for a previous attempt. Still, I have no objection to the poll so long as it doesn't set the intro to the article in stone. Cadr

I don't see the point of having a new poll; it will simply turn into another ideological head count, and I for one would not accept any result that the article should push a controversial POV. The neutrality guidelines are clear on this point. 172's trolling (pushing controversial, inflammatory content) should be seen for what it is and not taken seriously. You (Eloquence) have already put much effort into trying to explain the rules to 172 above; I doubt it will bear much more fruit than my efforts, but it's all we can really do for this dispute. -- VV 21:47, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have a strong feeling that the time lost in this kind of edit wars might be used for something else. I'm getting bored by some contributors behaviour, may I suggest them to fork. We will a A Leftist Encyclowiki and A Conservative Webopedia and work in peace on Wikipedia.

Ericd 22:05, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The immunity part is not completely correct. Congresspersons in Chile only enjoy a partial immunity, meaning that their prosecution must be authorized first by a higher court in order for a cause to continue. In the case of Pinochet, after he returned from Great Britain, he did lose his parlamentary protection by decision of a court. The prosecution did come to an end for medical reasons, not because of parliamentary immunity.--AstroNomer 05:08, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

Protection

I removed the protection from this page because the discussion on this talk page has not been active. --"DICK" CHENEY 15:19, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Request to 172

Can you stop calling other contributions bullshit, please. It's not very helpful. Cadr

Getting 172 to be civil = getting pig to sing. -- VV 23:13, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

You can hardly talk, VV, given that you and 172 are involved in yet another childish revert war. Cadr

I have never been uncivil, and I'm not denying engaging in revert wars. I will do so with people like 172 who would otherwise stomp on anyone who doesn't. I do not consider it childish to defend the encyclopedia against personally abusive, anti-consensus, uncivil pushers of misinformation. -- VV 00:08, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

You've both been uncivil (calling each other's edits "trolling", for example). You're cleary both intelligent and articulate. Reverting each other's edits is not defending the encyclopedia, it's just defending your egos. I really can't believe we're having a third revert war. For God's sake both of you grow up and take it to the talk page (again). Cadr

Surely you've seen the weeks' worth of discussion, and how little fruit it's brought with 172, who dismisses all criticisms and says it's "too bad" if you don't like his version. I and several other users have worked out consensus versions of the intro, but 172 will only tolerate his own. I do consider this trolling; he is deliberately adding inflammatory misinformation over several users' wishes, knowing it will provoke a response; that is virtually the definition. -- VV 00:16, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

I am sympathetic, and I'm not saying that this situation is your fault. But the simple truth is that when we've got to the point where we've had three near-identical revert wars, it's clear that there's going to have to be more discussion. I agree your intro was based on a consensus, but it was by no means supported by everyone except 172. We could at least try to hash out something that everyone except 172 thought was acceptable, although obviously a true consensus would be preferable. A few more points...

• 172 may or may not be trolling. Either way, saying that he is isn't going to help.
• Your two intros are (if you stand back a bit) virtually identical. It's completely crazy that the difference between them could cause this much animosity. I'm not sure that anyone even disagrees on the basic facts (i.e. we all accept that there's no inconteastible proof of US support for Pinochet's actual coup, even though there definitely was support for a coup.)

Cadr

Page protected

VeryVerily and 172, I've protected the page and added a protection note after, since I kept getting edit conflicts. I don't even know which version I protected since the reversions were coming so quickly, so I hope no one accuses me of protecting The Wrong Version. I didn't even notice the edit war at first because I just happened to get the same editor and edit summary three times in a row. Please get some community input and figure this out as 30 reverts in 30 minutes is completely unacceptable. BCorr|Брайен 00:30, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

Intro

My edit to the intro was only supposed to be temporary, in case anyone got the wrong idea. I just thought it might stop the edit wars long enough for a consensus to be reached on the talk page. The alternative was (apparently) for the page to be protected again. Cadr

I had, you'll note, accepted this stop-gap measure, but 172 continued to revert to his version anyway, in fact reverted once just to revert. Thus, alas, I concluded this idea was DOA. -- VV 23:09, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

And now we're back to that alternative again. It would be nice if there was some actual discussion on the talk page this time, so that unprotection doesn't simply lead to a resumption of the same revert war again. --Michael Snow 23:02, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

See how much discussion there's been? See what it's gotten us? -- VV 23:09, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Let me assure you, whatever the discussion may or may not have "gotten us", the discussion is not causing the revert wars or the page protection. You and 172 are the ones responsible for that. Kindly start discussing the content of the article, both of you. I am very close to asking you to discuss your conduct before the arbitration committee. --Michael Snow 23:17, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Surely you've noticed the asymmetry between our handling of the situation, impartial though you may wish to be? All partisans worked out an intro that was mutually tolerable. The reverting started when 172 refused to accept any other than his own. You must be aware by now of 172's tactics; recall this is someone who told you to "fuck off" not a few weeks ago. If I thought there was any credible Wikipedia apparatus for ending the madness on this page, I would take it. But I have tried them all - consensus building, third-party admins, RfC pages, quickpolls - without avail. (Okay, except mediation, which I have, as I promised, been reading up on, but remain doubtful of.) It seems when dealing with the likes of 172 one must use equal force if one's edits are to not be consigned to the dustbin of page history as soon as they are submitted. (I should also note I generally do back off a bit if even modest signs of possible good faith compromise appear, as I did earlier today on the Soviet history page.) -- VV 23:38, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

As I said, please discuss the content of the article. To the extent that I discuss how you two handle the situation, I will continue to remain impartial and apply my statements to both of you, because not all the evidence is present here. If you end up in arbitration, the evidence can be gathered and we can let the arbitration committee decide if one of you behaved less badly than the other. I don't care what 172 told me to do; that's no reason for me to treat him differently from you. --Michael Snow 23:51, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

It was evidence of the same sort of incivility we've all suffered. Impartiality is a tricky notion here, when it was "impartiality" in the form of consensus and POV-balancing that produced the consensus intro I now defend. (Can you be impartial between your notion of impartiality and mine? Okay, that was mostly a joke.) I am a bit at a loss as to what to say about the content that I and others have not said already, mostly unanswered. Indeed, if you'll note, the discussion above is lopsided in this respect. -- VV 23:57, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Protection

At last they protected the right version! --Cantus 23:32, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

No, articles are always protected on The Wrong Version, as a matter of policy. --Michael Snow 23:33, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Ho-ho ;-) --Cantus 23:40, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Re: "As I said, please discuss the content of the article. To the extent that I discuss how you two handle the situation, I will continue to remain impartial and apply my statements to both of you, because not all the evidence is present here. If you end up in arbitration, the evidence can be gathered and we can let the arbitration committee decide if one of you behaved less badly than the other. I don't care what 172 told me to do; that's no reason for me to treat him differently from you." --Michael Snow 23:51, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

What's there to discuss? VeryVerily and I share absolutely no common ground, so I doubt that he'll ever be able to stop snipping at me. We simply hold fundamentally incompatible conceptions of NPOV. He demands that the text pay lip service to his narrow, knee jerk, rightwing Americentric worldview, irrespective of whether or not it bears any relationship with realit, whereas I could care less. This has been patently obvious on this page, where he has been demanding for months that the introduction not contextualize the 1973 coup, regardless of my attempts to enumerate a reality with which he is uncomfortable, and again regardless of my efforts to promote a footnote to check the possibilities of readers' misconstruing the scope of U.S. involvement. In contrast, my view of NPOV is more epistemological than emotional. I favor linking the actions and motives of historical actors to the social/economic/political context in which action occurred, and a narrative voice inclined to reserve moral judgments. Hence, in this particular context, I favor a concise and factual intro, consigning the partisan rhetoric to history, in other words to a matter of agency, which was bound together in struggle historically in which this ideological contention emerged. I am **not** concerned with the circular arguments of the people squabbling still over whether or not the '73 coup was justified, and whether or not Pinochet's a "good guy" or a "bad guy" in the context of the values of U.S. political culture. And BTW, notice that my intro skirts a number of can of worms usually opened up by leftwing users in order to take shots at the legitimacy of Pinochet's regime. The page history attests that I have also stood in the way of users attempting to cast him as mythical villain, who scrapped a 'democratically elected government' in favor of a 'brutal tyranny.' Instead, why not look at this coup, say, as a part of broader political pattern in South America in the 1960s and 1970s, which saw military takeovers reverse in Brazil (1964), Argentina (1966), Chile (1973), Uruguay (1973), and Argentina again in 1976 (civilian rule was restored in 1973)?

Maybe I'm being too pedantic for the purposes of Wikipedia, but I think that if users want to pit a mythical villain against a romanticized savior of Chile, they can wrangle over this in the legacy section. But why not stay straightforward and factual in the intro? Speaking for myself, when I'm referring to an encyclopedia, I'm looking for an informative, factual write-up, as opposed to seeking some reaffirmation of a mythology that I find reassuring. 172 01:55, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

I fail to see how your intro is any more "factual" than the current (protected) one. Calling other people's views "mythologies" is one particular point of view, it is not the truth. NPOV is the balance of different views, some of which may be mythological, some of which may be factual. NPOV is not a "middle ground", that is a common misconception (the middle ground is itself a POV which must be treated like any other), and it is also not the avoidance of controversy. As for the argument of conciseness, I have already addressed this. Wikipedia:Lead section very much allows for an intro of the present length.

I'm not saying that NPOV is a "middle ground" - that would be even worse than what VeryVerily's promoting. I'm just stressing historical context and scholarly consensus, but perhaps I should just drop that. I guess that this comes with too many nuances to be promoted on Wiki, and it's way too easy to be read as a straw man. 172 03:30, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

That doesn't mean that we have to water down facts, and we don't. I would strongly object to a weasel statement like "Many people believe that the United States supported Pinochet", because this is a fact that is not seriously disputed by anyone.--Eloquence*

Um, read the second paragraph of VeryVerily's version. That's what you'll find. 172 02:46, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Erik, read this paragraph: He is widely considered a brutal military dictator responsible for severe human rights violations and social decay. The support by the United States for Pinochet's government has also been the target of substantial criticism, and many believe the CIA had a role in the 1973 coup. Pinochet's admirers regard him as a great modernizer who staved off communism and rescued the faltering economy (the "Miracle of Chile"). 172 02:48, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm more concerned with removing this drivel than making changes to his version of the first paragraph. 172 02:51, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

I wrote some of this "drivel". What part in particular do you consider "mythological"?--Eloquence* 03:15, May 8, 2004 (UTC)

You said you would strongly object to a weasel statement like "Many people believe that the United States supported Pinochet." Well, this paragraph states, "Many believe the CIA had a role in the 1973 coup." Where in my version do I use "many people believe" as a clutch? And why not deal with the "Miracle of Chile" and "severe human rights violations and social decay" stuff in the legacy section? 172 03:27, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

I am very well aware that the current version refers to the Sep. 11 1973 coup in this form. That was after all the compromise reached between me and VV. Unlike the example I cited, I do not believe this to be a weasel statement at all, as so far no evidence has been produced for a direct role in this specific event, and whether one concludes it from the surrounding evidence is mostly a matter of political association. However, I could agree to removing the ",..and many people believe" part of the sentence completely.--Eloquence* 03:42, May 8, 2004 (UTC)

You don't have to do that. My text deals with the U.S. role and has the footnote. What's wrong with that? 172 03:47, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

I have no problem with your text per se (although I think that the sharply polarized opinion about Pinochet deserves some space); I merely tried to find a solution which would be more acceptable to VV without being non-factual. Perhaps VV can articulate his objections against the footnote solution again?--Eloquence* 05:30, May 8, 2004 (UTC)

VerilyVerily is irrelevant. And we are irrelevant too. The only thing that's relevant is what's best for the article. I'd be interested in knowing what you think. 172 12:36, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

There is little to say in response to 172. His charge that what I've written seeks to "pay lip service to his narrow, knee jerk, rightwing Americentric worldview" is too absurd to even comment on, as anyone who has read the intro can see. 172 believes that his view and his view alone is the only right one so there is simply no need to balance with other views, which is not the NPOV policy I know. Furthermore, he wants to erase the brief summary of Pinochet's legacy, but this is crucial information for someone who wants to learn about the person in question. What "many people believe" today about him is an important part of it. Worst here of course is his disrespect of consensus, the essence of Wiki; he has the last word on what the historical content and meaning of Pinochet is, and no dissent will be brooked. Here, he wants to flatly assert the unsubstantiated US-backed part, offering only a superscripted 1 to say what could be said with a few words in the intro, attached to a modifier which on its face pushes a POV, disclaimer or no. -- VV 21:35, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

I think the following need to be mentioned in the intro:

• overthrow of Allende
• United States support for Pinochet
• human rights violations
• "Miracle of Chile"

These are, in my opinion, the things most remembered about Pinochet. An intro that satisfies these criteria is fine with me. Beyond that, I am willing to make compromises to keep the peace on the article if they do not hurt its factuality.--Eloquence* 20:54, May 8, 2004 (UTC)

That is not how intros are written. Intros are written by 172 deciding what it should say and any other views are "bullshit". As he eloquently states, "If that makes you uncomfortable, you'll probably have to bear it." -- VV 21:35, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with Eloquence's suggestions for what should be in the intro, and I don't think VV's intro was anywhere near as POV as 172 made out. Doesn't look like we're going to get much sensible discussion on this, though. Perhaps a very short intro like the one I introduced temporarily would at least be able to gain a consensus, even if everyone agreed it wasn't as informative as it should be. Until VV and 172 kiss and make up I'm not sure I can see an alternative. (And yes VV, I agree it can be difficult to have a discussion with 172 without being flamed.) Cadr

Incidentally, I forgot to mention that I'm happy (as I indicated before by not reverting) to accept your super-short intro as a stop-gap measure until 172 stops trolling we figure something out. -- VV 01:25, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

FWIW (and if you'll forgive me belaboring the point, what we think is apparently not worth anything), sarcasm aside, Eloquence's list is fine. I still think US support is a bit off the path - it's not mentioned in the intro to, say, Israel - but it's okay as long as the intro does not also say Pinochet is pure evil and the text provides for understanding the US's policy choices in context (Eloquence sees no/little moral grey here, of course, but others do). The US-coup allegation remains a sticky point, and none of my tries (e.g., "support for Pinochet's government" w/o specifics) for anything short of what's there now seemed to gain consensus acceptance. -- VV 12:34, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Wow, it's nice reading something by VV that isn't an attack on me for a change. Anyway, while I agree with everything in the above paragraph , I'd like to add that I don't see a "sticky point" in my intro, which doesn't misconstrue the scope of U.S. involvement in the coup ('backing' does not mean 'orchestrated' or 'deciding factor'), and even includes a footnote to check the possibilities of confusion. 172 01:18, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

BTW, if VV wants the U.S.'s 'policy choices in context,' let's drop the debate about the 'morality' entirely (let's agree to agree that the U.S. role was 'moral' to Pinochet but immoral to Allende...). Instead, we can add to the footnote about the authoritarian swing in South America in the 1960s and 1970s, and the context of both heightened political instability in South America and the growing significance of Latin America as an arena of Cold War conflict. 172 01:33, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

In a footnote? -- VV 01:42, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the not worth anything was an "attack" (in your parlance) on you. But anyway your version has only one of Eloquence's four points, unless you count your false/deceptive "US-backed" (you're not fooling me one bit on that) as making up point 2. -- VV 01:23, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

And just how is adding "U.S.-backed "false/deceptive?" 172 01:33, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Refer to the thousands of words above. I'm not playing your games. -- VV 01:42, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I reread your comments. So I'm abusive, trolling, pushing leftwing mythology, taking a unilateral stance, a poor writer, beholden to the far-left view, anti-consensus, and an uncivil pusher of misinformation; I only tolerate my own version, and deliberately add inflammatory misinformation over several users' wishes. Now that we've established this, how is my version of the intro "false/deceptive," considering the addition of the footnote, the definition of "backing," and the history? 172 01:57, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm waiting. 172 03:52, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Don't wait too long. People have lives ;-) --Cantus 04:01, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

A particularly comical example of this is in Talk:Origins of the American Civil War/Archive 1 under the rule under section 6, where 172 declared "proof" that I was "trolling" because I did not respond to his comment within thirty-one minutes! Anyway, 172 is playing dumb here; if he really had reread the comments, he would have seen the extensive discussion on this point, the most reason one involving him, Cadr, and me. But what trolls do is post inflammatory content to provoke more and more responses. That's why he wants me to keep repeating myself. -- VV 11:29, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

I think US-backed is a bit misleading, 172. It does imply (to me at least) that the particular coup which actually happened was materially supported by the US. This may well have been the case, but we can't be sure. Cadr

Of course it implies this. 172 knows this perfectly well. He just wants us to say it again and again in multiple forums (we even had this discussion in Wikipedia:Requests for protection). -- VV 11:35, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Please explain how MSN Encarta is false/deceptive as well. In the intro for their Pinochet article, they add, "Pinochet was one of the leaders of a United States-backed military coup d'état that deposed the Marxist government of Allende in 1973." [8] If anything, their writers must be far worse "pushers of inflammatory misinformation" than I am. They don't even bother to add a footnote in order to ensure that readers are not thinking "orchestrated" when they see "backed." 172 21:11, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Encarta. Cadr

Quite right. Encarta does not have an NPOV policy. -- VV 06:18, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but for the sake of argument, I'm saying that if one applied Wikipedia's governing policies to this Encarta entry, this intro would fit well in the context of Wikipedia as well. So far, I've only been told why a misinterpretation of my intro also ignoring the footnote might be problematic. 172 22:06, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

The footnote isn't even needed. "U.S.-backed" is perfectly correct and indisputable. It is amazing how VV calls this misinformation when Colin Powell himself said that "what happened with Mr. Allende" (what does that mean if not the coup in which he died?) "is not a part of American history that we're proud of" (what does that mean if not that it was backed by the U.S.?). VV is obviously trying to censor any facts that might reflect negatively on the U.S., but facts are facts. --Wik 22:15, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

What Powell said is extremely open to interpretation, and I hardly think what he says is NPOV. I understand that what 172 means by "US-backed" is uncontroversial, but it's a sad truth that words don't always mean quite what people want them to. We're not lying. To a lot of people, "US-backed" strongly implies "US-aided/organized", and that's the only reason I want it changed (because there is no conclusive evidence that the US aided/organized a coup specifically with the intention of bringing Pinochet to power). I don't think anyone disagrees about the facts, it's just an issue of presentation. Cadr

This is Wik's old argument all over which he somehow thinks settles the issue. What Powell said is of course open to interpretation, but more to the point he is no position to say anything authoritatively. He was not involved in the coup and his opinion matters about as much as mine does. -- VV 06:18, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Re the footnote, I just think it's silly, sorry. There's plenty of room in the intro for a proper explanation, and a footnote rather implies that the intended meaning of "US-backed" is some minor side-issue. Judging by the debate that's been going on for God-knows-how-long, I think we can all agree that's not the case. Cadr

Yes, the footnote is silly. But it's even sillier to insist that factual content be kept out of the article because someone states that hypothetically someone else could be under the wrong impression that a single word means something that it does not. So, in order to compromise with Veriverily's extremely silly stance, I am offering a somewhat less silly footnote. 172 00:16, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

My point is that your interpretation of "US-backed" is not the only sensible interpretation. It is not that it might hypothetically be misinterpreted by some deliberately contrary fool; it is actually unclear what it means. To me, the word "US-backed" implies quite strongly "US-organized". We should either drop the issue of US support from the intro altogether, or have a full explanation. Cadr

Well, my "interpretation" is the only one that fits the dictionary definition(s). Yes, 'U.S. backing' and 'U.S. planning' are not mutually exclusive, but you still cannot infer things that are not within the confines of the definition(s) of "backing," which **does not** in and of itself imply anything else without further information. 172 01:56, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

It's more of this "dictionary definition" crap. No one needs a dictionary. This is a common English word and I am a native English speaker and US-backed means a hell of a lot, especially when it's one of only a few things put in an intro paragraph. -- VV 06:18, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

You can go ahead and disregard the meaning of words, and base everything on the whim of emotional reactions to the fantasy world in which you live, in which misinformation is facts and facts are misinformation. That doesn't matter to me, as I consider you irrelevant. I will continue to write articles for English Wikipedia in English and add factual content. 172 07:58, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

The word "US-backed" is not in the dictionary. I am a native English speaker, so is VV; our opinions of what it means matter. You are not an authority on the English language (and neither is anyone else either). If we say it means X to us (and probably a lot of other people), then we are just telling the truth, we're not ignoring the facts. Cadr

You should also bear in mind the semantics/pragmatics distinction. Dictionaries aren't much use to us here: we're talking about what the word implies, not its dictionary defintion. Cadr

Language is a tricky matter. But facts and the meaning of words are all we have to go on here, so I'll continue to hold that a factual summation of history takes precedence over Veriverily's feelings and chauvinist U.S. nationalist jingoism. BTW Cadr, can you think of a word that's less commonly 'misunderstood' than "backing" to go in its place? 172 09:06, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

You seem to be missing my point. Your summation of history is not factual because "US-backed" does not convey your intended meaning to a lot of people (including myself). This has nothing to do with "chauvinist U.S. nationalist jingoism" — I'm as left-wing as they come. Re your question, I wouldn't use a single word, I'd have an expanded intro something along the lines of VV's. Cadr

I wasn't asking for your political affliations, but rather if you can think of a better word from your vantage point to replace 'backing.' 172 15:17, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

As I said in my previous response: "I wouldn't use a single word, I'd have an expanded intro something along the lines of VV's." And if you aren't interested in people's political affiliations, why are you making wild assumptions about what they are and inluding them in your posts? Cadr

Re: "As I said in my previous response: 'I wouldn't use a single word, I'd have an expanded intro something along the lines of VV's.'" Does or doesn't the footnote I am offering suffently contextualize the intro? If not, then explain why. Re: "And if you aren't interested in people's political affiliations, why are you making wild assumptions about what they are and inluding them in your posts?" Where did I bring up assumptions about your 'political affiliations?' My comments did not pertain to you, and I do not wish to discuss this with you. 172 17:14, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

The footnote, as I've said before, is silly — we should just have a full explanation in the intro or drop the matter entirely. You didn't bring up my political affiliations, you brought up VV's (I said "people's poltical affiliations", not "my political affiliations"). In any case, since you attributed VV's views to his (supposed) political tendencies, and I agreed with VV in many respects, and you were replying to one of my posts, it was sort of implied...Cadr

BTW, you still have not presented any evidence as to your claim that users will see "U.S.-backed" but think "U.S.-installed." The word backing refers to support, assistance, or encouragement (against a contending force). On that note, would you feel better with the synonymous "U.S.-supported" instead? 172 17:23, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

The adjective "X-backed" is extemely vague. In the context, with no supplementary information, it appears to many people (for example to me and VV) that the intro is suggesting the US supported Pinochet directly. "US-supported" is worse than "US-backed", it seems to imply that the US organized the coup to some degree (which as I've said before, may well have been the case, but there is not any very strong evidence for it). Cadr

No, the intro is saying that the U.S. backed the coup. You could claim that you think that it is suggesting anything, and thus you have reason to make any ridiculous demand you want. These misunderstandings are much more "silly" than the footnote. 172 23:29, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

The adjective "X-backed" is extremely vague; its meaning varies greatly with context. Let's take a look at the pragmatics of "US-backed coup" in your intro to the article. It's a short intro, so the reader will naturally assume that only important information is in it. Now, if "US-backed" is being used in the limited sense of "desired" or "sought-for", the fact that the coup was "US-backed" in this sense would not be particularly remarkable — the US was bound to prefer one or other of the governments, and unless they provided some kind of material support to the coup, it's not overwhelmingly interesting who their preferred ruler of Chile was. So the reader might well conclude that "US-backed" was being used to mean "materially supported by the US", or something like that. Given that there is not any conclusive evidence that the US materially supported the coup, only that they desired and fermented a coup, the intro is a little misleading. I find your statement that "You could claim that you think that it is suggesting anything, and thus you have reason to make any ridiculous demand you want." rather rude. If you refuse to believe anything I say, I don't see how we can have a grown-up discussion. The word "US-backed" gives a misleading impression to me and several others, honestly. The footnote clears up the ambiguity, but its silly to cause unnecessary confusion and then clear it up with a footnote — why not just extend the intro to avoid confusion in the first place? (Note: this does not mean adopting VV's intro as it stands, since it has little more of a consensus that yours or mine.) Cadr

Well, if cognitive dissonance is causing you not to understand things you read, that's none of my business. After all, I'm a historian, not a psychologist. I offered you a footnote (which Encarta doesn't even bother with) - take it or leave it. 172 00:06, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

There you go, being needlessly rude again. Look, this is Linguistics 101. Words can have (very) different meanings depending on their context. Not everyone will interpret a sentence you wrote the way you intended. This does not mean that they have cognitive dissidence (I think you mean "dissonance", btw) or that they are living in a world of make-believe. Personally, I think the problem is that nature of US support for the coup is too complex to be summarised accurately by a single adjective. As I said, if you refuse to believe that I am not a retard, and that I am not being deliberately difficult in my reading of your intro, we can't have a sensible dicussion. Maybe if you'd explain what was incorrect or misguided in my previous post, we could. "Take it or leave it" is precisely the un-Wikilike attitude which has lead to this page being repeatedly protected. Cadr

I was typing too fast for my own good, being rushed for a meeting. That's what I meant. Anyway, we're not just dealing with any context, but the context of what the word means in this intro (which I'm sure everyone has read many times over and in the context of the footnote). I can't help it if people can't read, but the intro in question does not state that the U.S. provided backing to Pinochet, that the U.S. was in control of the situation, that the U.S. role was the deciding factor, and that the U.S. initiated the coup. You are being deliberately difficult in your reading of the intro; you'd be able to use the same argument to raise objections about anything posted in any intro. 172 02:54, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

The intro implies quite strongly all the things you claim it doesn't "state", as I have explained in enormous detail (and I was talking about what "US-backed" means in the context of the intro, as I made painfully clear). Still your only reply is to deny outright my opinion of what the intro means (I can't read apparently — this is news to me and several other people), and to make out that I'm using some sort of bizarre semantic argument (i.e. reading a sentence in context) to arrive at "deliberately difficult" readings of your intro. You refuse to believe a word I say or (apparently) read a word of my postings; you refuse to countenance any opinion or interpretation of your precious intro other than your own. Why are you being so rude? This isn't a personal attack on you, I just want to change the intro a bit. Why can't you accept that there are some problems with your intro? Cadr

I disagree that it implies at all any of the things I claim it doesn't "state," as I have explained in enormous detail (and I was talking about what "US-backed" means in the context of the intro, as I made painfully clear). And yes, once again, you really are being deliberately difficult in your reading of the intro. 172 14:31, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

You haven't responded to any of my points, so I don't have much to say. I know you disagree that it implies those things, but as I've said over and over again, the same sentence can imply different things to different people. Your opinion isn't the only one that matters. If anyone is being deliberately difficult, it's you. Cadr

Of course it can imply different things to different people. So can any sentence in an intro. I'm only saying that it isn't too ambiguous for an intro sentence. 172 16:19, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes, and you're wrong, in the case of this particular sentence. I've explained in detail why I think you're wrong, but you haven't responded to most of my points. Saying your intro isn't too ambiguous don't make it so. Cadr