This is an archive of past discussions about Augusto Pinochet. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Well, then expand the footnote, if you want. But your hypothetical example isn't good enough to change my mind. Please edit this this footnote accordingly.17217:34, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
What hypothetical example? VV and I both actually find "US-backed" ambiguous and potentially misleading, as I've explained before. The big long post I made explaining how a reader might interpret "US-backed" was just a way of justifying a point that's obvious to almost everyone except you — that "US-backed" is ambiguous and potentially misleading — in order to counter your insulting allegations that I'm lying about my intuitions in this regard. Apparently you want to have it both ways: if I use a hypothetical example, you object because it's hypothetical; if I explain my own intuitions or cite VV's, you refuse to believe me. The footnote is silly because it would make more sense just to write an unambiguous intro in the first place, as I've explained before. Cadr
That's a pretty stupid response on Wikipedia. I'm not going to take it, and I'm not going to leave it. Cadr
That's right, the page will continue to be protected until you decide to compromise. So far, I've tried to meet you halfway by offering you the footnote, but you scoff on the sprit of compromise in my offer. 17223:27, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
I don't have to accept whatever compromise you deign to offer, and you certainly haven't met me half way. Given that a footnote is exactly what I don't want, you've done the opposite and gone off in your own direction. In any case, you've rejected everyone else's offers of a compromise, and have yet to respond to virtually any of my arguments against your introduction and its silly footnote. I will not compromise with someone who can't justify their position, and whose idea of compromise is "take it or leave it". Cadr
Well, for the record, let it be known that I have been the only one to offer a compromise. I don't particularly want the footnote either, but I made an attempt to end the edit war. 17212:25, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
The record tells a different story. And you still haven't responded to my points and justified your intro. Cadr
I beg your pardon? It is clear by virtue of our ongoing conversation alone that I have been the only one to offer a compromise. We've been having an argument over the reference to U.S. backing. Although I am dismissing your "points" (which are based on an assumption that you don't back up with evidence and with which I fundamentally disagree with - namely that the word 'backing' is so widely misunderstood), I have already agreed to disagree, thus explaining my offer of the compromise footnote, in which you can contextualize things as you see fit. 17212:59, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
Sure, you offered a compromise, but you aren't the only person to have done so. I didn't like your proposed compromise, and I've explained why. I have backed up my points with a lot of evidence. If I use my own intuitions (and VV's) about what "backing" means, you don't believe me. If I use a hypothetical example and work it through in detail, you object because it's hypothetical. What other kind of "evidence" can one use to show what a word or sentence implies? Why is it that you do not have to provide any evidence in favour of your views on this matter — do you have a privaleged uderstanding of language? This isn't an issue of someone "misunderstanding" "US-backed", it's an issue of someone coming to a perfectly reasonable interpretation of it which is contrary to fact. Your apparent desire is for you to write the intro, and everyone else to have their contributions reduced to "contextualizing" your brilliant prose in a poncey little footnote. Cadr
This isn't about saving face. I'm fine with mentioning U.S. backing, you're not, so a workable compromise is adding a footnote, which means that you can rest assured that readers won't read "backed" but think "installed." 17213:38, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
That's not my position. I'm fine with mentioning the US role, so long as the wording used is unambiguous. In fact, I'm fine with having a large porition of the intro dedicated to describing the US role. You tell me that I "can rest assured that readers won't read 'backed' but think 'installed.'" Why? I've given plenty of reasons to think the contrary. Cadr
Although the meaning of the word backing only refers to support, aid, or encouragement, I have agreed to disagree with you on the point that readers won't read 'backed' but think 'installed.' So, this isn't about giving more hypothetical reasons to think the contrary just to save face. Instead, we can rest assured that readers won't misinterpret "U.S. backing" in the presence of the footnote. 17213:58, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
As you said, the word refers to "support, aid, or encouragement". There is no conclusive evidence that the US (materially) aided the coup to any great extent, so by your own definition of the meaning of "US-backed" (which is anyway very conservative and does not take context into account) the term is misleading.
Hold on, now you are being deliberately misleading. I was referring to a one of a number of dictionary definitions (moreover I used "or" rather than "and"), not what is implied in the context of the intro. 17214:15, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
I don't get what your're saying here. If one of the possible meanings of "backed" is "aided", one of the possible meanings of "US-backed" is misleading. The context does nothing to filter out this misleading interpretation. Cadr
You are wrong to think that readers won't read "backed" and think "installed" — the only reason me and VV are arguing with you is because we did exactly that. The footnote clears up the issue, but it would be much better to use clear language in the main body of the text and avoid a footnote altogether. Cadr
It was clear enough for Encarta, and I think that it is clear enough in the context of WP's NPOV policy. But do you want to save face and argue this forever, or move on and compromise?
Oh, and for the last time, my reasons were not hypothetical. I only started using hypothetical examples because you refused to believe my own personal intuitions, and VV's account of his. Cadr
Well, your reasons were certainly backed up by hypothetical examples. Short of an empirical test and a survey analysis of readers' impressions, we aren't going to be able to bring this argument to a closure. Do you just want this back-and-forward two-way argument between us on the talk page to go on forever? 17214:15, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
No, my reasons were backed up by actual examples, i.e. me and VV's reading of the intro, which you disengenuously refused to believe. There's already been an emprical test — we find the intro misleading, and would not have any argument with it if we did not. In fact, even by your own definition of what "US-backed" means it's misleading, as I pointed out above, so I'm not sure how you can still defend it. Do I want this argument to go on forever? No, but until we can find a real compromise (i.e. a compromise which appeals to me as well as to you) it presumably will. Cadr
Well, the poll results on this page indicated pretty damn strongly that a majority of users who responded disagreed with you and VV. Yet, you don't seem to want compromise. You seem to want to play a semantics game instead. 17216:43, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
It's not a question of majority — "US-backed" is misleading to a significant number of people, so it shouldn't be used. If I am playing a semantics game, I'm playing it by your rules, since "US-backed" is misleading according to your own definition of the word. You can trivialise any meaningful discussion by terming it a "semantics game"; as far as I can see it's just a synonim for important and meaningful. Cadr
<later edit>Also, I think many people in the polls supported inclusion of "US-backed" because they wanted the article to state that the US was directly involved in the coup. I'm certainly sympathetic to this view, but it's not NPOV</later edit>
You keep stating your argument and assumptions over and over again, so I guess I'll repeat over and over again that I'm willing to agree to disagree on whether or not a significant number of people will read "backed" but think "installed," and thus I'll accept a footnote that you're free to rewrite and/or expand. 17217:26, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
I've repeated them because you haven't responded to them. If we have to agree to disagree, I'd at least like to know why you disagree. Cadr
In any case, the point of disagreement is the neutrality of the article. I can't just agree to disagreee on that. Cadr
The footnote doesn't resolve the NPOV issue very effectively. By your own definition of the word, "US-backed" is misleading. Why not just remove it and add a bit of extra text with a proper explanation? Cadr
I'm not. Here's a quote: "Although the meaning of the word backing only refers to support, aid, or encouragement, I have agreed to disagree with you on the point that readers won't read 'backed' but think 'installed.'". Now, since "US-aided" coup would be misleading, "US-backed" coup would, according to the definition you gave, be at least potentially misleading. I know you gave that definition as a dicdef, not as the meaning of the word in the context of the intro, but there is nothing in that context which precludedes the "aided" interpretation (or if there is, you didn't explain what it is the last time I made this point). Cadr
I already explained that you were quoting me out of context. I am going to cease responding to you if you continue to play games with me. 17218:02, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
I'm not quoting you out of context. I mean I included about half of your post, and the remainder of the relavent context I summarised by saying that "I know you gave that definition as a dicdef, not as the meaning of the word in the context of the intro..." The rest of your post, and even the surrounding posts, are here for anyone to read. If you really think I've quoted you out of context, you should at least explain why (I responded to your original explanation some time ago). Really I have to play games you, because you never discuss any substantive issue. Every point I make is countered only by vague accusations. Cadr
You are not sucking me into any more semantics games. This will be my last response to you on this page unless you start considering compromise. 17218:21, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
Semantics games? You accused me of quoting you out of context and I explained why I didn't think I was; semantics didn't enter into it. If I was interested in playing semantics games I might ask you to look up the definition of "semantics", to stop you abusing the poor word so. You apparently have nothing of interest to say, choosing instead to evaid my points and throw around unsubstantiated allegations which change from one minute to the next without explanation. It's impossible even to have an argument with you. Cadr
172's characterization of himself as the only one to offer a compromise is absurd. At least five users worked through numerous drafts of the intro to find one which pleased (or at least didn't offend) everyone. This includes me; I made several edits and re-edits in hopes of accommodating all concerns raised. By contrast, 172 is not willing to alter so much as one word of his intro paragraph; his only compromise is to add a 1 to his deceptive intro, where a reader can follow a link to a (poorly worded) "footnote" at the bottom of the page. Of course, if anyone's been reading this far, they already know this to be true. - VV22:02, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
Need to note that Allende was not nearly as popular as claimed
Just my 2 cents. It is deceptive to say
citing the Chilean coup as an example of U.S. intervention that went against the wishes of the local population. Powell responded: "With respect to your earlier comments about Chile in the 1970s and what happened with Mr Allende, it is not a part of American history that we're proud of." The newspapers in Chile hailed the news as the first time the U.S. Government had conceded a role in the affair.
because the claim that the coup was against the wishes of the locals is not necessarily well substantiated. Allende won the election with 34% of vote, and the conservative party candidate got approximately the same percentage, the rest going to the centrist guy. So it is more likely that in fact the majority (as in more than 50%) of Chileans opposed, or at least had reservations about, Allende and his policies. And do not forget that there were very many supporters of Pinochet who demonstrated against Allende and for the coup, presumably all those 30% of the voters who supported the right wing candidate. So bottom line is, Pinochet has subverted freedom of election and democracy in Chile, but this was not somehow blanketly "against the wishes" of the people. It was for the wishes of some and against wishes of others, and this has to be properly reflected in an encyclopedia article. And as for the invasion of Iraq, hey, once again we subverted an elected leader, this time one with 100% electoral support... Watcher00:30, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
All fair points, but it's worth noting that (at least according to the election results) Allende was more popular than any of the alternatives — he had a plurality. Pinochet was apparently less popular than Allende, and if there was not a majority in favour of any candidate, the fact that Allende didn't have a majority was a weak argument for deposing him, to say the least. Of course you have pointed out a POV/factual inaccuracy issue which should definitely be addressed, I just think we should keep it in perspective. Cadr
In terms of political parties, at least, Allende had two of the three traditional thirds of Chilean politics against him. Both the right (the National Party) and the center (the Christian Democratic Party) were allied against Allende, and
the Christian Democracy, at that time the most important party, initially hailed the coup. They became part of the opposition after some time (months, or at most couple of years, not sure) after it became evident that the military were there to stay for a while. Also, talking about "supporters of Pinochet" at that time hides the fact that the coup was not a personal one, it was a widespread military intervention, and the fact that Pinochet was the commander in Chief of the Army at that moment was only because he was perceived to be by his predeccesor a "constitucionalist", that would not participate in a coup.
Pinochet was the least political of those participating in the coup, and the the regime became highly personalized in Pinochet only after the coup. Probably (but I'm speculating here), had Pinochet been refused to join the coup, either he would have been replaced by some of his more activelly pro-coup subordinates, or there could have been a civil war between pro and against Allende forces. The regime was not only of Pinochet: even After Pinochet became "President of the Republic", burying the rotating presidency idea, all the "decrees law" that would be the only means of legislating until the constitution of 1980 had to be signed by all four commanders in chief (three commanders in chief and Director General of Carabineros, to be precise), meaning that each of them had veto power, and, in fact, they did use that power often.--AstroNomer 16:24, May 12, 2004 (UTC)
How to get this page unprotected
Okay, we had at least some content-related discussion interspersed with the sniping, but now the primary combatants in the revert war appear to have moved on to other projects, and I don't think the discussion moved very far toward a resolution of the dispute.
The dispute is entirely over the introduction, so in order to remove the protection, I think it would be best to have a new introduction ready to go. That's what this page is for, to hash out proposed changes to the text. Once the new introduction is ready, it will be the first edit after unprotection, and the article can go forward from there. So I suggest that we start from scratch and have everyone work together to write the introduction over again.
Use the space below to work on the introduction. Please start from a blank slate, instead of working from either of the currently competing versions. No reverting allowed; if you have problems with something, rewrite it, but don't just go back to what you wrote before, because if somebody else changed it, that means they had problems with your version. Good luck! --Michael Snow16:19, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
That's where we were weeks ago, before I was even involved. My rewrite already reconciled the two contending versions and cut out the excess verbiage. At any rate, I am still going to keep my positions consistent. I'd rather delete sentences than use the old "some people have said" line. And will not stand for the removal of relevent, factual content because facts hurt a Wikipedia user's feelings. Moreover, perhaps everyone has forgotten that we're supposed to be writing an encyclopedia here. Compromise between users is not a virtue in and of itself; the only relevent consideration for our purposes as editors is the quality of the article. So, I would appreciate it if people would not step in looking to cook up new schemes for mediation. We need people to step in and differentiate who's right and who's wrong on matters relating to the substance of the article. 17216:54, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
I think the suggestion that 172's intro has succeeded in reconciling anything is contradicted by the evidence above, but I certainly agree with his last two sentences. That said, Michael's intentions are obviously good, and we appreciate the effort. Good luck is certainly something we're going to need ;) Cadr
Fine, I can't force people to participate in "mediation", if that's what you want to call my involvement. But you do need to move towards consensus on the introduction, otherwise the page will keep getting protected. The suggested content arbitration is a possibility, if people are willing to accept it, and if you can find an arbiter. --Michael Snow19:30, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
172's statement that he "will not stand for the removal of relevent, factual content" means he will keep adding unproven but widely believed claims as if they were fact.
We will not get anywhere that way...--AstroNomer 22:08, May 13, 2004 (UTC)
On what basis do you claim that I am "adding unproven but widely believed claims?" Where is your evidence? 17223:31, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
172 is correct that Michael's suggestion is where we were weeks ago before his involvement, which is why things were fine and 172 is the sole problem user on this page. We did go through the named process, and did come up with an intro that satisfied the various parties (172 dismisses this consensus-building as "partisan bickering" which he could "care less" about). But 172 will have none of it. His version must stand unaltered, and (to quote from above) if you don't like it "you'll just have to bear it", "take it or leave it". 172 is simply not interested in the Wiki process. It is because of people like him completely convinced that they are right and that there is no need to adjust to anyone else's concerns that Wikipedia has so many edit wars. There is no working with someone who insists on sole authorship; that is why the edit box warns "edited mercilessly". People like that should shape up or leave. 172 knows perfectly well he is adding "unproven" claims, but he just plays semantic games with everyone who takes time out to explain it to him. That is why I regard this as trolling, he's being inflammatory and provoking response. -- VV01:16, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
We really need to get an arbitrator in. This me-you-and-172 debate has just been going round in circles forever. I'll refrain from blaming anyone (though it's tempting ;). Cadr
VV, we have a No personal attacks policy. Taking things down to the personal level won't bring us forward on this matter. If you have problems with 172 that you don't think you can resolve, please start an arbitration request on him.
On the matter of the introduction, I think we are not that far from consensus at all. Maybe one of the changes that are required is to simply substitute "US-backed coup" with "US-backed government" (which is a documented fact, while the US-backed coup statement is too ambiguous).--Eloquence*
??? How is anything I've said a "personal attack"? I have been summarizing 172's behavioral patterns using his own words. Curiously, no one seems interested when 172 calls me a "right-wing" "chauvinist U.S. nationalist" who acts on "emotional" whims and lives in a "fantasy world", or when he called me RickK's "little bitch" or said my edits were "bullshit" and "gibberish". I guess those aren't personal attacks, but instead the thoughtful reflections of a "professional historian". Sure, there are no double standards here. Anyway, what is there to disagree with in my analysis of 172's behavior? And, we are at consensus, not counting 172, who has essentially opted out of that process. As for your recent proposal, I don't like "US-backed government" for two reasons: (1) it implies somehow that the US was propping it up, and that it would have collapsed without it, and (2) mentioning the US, a foreign nation, however involved in the Chile issue they were, as the first and only modifier describing the government, gives it undue prominence; why mention this aspect among all of them? Anyway, we have a perfectly good intro already, which we both worked on to find an agreeable version. 172 has no substantive objection to it except for it was not written solely by his own hand. -- VV09:32, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
I changed wording on admirers and critics to just say "some", reason being that it is redundant to note that people who say such things are admirers/critics, and so let's be concise. I don't think the "specifically" part re annoyance about the coup is necessarily accurate; many are more upset at the US's arguably Machiavellian decision to support Pinochet after the coup. And I removed mention of the general US support for a coup, reason being that that is not relevant to Pinochet at all, except in that it may be evidence for CIA support for the coup. But specific pieces of evidence should be discussed in the text, not the intro. -- VV21:08, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
Most of the rationale for my recent edits is in the edit summaries, but I'd just like to say that I think that if we are going to mention the allegations that the CIA was involved in the coup, we should also mention that it was CIA policy for Allende to be overthrown by a coup (although I don't think this is quite what VV was getting at). Otherwise we risk making accusations of CIA involvement sound like a crackpot conspiracy theory (which they're not) unless the reader takes the time to read through the detailed discussion in the rest of the article. Cadr
I don't see how saying there are allegations means it is a crackpot theory. (Compare, e.g., the intro to O. J. Simpson.) There is no need to detail the reasons for this belief in the intro, just as there is no reason to rebut this assertion there. - VV21:49, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps, but CIA plotting to remove Allende and the subsequent US support for Pinochet not only give context to the allegations of CIA involvement in the coup, but have also been criticised in their own right. Unless we include all three objects of criticism we're telling half the story, even in an introduction summary. It gives the impression that any allegations of CIA/US plans to depose Allende are speculative, since no other allegations are mentioned. Cadr
I still disagree; that's what the text is for. Justifying the allegations is not only out of scope but places way too much emphasis on one aspect of Augusto Pinochet, about who so much more could be said. The CIA plotting to remove Allende in 1970 has no provable connection to Pinochet whatsoever; many other groups also had abortive plots. I could have been plotting to remove him for all it matters. -- VV22:08, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
I mostly agree with you. My point is that if we mention allegations of US involvement in the coup, we should also mention other allegations (i.e. the allegations that the US/CIA supported Pinochet after the coup and had longstanding plans to overthrow Allende). It seems wrong to mention only one of these three closely connected allegations, but I'd be fine with mentioning either all or none of them. Cadr
Okay, I guess my issue is that if we're going to mention allegations, we should only mention those connected to Pinochet, not the CIA's abandoned efforts in 1970, or mass anti-Allende advertising in 1964. I'm also of course happy not broaching this subject in the intro, and leaving just the substantial section to discuss it. Anyway, honestly, is there really a point to this? We had a similar conversation to get the current intro; can doing it this way realistically keep 172 at bay? -- VV03:36, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
Well US support for Pinochet's government is related to Pinochet, so perhaps we could mention that. Otherwise I agree with you, really. Probably the best policy is to mention none of this in the intro, if 172 will agree to it. Cadr
FYI, I will continue to press for including all the information included in my intro, but I am open to discussing re-writes and expanding the intro, as I have been all along. 17214:27, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
My changes: Change "return to democracy" to "civilian rule",
because how democratic the 1980 constition is (or was before
the ammendements) is subject to discussion. But the fact is,
that either Pinochet won or lost, there would have been a civilian government in 1990, with a congress in place, political parties (a law for them had been already passed) and the armed forces with no responsability in the government. There was a promise of Pinochet to leave his port in the Army if "elected", to emphasize more the distiction, but I don't know if he would have stood by his promise. For the Pinochet regime, the transition period was
from 1980 to 1989, when the transitory articles were valid. Nobody claimed that that period was democratic: executive power was Pinochet, and the legislative power was headed by the other commanders in chief and general director or Carabineros. But for the opposition (that became the government in the 1989 elections) the transition started then, with a 4 year presidency (created by the 1989 reforms,
before that reform all perios would be 8 year ones). About the immunity: all the members of congress have immunity that means they can not be processed before a higher court strip them of immunity. This also applied to Pinochet, and he was
in fact, stripped from his immnunity after he was arrested abroad.--AstroNomer 22:30, May 16, 2004 (UTC)
Just for the record, I'm pretty happy with the draft intro as it is now. Cadr
Which one? (I'm being deliberately obtuse because there are now two intro sandboxes listed above, which tells me we haven't gotten any closer to a resolution than before.) --Michael Snow22:48, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
The second sandox is just 172's personal one. This sandbox process appears to be changing nothing. We already developed a consensus version on the article itself (which is not obviously worse to me than the sandbox v.), and 172 refused to accept a word of it. Now that we're working with sandboxes, the same is taking place on those. - VV01:32, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
Michael Snow,
Veriverily is speaking about a "consensus" on the "Augusto Pinochet/intro" page among himself, Cadr, EdPoor, and AstroNomer- the users voting in the minority in the most recent round of polling. His preferred version does not have a "consensus" behind it. As usual, he is being misleading at best. This was really the winning position in the poll: "Yes, it should be asserted, in both the intro paragraph and the CIA role in coup section, and not marked as controversial." See for yourself above. 17202:14, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
I know quite well that VeryVerily's "consensus" version does not have your support, as the revert wars have shown, which naturally calls into question its ability to claim a consensus. Are you arguing that the "winning" position in the poll is a binding decision that determines a consensus and forever settles the question, regardless of minority objections? If so, I suggest you review Wikipedia:Polling guidelines. The entire history of this debate makes it abundantly clear to me that we do not have a consensus for either of the competing versions of the introduction, which was why I suggested starting over. Right now, we don't seem to be any closer to a consensus than we were when we started. --Michael Snow06:07, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
By "consensus" version I mean what we, several parties collaborating, had worked out together to come up with before 172 showed up and began attacking this article. That had basically reached a consensus. 172's subsequent attacks I suppose could be taken as anti-consensus, but of course he has dismissed that process utterly as "partisan bickering", so consensus does not seem on his mind anyway. At any rate, this is and remains a straightforward neutrality issue. - VV06:40, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, but in spite of your efforts I don't think the discussion has reached enough of a resolution right now to avoid a resumption of the revert war as soon as the page is unprotected. --Michael Snow21:54, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
Veriverily only chooses to lodge personal attacks against me as long as he manages to censor any facts that he feels might reflect negatively on the U.S. by means of a page protection. There cannot be a discussion unless the page protection is lifted. If we have to wait for Veriverily, the page might as well be protected permanently. 17222:51, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
Refer to the large number of people who have put effort into this article - Ed Poor, Cadr, Cantus, Eloquence - while 172 seeks to sabotage our efforts at working together and impose his own agenda. The Talk pages are available, so one can see 172 is lying. Although I have aired my frustration with 172 several times there, the issues have also been much discussed by me and others (i.e., "only" yeah right). As Cadr said on this very page [1], "Agree with VV. A lot of constructive work was being done on the page; the problems are almost enitrely down to the user he mentions." (in ref to 172) As soon as the protection is off, 172 will continue his activities. -- VV
Unprotect Augusto Pinochet. Cadr and Veriverily refuse to back down one inch, and no one else seems to be paying any attention. Is this page just going to be protected indefinitely? 17219:05, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
To summarize, it is 172 who refuses to budge and alter one word of the intro he wrote. All other parties have written several draft intros each to try to accommodate objections and concerns. 172 dismisses these efforts as "partisan bickering" and "bullshit". - VV22:30, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
Veriverily's comments are misleading at best. "All other parties," according to Veriverily, are the users (Cadr, EdPoor, AstroNomer, and himself) voting in the minority in the most recent round of polling. His preferred version does not have a "consensus" behind it. This was really the winning position in the poll: "Yes, it should be asserted, in both the intro paragraph and the CIA role in coup section, and not marked as controversial." 17202:25, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
Consensus had been reached before 172 started trolling; the poll was started afterwards and brought in random buddies of 172. The poll voters he cites consist mostly of users who had no role in editing or contributing to the page and visibly no understanding of the issues and were voting ideologically. Even so, the margin was only 8-5, far from overpowering. Furthermore, one does not vote on whether to be neutral. - VV06:44, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
I wasn't "brought in" to vote. Nor was I voting "ideologically", rather my vote was determined by my familiarity with the issues. Perhaps instead of attacking anyone who voted differently from him V V should present more compelling arguments AndyL10:33, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
Who am I attacking? And saying I "should present more compelling arguments" supports my supposition that you were not aware of the talk of these issues, because if so you would have seen the thousands and thousands of words arguing these very points. - VV23:20, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
I wasn't "brought in" to vote, I wasn't voting "ideologically" and I have made (minor) contributions to the article.
Ericd12:31, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
Regardless of who the poll may have "brought in", I think part of the purpose of listing this page at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, where it has appeared quite regularly for a while, is to "bring in" opinions from members of the community. Regardless of whose "random buddies" they are. Nor do I see why the fact that people have had little or no previous role in contributing to the page disqualifies their opinions, or shows that they have no understanding of the issues.
With that in mind, I don't see anything approaching a consensus for either version.
There is no consensus behind Veriverily's intro? So I am not a liar when I state otherwise? Veriverily stated, "Refer to the large number of people who have put effort into this article - Ed Poor, Cadr, Cantus, Eloquence - while 172 seeks to sabotage our efforts at working together and impose his own agenda. The Talk pages are available, so one can see 172 is lying." Can you ask this user to stop slandering me and giving misleading summaries of developments on the page so as to instill prejudice among other users against my comments? 17207:05, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
Even assuming that a consensus was ever "reached" (before or after the poll), the debates and revert wars prove that the consensus was never maintained. About the poll specifically, I note that the results as currently presented are heavily refactored, because the poll itself led to a revert war on this talk page. I don't question the validity of any individual user's vote, but I can't see a disputed poll, among a small sampling of Wikipedia users, as a permanently binding determination of consensus.
I do note that AndyL and Ericd were "brought in" (that is, specifically notified by 172 of this discussion) to validate their votes. Not that anybody should object to that, but I do hope that since they are now aware the debate rages on, they might stick around with the discussion to help us move toward a consensus. --Michael Snow16:39, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
Michael Snow, just to clarify the points I made which you disputed: Bringing in members is one thing, but campaigning specifically for one view does taint the results (you seem aware of this). As for the "no understanding of the issues", I was referring to the fact that some who voted in the poll gave reasons for their vote which showed they were wholly unaware of the ongoing discussion. For instance, giving the GWU link (which has already been cited and rebutted), claiming the US acknowledges that the CIA instigated the coup (which had been specifically contradicted by citing a CIA briefing), and saying that there is "no controversy" over it, when there clearly is. - VV23:20, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
Veriverily, you know very well that the intro does not refer to the coup as 'U.S.-instigated,' something about which there would really be controversy. The issue here is an intro that refers to U.S. backing, something about which there is no controversy. Your comments are addressing a non-issue. 17207:09, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
Once again, 172 ignores the fact that "US-backed" is ambiguous and misleading. See the discussion above...Cadr
And (for those who just tuned in) "US-backed" being one of the few things said in the first sentence strongly suggests the US's role was rather significant (merely "wanting it to happen" would not warrant such placement). VV11:14, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
This is loaded phrasing. I do not consider it misleading, but the simple fact that this discussion is taking place is proof that it is controversial. Eclecticology 17:07, 2004 May 19 (UTC)
Ec, this is asking whether or not the assertion is controversial, as opposed to an undisputable fact, not whether U.S. actions were 'controversial'. 172
[IMO "even in the presence of a footnote" should not be in the question, because some of us do not want a footnote even if we think it goes some way towards clearing up the NPOV issue. Cadr ]
By 172's own definition (see the discussion in section 10) the possible meanings of "backed" include "aided", so the word is misleading. 172 should also note that readers of this article are unlikley to look up every word they read in a dictionary, and should take the context of the word into account (as VV points out in his previous comment). Cadr
My own definition to "back" (v) is American Heritage's, which is to provide support, assistance, or encouragement for (a contending force). It does not necessarily entail the provision of "aid." Cadr is putting words in my mouth; I said "or" as opposed to "and" when I has written the word "aid" once (very hastily). 17211:49, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
The fact that you said "and" instead of "or" is of no significance, as I've pointed out already. If one possible meaning of "US-backed" is "US-supported" or "US-assisted" or "US-aided" (going on 172's earlier, different definition), the word is misleading. (There is no conclusive evidence that the US assisted/aided the actual 1973 coup). Cadr
The US didn't back the coup. Am I missing something here? Why would we say they backed it if they didn't? POV perhaps? Sam [Spade] 12:21, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
I recommend that respondents look up the dictionary definition for backing (n) or to back (v). 172 11:31, 19 May 2004 (UTC) "Backing" does not mean "instigated," "initiated," "orchestrated," "engineered," etc. 17211:31, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
This entire debate is utter nonsense. The historical record is clear: Nixon and Kissinger wanted Allende out and the CIA went about engineering it by funding the opposition, spreading FUD, and the like. The day of the coup, the American reporter Charles Horman was in Viña del Mar, near the port of Valparaíso, which was a key base for both the Chilean coup plotters and US military and intelligence personnel who were supporting them. He spoke with several US operatives and took notes documenting the role of the United States in overthrowing the Allende government. Several days later he was arrested and executed by the Chilean armed forces. His family believes this was because he (accidently) bore witnesss the US role in the affair. 'Backing'? Yep, I'd call it backing, although perhaps we could debate how active a role the CIA et al played in the coup, but nobody is claiming that the CIA itself bombed La Moneda -- Viajero16:03, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
OK, so where is all the evidence for this? (I expect it's all correct, but so far no-one has linked to any hard evidence.) Cadr
Erm yes...and this is not an argument ;) Other users are free to chime in, anyway. Cadr
cf: Missing by Thomas Hauser (1982) ISBN 01400.64532 (Sorry, not everything in the world is online) -- Viajero19:57, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
OK, so is there any evidence in it more concrete than the beliefs of a reporter's family? (Again, I would not be at all surprised if it does contain such evidence, but no-one has yet explained what it is, even vaguely.) Cadr
I thought that the U.S. (unofficial but institutional) support for the coup in Chile was widely known and uncontroversial. Are people disputing the facts or the choice of words? Certainly this issue must be in the article. Slrubenstein15:27, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
See the discussion if you want to know what the controversy is. (That is, you should have already.) VV21:31, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
I don't find it particularly misleading with the footnote, but I don't like the footnote for independent reasons (i.e. that it would be far better to replace it with a proper explanation of US involvement, rather than trying to clarify single vague adjective). Cadr
Like Slrubenstein, I'd never thought this was controversial until I saw the argument here. john16:06, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
Ruhrjung16:32, 19 May 2004 (UTC) No, it's the other way around. It's an issue of Wikipedia's credibility outside of the US. (Inside the US I recognize that not so few citizens, ignorant of US foreign politics, could deem this issue controversial – I know such people myself.)
Yes, yes, more about us dumb ignorant Puritan Americans and how we lack the sophistication and wisdom of you European intellectuals. Now, any substantive counterarguments, perchance? (P.s. You acknowledge "not so few"; see how that connects to NPOV policy?) VV21:31, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
Puritan yes – dumb no, not except for in your rhetoric above. Since I was 17 and started full-time apprenticeship, I admit to have studied the foreign language of the country where I live in any way resembling school. "Intellectual" - just the right accusation to throw at me! Common Americans being more ignorant of their country's foreign politics than the electorates of other democracies, that's a fact. The arguments are very well presented by plenty of others. There is no need to repeat those. I added what I hold for the most important, i.e. that of Wikipedia's credibility (outside of the US). Ruhrjung17:41, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
Supposed credibility over neutrality? Once again, I think you confuse your own personal opinions with those of the "rest of the world" (i.e., not the US). Which electorates of other democracies do you refer to, anyway? India? Nigeria? Oh no, wait, I know which you mean. P.s. I can't make head or tail of the "I admit..." sentence. VV07:42, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
AndyL16:36, 19 May 2004 (UTC) Even conservative analysts admit the US was involved in the coup. The only reason for claiming this question hasn't been settled is POV.
Eclecticology 17:07, 2004 May 19 (UTC) Not misleading. Under protest against using polls as a way to establish facts.
–Hajor20:18, 19 May 2004 (UTC) Not misleading; certainly not controversial in my neck of the woods. But not particularly happy about voting to establish facts, or about call-outs to footnotes in articles. Uncle Ed's suggestion below would be useful, if only we could get the right quotes (doubtful).
Secretlondon - I had no idea people still disputed this.
I wasn't going to vote on this, because I thought the poll question missed the mark. The issue isn't whether a particular wording is misleading, etc., but rather what's the best way to present the subject. I don't like the footnote. I thought the best approach was an in-text summary in the introduction, avoiding the word "backed," even though living with some nuance made for a longer intro. To that end I essayed a revision of the first-created sandbox. I tried to meet Cadr's objection to my initial version. Now, however, I find that VeryVerily has edited it so as to eviscerate any discussion of this issue in the intro. It seems, then, that each side has its own sandbox and the two sides continue to talk past each other. With regard to the intro, 172 wants a flat statement of "backed," somewhat qualified in a footnote, while VV wants a mere allusion to what "many believe," with no indication in the intro that they have any factual basis for their beliefs. As between those two extremes (CIA role stated as fact versus CIA role stated as mere unsupported opinion, albeit opinion of "many"), I prefer the former, although the specific wording of the footnote would need some work. I still think the footnote is, by its nature, an inelegant solution. It would be better for the text of the intro to state a few key evidentiary points, including the CIA's denial, rather than present the conclusion as an established fact. If other people agree with me, and say so and/or restore key data to the original intro sandbox, then perhaps we have a chance of reaching consensus on that approach. Until then, I'm going to turn my attention to editing the "succinct version" of the intro. Finally, on the issue of recruitment: 172 did urge me to vote in this poll. I ignored his urging for the reasons stated above. I have now been "recruited" to vote by VV's edit, not by 172's electioneering. JamesMLane00:13, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
It's your vote, but puzzling reasoning: you're not voting on the question asked in the poll. Anyway, the whole point of the sandbox is to experiment. I gave my reasons (several times) for my edits, which (perhaps ironically) largely come to succintness: the intro does not need to lay out the evidence, that's what the article for. The intro serves to summarize. Fercrissakes, look at the article, nearly half of which is now about the CIA. VV00:36, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
My vote is that the wording being polled is not misleading (the question asked in the poll) but that the wording also isn't good. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I agree that the intro should summarize, not present the whole discussion, but it involves striking a balance between, on the one hand, going into too much detail about the facts, and, on the other hand, simply saying "many believe" with no allusion whatsoever to the facts until later on. I don't think your edit version makes any attempt to strike that balance. Your version isn't a summary, it's a reference. My idea was that something taking up nearly half the article, as you put it, deserves a bit more space in the intro. I tried to put in a few critical points that would, for example, in response to SamSpade's inquiry, show that there are indeed references available, while also noting the CIA's denial and leaving the full elaboration for later in the article. My hope was that we could work out a consensus summary. Perhaps I was unduly optimistic. JamesMLane02:48, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
Backing suggests strong support, implying aid, financial, military, what-have-you. Anyone got any references showing anything like that? Sam [Spade] 12:24, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
There is evidence both ways and no consensus, which makes it hard to be both neutral and succinct. In addition, as the discussion above shows, people with different opinions can see different shades of meaning in a term like "backing." Therefore, I think we're stuck with having to go into somewhat more detail about what's known. Two specific points: (1) The heavy emphasis on the CIA could give the misleading impression that the CIA was running a rogue operation; the important issue is the role of the United States in Pinochet's accession, not the role of the CIA, so I've added the Nixon statement. (2) My response to Cadr's edit summary: The CIA has admitted advance knowledge of the coup. From CBS's report on the documents declassified during the Clinton Administration: "The CIA had prior knowledge of the plot that overthrew Allende three years later but denies any direct involvement. CIA spokeswoman Anya Guilsher said, 'We were aware of coup plotting in 1973, but we did not instigate it.'" (CBS News story and, to the same effect, CNN's story) Do we need to insert a citation into the text? That seems a little clunky given that this point, at least, is no longer seriously disputed even by the right-wingers now that the CIA has admitted it. JamesMLane13:48, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
That's only the nine-hundredth time (approx) Powell has been cited. He was discussed recently above. To summarize, he doesn't "admit" anything specific, and he wasn't part of the coup anyway, so his opinion is his own. VV21:39, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't see this on the talk page. How about just saying that the CIA has stated/admitted that it planned for a coup, rather than giving it as a plain fact? Cadr
Ah, you've added the cites. Thanks for the compromise :) If you like, I'd have no objection if you removed the actual links to the sources (if you feel these are a bit too in-depth for the intro). All I was really pushing for was an indication that the CIA had admitted to plotting a coup — this just makes the intro sound less POV, since it shows that the assertion of CIA plotting is strongly justified. Cadr
"Backing" is a very broad term. At one extreme it can be direct military involvement; at the other it can be nothing more than a speech expressing agreement with the coup. Anything in between can also be "backing". Eclecticology 17:35, 2004 May 19 (UTC)
It is documented that the US planned at least one coup in Chile, which was not Pinochet's coup. But that does not support the phrase in the intro, which is clearly saying that the US backed Pinochet's coup specifically. "Backed" places a clear image in my mind of some US agent standing in back of Pinochet saying "do this." Does anyone else get a similar mental image? Two alternatives: change "US-backed" to "US-favored," or insert after 1973: "following US efforts to destabilize the country." I think that US involvement is fairly and effectively presented later in the article; I'd like some mention of the Chilean congress's resolution, but that can be mentioned elsewhere. It's just that phrase in the intro that irks me. -- MW
Don't be silly
All this talk of settling the editing issues by polling and declaring "winners" is silly. As Michael pointed out (more politely!), that's not what polls are for. Well, I'm telling you that the official policy of this website is NPOV.
If a fact or value (or anything else important) is in dispute in an article, the Wikipedia is not supposed to settle the issue. Rather, it REPORTS WHAT THE VARIOUS SIDES SAY. Sorry for shouting, but some contributors on this page just don't get it.
Including a phrase like "US-backed coup" implies that Wikipedia endorses the view that the coup was backed by the US (whatever that means or entails). Since there is CLEARLY a dispute among us contributors about whether (or how much) the US "backed the coup", the Wikipedia cannot come out and say flatly that the US backed the coup.
Rather, the article must report what various historians and other observers have said. I'd be happy to see something like:
All historians, except for a few right-wing wackos, agree that the US backed the coup.
(Okay, wackos is a bit extreme, but you know what I mean: we attribute every point of view (POV) to the advocated of that POV.)
It might be a bit more polished to say:
Historians and others disagree over how much support the US gave to Pinochet. Joe Schmoe says the US "backed the coup by supplying arms, intelligence, money, and assurances of friendly future relations." Sam Shady, a known CIA operative, claims that the US had no part in the coup, aside from making public statements amounting to a claim that Allende was destroying the Chilean economy and driving the country toward dictatorship. (Note that these are made-up examples of the kinds of quotations we need to find and put into the article, so that all POV is properly attributed.) --Uncle Ed14:06, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
Thanks Ed. This exactly the way I see it. Sadly my limited English doesn't allow me to write this kind of balanced prose.
Ericd18:57, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
However, there is an inherent hard-to-solve problem with the NPOV-policy that many times has shown up when it comes to prioritizing things to put in the introductory paragraph and other prominent locations.
--Ruhrjung17:45, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
Poll results and their significance
Is everyone in agreement that 172 has won (oops, musn't use that word...) the poll? He has been quite active in canvasing voters, but I think it's unlikely that a comparable number of people could be convinced to vote in the other direction, and this is basically a repeat of a previous poll with a similar result. I think we should now decide whether the results of this poll have any implications for the content of the intro, which is doubtful in my opinion. If some of the voters would join in the actual discussion on this page, we might really get somewhere, but so far the pattern has been that only a small number of people have participated in discussion, while a much larger number has voted (and we have no way of knowing how well informed these people are with regard to the preceding dicussion — an important issue). Surely, if Wikipedia is discussion and consensus based, the views of people who have not (yet) entered into discussion are of dubious significance. Let's finish with the poll and get some more people involved in forming a consensus.
(Obviously a lot of the sentiment here comes straight from Ed Poor's post, but my additional suggestion is that we close the poll now, with the results archived as they currently stand.)
The poll is utterly meaningless, which is why I did not even take part. 172 recruited his ideological allies to vote, and they did. (With similar canvassing we could garner votes of our own, but no matter.) There are only one or two users I find it sad to see caring so little about NPOV, but the results change nothing. I already know about Wikipedia's strong political bias and don't need a poll to remind me. As has been pointed out, a similar poll on whether to include Criticisms of Mother Teresa would also probably go the wrong way. And Cadr is quite correct that most of those people have not participated in the discussion; statements such as "I didn't even know this was disputed" indicate, uh..., unawareness of what is going on here. VV21:21, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
To recap, we the then-editors of this page did reach a delicate consensus before the swarming started (first 172, then his friends). And 172 is the king of personal attacks; just look around. VV22:53, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
I get mad at being called 172's friend. :-(
He is one of the editors of Wikipedia I find the most damageing. I think VV is shooting himself in the foot.
I'm not saying you're 172's friend. I'm saying his friends started swarming. As an intellectual you should recognize this as the affirming the consequent logical fallacy. I'm aware of your general feelings about 172 and me, although I still don't feel I understand them completely despite our first conversation. VV20:48, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
I'd rather not get involved in personal disputes, but the idea that Wikipedia has a systematic left-wing bias is silly. There are lots of users who are on the left, and lots on the right. Different pages, and different disputes, might tilt one way or another, but the fact that pretty much everybody seems to feel that Wikipedia is biased against their POV suggests that we've got things about right, at least in terms of the big picture. As to this page as a whole, I'll have to read through the talk archives to see what points have been made, but I've really never seen it seriously disputed before that the US backed the coup. john21:33, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
Well, if I may say, you seem to have a bit of a left tilt yourself, which may be why things seem "about right" :). The main complaints about systematic "right-wing bias" come from those who want to see Wikipedia look like Mao's Red Book. There are, to be sure, other strains of thought here - though outnumbered sometimes persistent - and lesser articles often reflect the bias of the last to edit them. Still, I feel conservatives "stand out" here, and the more modest even half-apologize for their views (I recall User:Ark30inf's old user page). Anyway, if any good comes of this mess it'll be that a few may learn that their dogmas about the US turn out to not be so straightforward as they thought. VV22:51, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
I wouldn't deny having something of a left tilt. At the same time, I think it is deeply unfair to say that those who complain of a right tilt want to see Wikipedia look like Mao's Little Red Book, just as it would be unfair to say that those who complain about systematic left-wing bias want Wikipedia to look like Fox News. Probably more unfair, since Fox News is more within the realm of acceptable political beliefs than Maoism. At any rate, I'd add that the left bias (such as it exists) on Wikipedia is a rather intellectual, academic leftism, for the most part, and not very similar to the agitprop of Soviet-style communism. john00:26, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
I'm merely reporting my observations: people who talk of right-wing bias are often also quite interested in whitewashing Pol Pot and Josef Stalin. I don't doubt there is FOX News influence, but (as you note) FOX News is hardly extreme, and those who make specific accusations of such influence have largely ruined their credibility with me by accusing me of also being a FOX partisan (even the non-"Maoists", which also reflects poorly on them). Yes, "academic" leftism may more predominate here, but that's still a healthy tilt. VV00:43, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
Sure, but there's also people here who'd like to whitewash Nixon and Pinochet. FOX news certainly is extreme, so far as I can see; I suppose anyone who saw it as mainstream would probably perceive a left-wing bias in any serious political commentary. Being pretty left-wing myself, I've always perceived a right-wing bias to Wikipedia (at least on any issue involving America). I would say that there's very little "academic Xism" on Wikipedia, and a definite majority of underinformed Yism and Zism. Anyway, given that we all perceive different biases, it's probably fair to say that Wikipedia as a whole is fairly neutral, as John points out. Cadr
The point is is that "backed" is a vague word. Everyone thinks the US backed the coup in some sense, but it would be easy to read the intro and get the wrong idea (e.g. that there was direct US military involvement, at one extreme). The footnote helps with this, but I don't like it because the main body of the text should be clear in the first place. Cadr
Voting on POV/NPOV issues isn't very productive in my experience. I think we should continue to work towards a solution that is acceptable to all parties. In my opinion, writing that Pinochet's government was backed by the US is far less ambiguous than the assertion that the coup itself was backed (which is likely correct in virtually all possible interpretations, but still to some extent unproven). Then we can do away with the footnote and discuss the details of the coup in the appropriate section in the article.--Eloquence* 22:09, May 19, 2004 (UTC)
Encarta just mentions U.S.-backing in the intro with no footnote, but let's keep the footnote as a gesture of compromise [2]. We don't want an entire sentence or two on U.S. involvement, as this is an intro to a biographical article, not the 1973 coup. Please rewrite the footnote, though, if you want. 17200:31, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
Typical. Offer nothing and call it a "gesture of compromise". Who is 172 trying to fool? Well, my gesture of compromise is the wording I wrote. VV00:46, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
No, I didn't write the contents of the footnote. Cadr wrote it (I think- but uncertain) and you can rewrite it. That's pretty significant. 17200:48, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I didn't write the footnote (at least not originally; might have edited it sometime). Cadr
The footnote's pretty unpopular anyway, since it's an inelegant and not particularly effective solution. Several people who have voted no in the poll have said that they don't like it. It's certainly not the compromise to end all compromises, but you seem unwilling to consider any other compromise proposal. Cadr
You seem to have paid no attention that Cadr objected that "it's an inelegant and not particularly effective solution". The problems with the poll here have already been enumerated. VV12:06, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
Most of the people voting in the poll had no previous input to the page, and had not followed the previous discussion. The question was rather narrow, since it did not mention any alternatives to using "US-backed", so people could not object to your intro on grounds of style or clarity. I've explained inumerable times why the footnote is not a good idea, and even people who have voted no in the poll have said that they do not like it. All the poll does is verify that your intro is not especially misleading when the footnote is present; it is not a vote of confidence in your intro on any other grounds (i.e. style, clarity, etc.) If you wish to decide by poll which intro we should have, you need a new question (i.e. is this intro better than that intro?) Cadr
Give it up. If this goes to arbitration, you wouldn't even get the footnote. This will look like a deliberate stalling attempt to everyone else. I mean, the 14 users who voted "no" sure as hell aren't going to turn around and vote for an intro reading, "many people believe the CIA had a role in the coup." Please handle the poll results as honorably as TDC handled them on Talk:Fascism. That'll make things easier on all of us. 17212:14, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
Eloquence, I, and others have offered to drop mention of the alleged US/CIA role in the coup from the intro entirely, but you have scoffed at this generous compromise. VV12:18, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
That's not necessarily the intro they'd be asked to vote for, 172. The idea that this poll is all that is required to get your intro into the article is farsical. For a start, it doesn't show that your intro is any good, all it shows is that it's not misleading. This side-steps the main issue — no-one has seriously suggested that the intro is especially misleading with the footnote, but plently have objected to the footnote as a means of avoiding ambiguity (why not just use unambiguous language is the first place?) It may well be the case that a majority of people would find VV's or mine or JamesMLane's intro not to be misleading if a poll were held to find out, and such polls would surely be necessary to give context to your poll. To decide on an intro for the article, we would have to have a poll between several competing intros. You poll is a pathetic attempt to get any kind of positive result in the hope that people will be mislead into believing it is significant. If this goes to arbitration, I expect people there will take as dim a view of your poll question and your canvasing as they have here (complaint has been quite prevalent, even amongst those who voted no). Cadr
I see 172 would rather have another edit war than respond to my arguments. Cadr
Your argument against the succinct version of the intro emphatically lost with 88% voting against it. I'm done hearing you say the same things over and over again. Backing is an indisputable fact and backing means backing! If you insist, we can have arbitration affirm that as well. 17213:44, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
172, the poll did not ask if the "succinct version" should be used. One might almost as well have a poll about whether a particular intro was correct in using "CIA" rather than "C.I.A.," and then use the poll's approval of the form "CIA" to mean that that version of the intro had to be used. Cadr's interpretation of the vote is much more accurate. Please note my explanatory comment (as one of the "88%" you invoke): "My vote is that the wording being polled is not misleading (the question asked in the poll) but that the wording also isn't good." I believe I'm not the only one who feels that way. We need to continue the discussion, perhaps with yet a third (!) sandbox. The first sandbox, where VV deleted from the intro my citations to the CIA's admitted role, can be reserved for those who don't want anything in the intro that would give the slightest validation to the charges of U.S. culpability. The second sandbox, your "succinct" version, can be reserved for those who want to treat that charge as established fact and don't want anything in the text of the intro that would cast the slightest doubt on their position. The new (third) sandbox) would be for people genuinely interested in finding text that reasonably accommodates all points of view. Then, when each version had gone through some discussions and edits, we could have a comparative poll, eliciting preferences as among the three of them. Your alternative suggestion -- that we treat it as a done deal, archive the talk and move on -- is unrealistic, as we would immediately be back in another round of reverts. JamesMLane14:29, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
Again, 172 has not responded to my substantive point. As I said, the poll only established that 172's intro was not misleading, which I did not disagree with anyway. It did not establish that his intro has consensus or majority support, which is the key issue. Please respond to this point, 172. Cadr
Well, if you don't think that the new intro is misleading, we're in agreement. Let's move on and start archiving this 138 K talk page. 17213:58, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
172 is now being deliberately evasive. He knows very well that although I do not find the intro misleading with the footnote, I do not like the footnote (and neither do a lot of other people). I repeat: the poll only established that 172's intro was not misleading, which I did not disagree with anyway. It did not establish that his intro has consensus or majority support, which is the key issue. Please respond to this point, 172. Cadr
as usual, Eloquence has an essential insight. Really, all I'd say we have to do is cite and verify who is saying what. Facts are facts, and opinions are opinions. Lets let them speak for themselves. Nobody is looking to censor anything, are they? Sam [Spade] 22:30, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
I don't see any problem with discussing the details in the appropriate section. At the same time, if it is "likely correct in virtually all possible interpretations" to say that the US backed the coup...well...john00:26, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
Re that last part: My impression is that Eloquence seems to basically agree with 172's interpretation of the Chile events, but is also aware of 172's obnoxious, recalcitrant, and anti-Wiki behavior, and does recognize the need for NPOV. VV12:37, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
Personal attacks, revert wars and ideological bias
I read quite a bit about Pinochet, Allende and Chile's economy in the 60s and 70s (and not just "opinions" but economic data and scientific analysis). People who say I have "visibly no understanding" and vote "ideologically" just because I happen not to agree with them, are making a productive discussion hard.
VV The "no understanding" was in reference to being aware of what we had been talking about on this Talk page.
I am not "buddy of 172", random or otherwise, nor was I "brought in" by him. Saying so without verification or proof reflects quite negatively on VeryVerily's way of argumentation in my opinion. If I understood the principles of Wikipedia correctly, everyone knowledgeable can try to contribute to the discussion...
VV I did not say this. I said that some were buddies of 172, and they were. You are falling for 172 smear tricks. VV09:24, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
Reverting an article more than two times when the issue is controversial is foolish; Engaging in revert wars shows ideological bias and narrow-mindedness more than anything else. Some people apparently have too much time on their hands (that seems to be true both for VV and 172).
I won't return to this article in the near future - personal attacks, revert warring and name-calling are not my idea of cooperating to create an encyclopedia. Marcika 03:44, May 20, 2004 (UTC)
As now all can see, 172 has adopted a new form of utter sleaze to get his way. VV14:37, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
I don't know about sleaze, but he certainly hasn't explained why the results of his poll have any implications for the intro to this article. Cadr
It doesn't. But he told Viajero that it did, and gently asked him to "facilitate the process of unprotecting the page and putting up the winning version of the intro". Viajero fell for it (because he wanted to?) and gave 172 his unprotection and new intro. Hence, sleaze. VV14:52, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
Sure, every version that gets protected is the "wrong version." If you decide to make more and more enemies, you'll be paving the road toward your own banning. Watch out and stop with the personal attacks, for your own sake. 17215:07, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
? The "wrong version" is nothing to do with this. VV's point (I think) was that your intro was put up after the page was unprotected, on the basis of an irrelavent poll. Cadr
A poll that established that there's nothing wrong with the intro. You yourself have now admitted that it's not misleading. I don't know why I'm still talking about this. I'm going to move on and get to more serious work now. 17216:21, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
It did not establish that there was "nothing wrong" with the intro, it established that it was not misleading. See my comments above and JamesMLane's ("Cadr's interpretation of the vote is much more accurate"; "the poll did not ask if the 'succinct version' should be used") . The poll only established that 172's intro was not misleading, which (with the footnote) we all agreed on anyway. It did not establish that the intro had consensus or majority support, which is the key issue. 172's continuous avoidance of this crucial point (he has failed to respond to it in the discussion above several times, and now down here) is seriously undermining his position. Cadr
How long do you plan to fight this edit war 2 years ? 10 years ? You have so much time to loose ?
Ericd21:00, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
Let's not attack each other
I think this discussion will go significantly better, if we avoid making personal remarks. We need all our energy focussed on working together. So let's not say to each other things like:
How long do you plan to fight ... You have so much time to lose?
His interpretation of the vote ... continuous avoidance ... failed to respond ... seriously undermining his position
You yourself have admitted
If you decide to make more and more enemies ... paving the road toward your own banning.
He fell for it ... sleaze ... smear tricks
They were his buddies
I could quote more, but I think you see the trend. None of this has anything to do with the article. So I propose to refactor this page, deleting all the personal remarks. --Uncle Ed20:50, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
Sorry Ed but if you interpreted my last comment as a personnal attack (against who ?) you should interpret "Don't be silly" in the same way.
Ericd21:06, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
I don't regard asking 172 to respond to a particular point as making a personal attack. It's certainly a criticism of what he's been writing (or not been writing), but that doesn't necessarily make it inappropriate, or a personal attack in the usual sense. Of course it's a shame that the debate has got so acrimonious, but I don't think anyone has really crossed the line in a big way yet. To be honest, I don't like the idea of refactoring the talk page — I suspect the result would be an edit war on the talk page itself, and we certainly don't want that to happen again. Cadr
On a side note, the "notes" footnote, or the intro, should link to #CIA_role_in_coup, shouldn't it? (that is, if "US backed" stays, which I'm not expressing an opinion on) Martin23:50, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
Focusing on the edit, not the personalities or the poll
VV has noted that his "many believe" formulation, without more, was objected to by some of us. My objection was that it gave a false impression that this view was mere opinion, unsupported by facts. The change to "is suspected by many" makes it worse, not better. My latest edit is based on these points: (1) The U.S. did indeed support Allende's opponents in the election, but also continued to support them after Allende had won the election. The reference (in the "Stuff to add") section to support for election opponents in 1964 and 1970 unjustifiably sanitizes the U.S. role by giving the false impression that the U.S. sought to influence the election but thereafter respected the results of the Chilean electoral process. (2) For that reason, the U.S. undermining of Allende should also be mentioned in the intro. (3) The U.S. undermining of Allende and support for Pinochet are not disputed. This policy is controversial in the sense of whether the U.S. should have done it but not whether the U.S. did do it, so "controversially" is a bad word to use here because of its ambiguity. I think saying that the U.S. has been criticized for its actions is more accurate as to what's in controversy. (4) To make clear that the criticism of the U.S. is not merely an opinion, along the lines of "vanilla is better than chocolate," I still prefer summarizing key facts, along the lines of my previous edit that VV reverted. The absolute minimum is to note that many specifics that were previously only "alleged" (and, at that, by people denounced as crackpot left-wing conspiracy theorists) turned out to be undeniable truth when even some of the CIA's documents were declassified. (5) Because the last clause of the paragraph is what "many believe," it doesn't need to pull punches. Referring to a "U.S. role" in the coup is rather vague. The people whose views are being characterized believe that the U.S. played a significant and supportive role, and that this action was wrongful, so use of the term "complicity" is an accurate report of that school of thought. NPOV allows and indeed requires that the varying opinions be stated fairly. To say that the U.S. "is suspected by many of playing a role in the 1973 coup" doesn't meet that standard. JamesMLane08:07, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
I am no defensor of US policy, nor its methods, and I agree that the US had a role in the last several election before the coup, and had a policy of undermining Allende's government. But must not overstate its role either. And why isn't all the US conspiracy exposed in more detail? Because this is not the coup's article! this is the Pinochet article. There is absolutely no known conection between the CIA and Pinochet in the Allende years, and, as much as 172 and others try to make is pass as a fact, there is no proof either of a role in the actual coup, though there are strong suggestions. US backed coup is not a fact, and something that needs a footnote in order not to be ambiguous should not be in the introduction. I would could accept the "US backed" if it were moderated by a qualifying word, like "supposed", "widely believed", "probable", or something like that, that makes clear that, though likely, there is no known proof of it. I'll be glad to get the word eliminated as soon as the eventual probatory documents are released. Even better, the whole think should be linked to a Chilean military coup of 1973 article, were all the
postures, influences and more, from the 1958 election or before if you wish can be exposed. The coup was far more than just the fancy of Pinochet, or the influence of the US, to try to simplyfy it as a US backed coup leaded by Pinochet is a disservice to history. --AstroNomer 17:49, May 24, 2004 (UTC)
You're criticizing the suggestion that we say "U.S.-backed" coup, but my edit didn't incorporate that suggestion. Please note that there are two sandbox versions of the intro. Because I don't like the idea of a footnote, I've been giving more attention to how to edit the non-footnoted one. As for your suggestion of a separate article just about the coup, that would be fine with me. Whether or not there is such an article, though, the article on Pinochet must address how he came to power, which means noting the widespread belief that the U.S. played a key role. (The amplification of the issue, later in the article, should lay out all the supporting facts, such as Nixon's statement, as well as the CIA's denial that it played any "direct role.") JamesMLane20:57, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
Responses to JamesMLane. I'm glad to see a dialog has re-emerged on this page; I feared everyone would be scared away by 172's bully tactics. But let me respond to your points: (a) I don't think we can safely say the US undermined Allende; certainly they tried to, but, unless you count the 1964 election campaigning, they did not succeed. Furthermore, actions against Allende aren't really relevant to an article on Pinochet, except as circumstantial evidence of a possible role in 1973. (b) The phrase "controversially supported" cannot mean that it is controversial whether the US supported him, but the support they did lend was controversial. I don't think this is ambiguous. (c) There is a spectrum of views on the degree of US involvement, and I don't think we can state them all (e.g., "some believe the US staged the coup, others believe the US helped organized it, others believe the US discreetly funded it", etc), so "played a role" plays a role of a "catch-all" in this respect. But anyway I'm sensitive to your concerns. I'm going to try another rewording; I'll leave a note here in a moment. VV22:09, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
VV, although you say you're glad to see a dialog here, you continue to act in ways that make me (at least) less likely to participate. The dissatisfaction that I voiced above is even stronger now. I said that VV would oppose having anything in the intro that would give the slightest validation to the charges of U.S. culpability, and that 172 would want to treat that charge as established fact and oppose allowing anything in the text of the intro that would cast the slightest doubt on that position. At this point, 172 has essentially stated that that's his position; VV has confirmed my analysis implicitly, by continuing to remove from the intro any facts that would show the accusation against the U.S. to have some substance.
VV inveighs against "listing all the long pieces of evidence of controversial relevance and extensive scope" and "filling up the intro with information only marginally relevant to a biography." No one has suggested these options, which would amount to moving the section on the coup into the intro. What I actually did, two edits ago, was to try to write a genuine summary of the facts (which I thought we agreed was the goal). VV, you didn't suggest a way to shorten it; you simply removed all of it from the intro. After getting over my disgust, I tried again with this version, shorter yet, but again you won't accept an intro that mentions any facts whatsoever on this score -- not the U.S.'s pre-coup undermining of the democratically elected government, and not the key (and unusual and therefore noteworthy) point that a huge pile of CIA documents on this subject was declassified and that many observers considered the new information to be very damning about the U.S. role.
The underlying problem I have, VV, is that every time I read this intro after one of your edits, I'm left thinking that the critics of the U.S. might just as well be on a level with the wackos who claim that all the Jews at the WTC were warned to stay home from work on September 11. There's a huge difference between these two positions in terms of the factual support and the acceptance by knowledgeable people. I think it's misleading for the intro to conceal that difference. Nevertheless, every specific fact I include is deleted by you.
As to your specific points: (a) The U.S. did undermine Allende, unless you think that the funding of his opponents, the propagandizing, and the U.S. actions against the Chilean economy were all completely without effect. (b) I find the phrase ambiguous but you're apparently willing to clarify it, so that's not an issue. (c) We can't state all views in a brief intro, but my prior version (May 19) included the basic charge and the CIA's denial. I think that was an appropriate response to the facts. JamesMLane05:12, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
JamesMLane, there seems to be a communication disconnect between us. Maybe I should reiterate what I see the concerns as being. I feel as though the coup is just one of many aspects of Pinochet which belong in a biography, and the allegation of US involvement is just one small part of that. Thus, I feel the intro should not be heavy with this comparatively minor issue. For instance, I think the "Miracle of Chile" is far more important to the summary, but I don't feel the evidence that justifies this needs to be laid out. For instance, we needn't say "Some see Pinochet as a hero who rescued a faltering economy, noting the 10% growth rates in the late 1970s, the reduction of inflation from 30% to 10%, the increased standard of living index..., etc., etc." Rather, we should use the hyperlinked feature of Wikipedia to direct the reader towards further reading on that subject.
You say that putting "many believe" discounts the supposed justification for this belief. I strongly disagree. "Crackpot", fringe theories are generally not listed in the intro. For instance, theories that Elvis is alive are not in the intro to Elvis Presley, nor theories of CIA involvement or Jewish complicity listed at the beginning of 9/11. In fact, the latter article is a good example: you can see how carefully worded accusations are, such as stating the US "blamed" Al-Qaeda, which is "widely held responsible" for terrorist attacks. You may think these words imply these are fringe theories, but clearly they do not.
However, sensitive to your concern that "many believe" implies that it is a "wild" theory, I removed this implication by replacing it with a "see also". Now, again, the reader can use the hyperlinks to find out more about the subject.
I also want to note that I don't feel policy allows us to "validate" any view.
Note that the facts you cite are not being "censored" or "erased". They are merely being categorized under the section specifically dealing with this subject in detail. As you note, we can't state all the views in the intro, and I think that the difficulty we've had here so far indicates that no choice of summary is really going to capture all the facts that people believe are key, so that's why I proposed relying on the hyperlink and boilerplate text.
I'll say there are a few things about your edit which particularly bothered me. One is, as I've noted, that any actions that the US may have taken against Allende are not relevant to an article about Pinochet, at least without a proven causal connection, which is a POV matter. Another is that I don't think the documents released in 2000 changed many people's minds; those wanting to believe the worst about the US continued to, and those skeptical remained so. The documents do not pertain to the period 1971 to Sep 1973, and so are only circumstantial evidence in this case.
I hope this helps somewhat in what appears to be an unfortunate communication divide. VV23:04, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
AstroNomer: I actually created a U.S. intervention in Chile page for the very purpose of serving as a clearinghouse for this sort of information, but it hasn't caught on and itself provoked conflict. Still, perhaps this idea can be resurrected. VV22:14, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
Latest proposal: Okay, what do you guys think of this? Instead of saying "many believe" (not considered enough) and instead of listing all the long pieces of evidence of controversial relevance and extensive scope, how about simply alluding to the (giant) CIA role in coup section which already exists? The reader can see from the intro that there is a section on this, and the extensive evidence pro and con can be laid out there instead of filling up the intro with information only marginally relevant to a biography. This allows us to avoid the question of which evidence belongs in the second paragraph, if any, without diminishing the impact of noting the possible connection. Comments? VV22:18, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
Your proposal is unacceptable as well, but I was directing my query at those actually seeking dialog rather than unilateral bullying. VV22:32, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
It's unacceptable to you, but it wasn't unacceptable to 88% who responded to Talk:Augusto Pinochet#Another poll. You are the one engaging in unilateral bullying on this page, holding it hostage because you insist that the article censor indisputable facts that you are uncomfortable with. 17222:45, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
Don't put words in my mouth. I stand by those comments. Why can't you move on and forget about this page? The vast majority of edits in your user history pertain to the conflict over the intro and efforts to discredit me on other pages. In contrast, I've been far more productive the whole time. 17222:53, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
VV's proposal seems sensible enough to me. We could just have a bit of boilerplate about controversy over the CIA role, and then link to the relavent section. 172 hasn't explained why VV's proposal is unacceptable, which makes his comments rather hard to respond to. (And incidentally, he still hasn't explained how on Earth his poll could be interpreted as indicating consensus support for his intro. His implication that 89% of people were voting specifically against VV or his proposed intro is ludicrous, given the poll question.) Cadr23:59, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
I will not respond to comments based on the assumption that the assertion of U.S. backing for the 1973 coup is controversial or disputed. No informed analyst denies the fact that the U.S. played a role backing the coup. The only reason for claiming this question hasn't been settled is POV, and I am tired of it. If you did not get this message from the polling you are either dense (which I doubt) or filibustering/using stalling tactics to get your way, regardless of the wishes of the vast majority of people who've chimed in during the dispute. 17202:27, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
You still haven't explained the relavence of your poll, which you ought to do, seeing as you keep using it as a justification for your position. The poll only established that your intro (with the footnote) was not misleading, which was not really in dispute anyway — it did not establish that your intro had consensus support, or that it was better than any other of the proposed intros. You are correct to say that no-one disputes that the US "played a role in backing the coup", but this is only because that phrase is extremely vague. The intro should either not mention the US role, or give a reasonably clear explanation of the various POVs regarding what it was. The issue has never been that people have denied any US role in the coup, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. Cadr
I suggest it is time to move on. There is no doubt that the US supported the coup, and that this support helped Pinochet assume power. This is utterly uncontroversial. There may be debates about why the US supported the coup, or debates over how strong local support for the coup was, and these should be covered in depth in this or another article. But in this article's first paragraph, it is enough to say "US backed" or "US supported." Now, there are many other things we should be working on. Slrubenstein
Please refer to the extensive discussion above. There is plenty of doubt, as has been raised by several users. Or just look at the article and note the quote from [3] that the CIA "did not assist Pinochet to assume the Presidency". It cannot be NPOV to flatly contradict this conclusion by the intelligence community. VV23:06, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
Veriverily, please refer to the extensive discussion in Talk:Augusto Pinochet#Another poll. There is no doubt, as has been raised by 16 users. Or just look at the article and notice that the intro asserts U.S. backing for the coup; it does not assert that the U.S. assisted Pinochet himself to assume the Presidency. It cannot be NPOV to flatly contradict undisputed facts. 17200:37, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
Many of those users were in favour of a compromise intro which did not use "US-backed". I just don't see the point in insisting on having such a vague word in the intro, when we could (potentially) satisfy everyone by having a slightly longer explanation of the US role. The fact that a majority of users don't find "US-backed" misleading is not a justification for keeping it in — we should try to find a phrasing that no-one finds misleading. Cadr14:14, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
US backing now safely established
Yesterday, the National Security Archivereleased a now declassified telephone conference transcript of a conversation between Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger. Here's an excerpt from the press release:
The transcript records a call made by President Nixon to Kissinger's home on the weekend following General Augusto Pinochet's violent overthrow of the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende in Chile. Kissinger reports to the president that the new military regime was "getting consolidated" and complains that the press is "bleeding because a pro-Communist government has been overthrown." When Nixon notes that "our hand doesn't show on this one though," Kissinger responds that "We didn't do it" [referring to the coup itself]. I mean we helped them….created the conditions as great as possible."
The September 16, 1973, "telcon" was found by the Archive's Chile analyst, Peter Kornbluh, among thousands of pages of transcriptions of Kissinger's telephone calls dated between 1969 and 1974, declassified today at the initiative of the Archive. Kornbluh, the author of The Pinochet File, called the new document "damning proof, in Kissinger's own words, that the Nixon administration directly contributed to creating a coup climate in Chile which made the September 11, 1973, military takeover possible."
And here's the PDF of the transcript. Now, with Kissinger sayying "We helped them" and Nixon replying "That's right", immediately after the coup, there can no longer be any doubt to the fact that the US contributed to the September 11, 1973 coup. In fact it is interesting to note that Nixon's phrase "our hand doesn't show on this one" corresponds exactly to the October 16, 1970 CIA Operating Guidelines that "the American hand be well hidden" in the overthrow of Allende [4].
There is absolutely no doubt now that it is perfectly neutral to state that the coup was "United States backed", without any footnote, in the introduction, as Encarta already does.
I still think that 172's intro has other deficiencies, in that it fails to mention Pinochet's human rights violations and his economic policies, both of which are important aspects of his biography.I hope that we can work together in addressing these problems. I also hope that all the relevant evidence will be collected in the still non-existent article Project FUBELT, so that interested readers can get more information about this chapter of US history in a single article. But any remaining doubts about the question if the US had a role in the coup are now eradicated.--Eloquence* 14:26, May 27, 2004 (UTC)~
Eloquence, thanks for alerting us to this important development. (Incidentally, here's the link to the NSA's press release.) Nevertheless, I don't think the questions about how the article should read are eliminated. Kissinger does indeed say "We helped them," but he clarifies his meaning: "I mean we helped them….created the conditions as great as possible." Kornbluh draws the same conclusion when he says that "the Nixon administration directly contributed to creating a coup climate...."
There's a distinction between two different descriptions of the U.S. role:
(1) The U.S. did what it could to create the conditions and create the climate for the coup, efforts that included the deliberate economic destabilization of Chile, the funding of Allende's opponents in the 1964 and 1970 elections, the continued funding of anti-Allende forces after the election, use of the CIA's propaganda capabilities to spread lies about Allende, etc. In addition, the U.S. knew about the coup in advance and did nothing to stop or deter it, or to warn the elected government about the danger.
(2) The U.S. provided direct support for the coup in the form of urging the military to stage a coup, explicitly assuring the coup plotters that the U.S. would fully support any post-Allende military government, providing weapons, providing the coup plotters with useful information from spy satellites, and whatever other forms of "direct" support might be available.
I think that alternative (1) can't reasonably be disputed. For example, Kissinger's Congressional testimony that the U.S. "knew nothing" about the coup has been shown to be a lie. Nevertheless, there remains an issue about whether (2) is also correct. At the time of the declassification of documents in 2000, the CIA stated that it "played no direct role in" the coup. I personally think that choice of words is itself damning, because it so strongly suggests an indirect role. All of that, however, including the new NSA release, is consistent with the view that the U.S. role was limited to what I labeled (1) above and didn't extend to (2).
I continue to have a problem with "U.S.-backed" because some people could reasonably interpret it as meaning that the truth of direct backing, as in (2) above, has been established as an incontrovertible fact, which is not the case. Of course, I also disagree with whitewashing the intro to the extent that it suggests that (1) is in dispute, which is also not the case. I think there's simply no succinct version that will do justice to the facts, and, even though this is only the intro, it will have to elaborate somewhat, in order to walk the line between what's known and what's controversial. In addition, I agree with you that the intro should mention Pinochet's human rights violations and his economic policies, and I agree with VV that it should mention his arrest in the UK. I've tried a new version in the sandbox, Augusto Pinochet/intro, where I hope some sort of rational discussion can proceed even if the main article is engulfed in an edit war. JamesMLane18:54, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
The interpretations you suggest cannot be derived from the introduction, it simply makes no claims about the extent of the backing. The key point is that regardless of whether (1) or (2) is the extent of the backing, the statement "The United States backed the coup" is true. You can criticize the statement for being imprecise, but you cannot criticize it for being incorrect. Before this new evidence was revealed, you could argue "There is no evidence that the United States specifically backed the September 11, 1973 coup, so the statement is incorrect/POV". Now this evidence exists, so the statement is no longer POV.
An introduction is first and foremost a summary and because it is a summary, it will have to reduce complex facts to simple, less precise terms. The same is true for any other part of the summary, such as Pinochet's human rights violations. Can this summary be interpreted as saying that Pinochet built gas chambers? No, because it makes no claims about whether or not Pinochet built gas chambers. It allows for a wide variety of possibilities, which are explained in detail in the main article.
There's nothing wrong with a certain level of imprecision. The important thing is that when the reader reads the full description of what happened, they must not come away with the impression that we gave them an inaccurate summary of events. This can now no longer be said to be the case.--Eloquence*
The only thing that's new in the NSArchive release is Kissinger saying, in a private conversation, that the US didn't specifically support Pinochet's coup. It is unfortunate that NSArchive chose to focus on the phrase "we helped them," which merely acknowledges what has been known for a long time: that the US opposed the Allende government with several economic and propaganda measures. -- MW
Reuters also reporting on the recent NSA declassification
New Transcripts Point to U.S. Role in Chile Coup Wed May 26, 2004 08:30 PM ET
By Pablo Bachelet
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Henry Kissinger told President Richard Nixon days after the 1973 coup in Chile the United States helped create the conditions for the ouster of socialist President Salvador Allende, newly declassified transcripts showed on Wednesday.
The transcripts show Nixon and Kissinger relieved about the toppling of Allende, who killed himself the day of the coup. The transcripts quote Kissinger, then national security adviser, as saying newspapers were "bleeding because a pro-communist government has been overthrown."
"I mean instead of celebrating - in the Eisenhower period we would be heroes," Kissinger told Nixon on Sept. 16, 1973, five days after the bloody coup led by Gen. Augusto Pinochet. About 3,000 people were killed or disappeared under Pinochet's 17-year rule.
"Well we didn't - as you know - our hand doesn't show on this one, though," Nixon told Kissinger in the Sept. 16 transcript.
"We didn't do it. I mean we helped them," Kissinger told Nixon, adding that "(deleted) created the conditions as great as possible," in an apparent reference to a person or institution.
"That is right and that is the way it is going to be played," Nixon responded.
A spokesman for Kissinger could not be reached for comment on Wednesday.
The National Security Archive, a Washington research institute that also serves as a library of declassified documents, released over 20,000 pages of taped telephone conversations on Wednesday involving Kissinger from 1969 to 1974.
Peter Kornbluh, Chile analyst for the National Security Archive, said the document was "damning proof, in Kissinger's own words, that the Nixon administration directly contributed to creating a coup climate in Chile which made the September 11, 1973, military takeover possible."
The coup against Allende would later become a symbol of U.S. Cold War intervention in Latin America.
Kissinger, appearing the week of the Sept. 16 conversations at Senate confirmation hearings on his nomination as secretary of state, denied any U.S. involvement in the coup.
A year later, after the leak of details of a CIA destabilization program, Kissinger told senators: "The intent of the United States was not to destabilize or to subvert (Allende). ... Our concern was with the election of 1976 and not at all with a coup in 1973 about which we knew nothing and (with) which we had nothing to do," according to a National Security Archive statement.
In the Sept. 16 text, Nixon tells Kissinger, "As far as people are concerned let me say they aren't going to buy this crap from the liberals on this one."
"They know it is a pro-communist government and that is the way it is."
Why not mention in the article why various historians, politicians, etc. call the 1973 coup "US-backed"? And explain what they mean by this?
If an historian says that the coup would certainly have failed without US support, that sounds like an excellent reason for that historian to say that the US "backed" the coup, and it would make sense for him to refer to it as a "US-backed" coup. The overthrow of Saddam was undoubtedly "US-backed", although "US-led" is an even better term.
I will support any addition to the article in which the term "US-backed" is supported by either (1) a source who applies the term or (2) some reasoning mentioned in the article. For example:
Historian Felix Z. Gatto called the coup "US-backed" because the US supplied money, arms, intelligence, etc.; or,
US backing for the coup included supplies of X and promises of Y by Nixon and Kissinger; or even,
Despite official CIA denials of having "backed" the coup, historians generally consider US intervention as having been crucial to the coup's success.
In any case, I'd like to see a paragraph about the "backing" thing put into the article and remain STABLE for several days before somebody tackles the thorny task of editing the intro paragraph. I think we should omit any mention of things which we, the writers of this article, are disputing amongst ourselves, until we agree upon how the main body of the article should be written.
Well, see you all again Monday. Whatever you all decide, I won't be editing or toggling the "protection" switch again until then! --Uncle Ed 20:30, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Let everyone edit this article
It doesn't seem fair to me that "admins" can unprotect the article for a few minutes and engage in an edit war, while two other classes of users cannot do this:
ordinary contributors, and
those admins who recuse themselves from editng "protected" articles
Unless we all agree to abide by the same rules, I think the current situation gives some people an unfair advantage which they can use to push their POV into the article, so I "unprotected" it (again). --Uncle Ed17:54, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
You are correct, in that this is what happened. Viajero used his admin abilities to install his favored version. 172 reverted once after it was protected last time. Unfortunately, I don't know what else can be done. VV07:35, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
Ed, this will just lead to another revert war. The way it's been for the last several days is that anyone can contribute by modifying one or both of the "sandboxes" that were set up to handle the specific section that's in controversy, namely the introduction. In fact, it was your idea to set up the sandbox in the first place, wasn't it? I still think that's the most efficient way to proceed. Accordingly, despite the unprotection, I'm making my latest changes at Augusto Pinochet/intro. I see no reason to believe that an unprotected main article won't immediately turn into a revert war, primarily between 172 and VeryVerily. I just hope other people will join in editing the sandbox in a good-faith attempt to find a suitable intro. JamesMLane18:25, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
I'm going to wait a day before editing the article, because I'm not sure it will remain "unprotected" and I don't want to give the impression I am doing the same thing I just now complained about: editing during a brief period of "unprotection". But I think the article will be more stable if we start listening to each other more.
Erik (Eloquence) seems to feel that the phrase "US-backed" ought to be in the Augusto Pinochet article, preferably in the intro paragraph. Am I hearing you right on this, Erik?
I on the other hand feel that this phrase has connotations that preclude its use. It implies too much (but doesn't come right out and say what it implies), hence it insinuates a POV. Since much of the disagreement which has led to the recent impasse on the article has to do with this phrase, let's try to find a way around this roadblock.
I suggest that we discuss the issue of US "backing" for the coup in detail. One way to facilitate might be to create an article specifically about the coup. I'm planning to collect information about the coup in 1973 coup in Chile, even if this might duplicate the Pinochet and Allende articles. But I think ultimately it will make both the Salvador Allende and Augusto Pinochet articles stronger. --Uncle Ed18:44, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
Erik,
Good work expanding the intro. However, I'm not sure why this belongs in an intro to a biographical entry on Pinochet: "In April 2003, United States support for the regime was described by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell as 'not a part of American history that we are proud of.'" I also think that it might be best to restore the footnote as well so that no one is under the impression that we are possibly 'over-stating' the known scope of the U.S. role in the '73 coup. 17219:06, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
We make no statement about the scope of the US role in the coup, we merely state that the US supported it, which newly declassified documents prove beyond all reasonable doubt ("We helped them"). So I think the footnote is unnecessary. I can do without the Powell statement, even though I think it makes for a good contrast to the previous remarks about Pinochet's human rights violations.--Eloquence*
I've agreed all along that the footnote is unnecessary for the article, but I still expect you know who to raise a fuss about the assertion of U.S. backing. The footnote can be pointed to as a gesture of compromise for the sake of keeping accord. 17219:25, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
The footnote, or some compromise, was necessary before this new evidence emerged. I do not see a logical need for a compromise now, but I'm willing to listen to any arguments.--Eloquence*
I can't believe this argument is being used. "[C]reated the conditions"? This extremely vague singular statement by Kissinger does not outweigh the massive work by the intelligence community that concluded the US did not help Pinochet to power. It is true the US had economic sanctions and the like on Chile, and Kissinger may have been trying to take credit with Nixon that these actions helped create the right "climate", but to from this to "backed" is quite a leap. I don't see any new information here at all. Any U.S. involvement remains extremely indirect; "creating conditions" or "climates" does not warrant mentioning "U.S.-backed" in the first sentence of the article (not counting 172's sentence fragment). Also, I disagree about not mentioning the arrest; this was huge news when it happened and deserves at least a passing mention in the intro. (Also note I tried new language vis-a-vis the US and the coup, which 172 also reverted away at along with the better picture.) VV07:42, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
"We helped them" (Kissinger) and "That's right" (Nixon) are two clear and obvious statements from which US backing can be inferred. As I noted above, we do not specify the extent of the backing. If you want to argue that they took credit for something they didn't do, you have to make that argument, which will be very hard to do in face of the evidence discussed even on this page alone. VV, you are now reverting the page against everyone else who is working on it. Please stop it.--Eloquence* 16:31, May 28, 2004 (UTC)
I believe I am only "reverting" against 172, and one could say against you (though I read over the intro before tweaking the sandbox version), and it is because virtually everything I objected to is being incorporated. Also, the discussion about the Miracle of Chile suddenly became extremely one-sided, and it doesn't mention the bit about the constitution or Pinochet's arrest. My tactics are certainly not comparable to 172's, who imposed his horrible intro on all of us through edit warfare and manipulation. Now, it is crystal clear from context what Kissinger meant by what he said, that the US/CIA had helped create conditions for a coup - and we have always known what those conditions were, pressure on the Allende regime through sanctions and diplomacy. This is not backing of a coup and at any rate is not sufficiently intimate involvement to make the US virtually the first thing said in the article. Nearly all the numerous objections raised on this page - from the ambiguity of backing to its heavy placement to 172's abhorrent behavior - remain in full force. VV02:51, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
No, the conditions go far beyond "pressure on the Allende regime [sic!] through sanctions and diplomacy." You may want to actually read the "CIA role in coup" section. As the 1970 CIA operative document states, "it is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup." The only open question was whether that policy was still in effect on September 11, 1973. The now declassified conversation shows that it was. Frankly, your argument is becoming increasingly absurd.--Eloquence* 11:40, May 30, 2004 (UTC)
Eloquence, that "firm and continuing" quote isn't in the current version of the article. It should certainly be added when editing is possible. It still doesn't answer the question about U.S. actions, though. Even though there's no reason to think the overall policy changed, what did the U.S. do in direct support of the coup (as opposed to creating the conditions)? Did the U.S. specifically urge the military to stage the coup of 1973? (After all, the documents show that on at least one prior occasion, the U.S. urged a military leader not to stage a coup, although of course the reason was a fear of failure rather than anything so high-minded as a respect for the Chilean electoral process.) Did the U.S. provide any intelligence information that was helpful to the plotters? My suspicion is that some such instigation or backing probably occurred, but that the evidence was destroyed before the Clinton Administration could unearth and release it under the Chile Declassification Project. If that's correct, then, unfortunately, we won't be able to report it as an established fact. JamesMLane12:24, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
I refer you to my earlier comment. We only allege consistent US backing. That this backing was consistent is proven by the now released transcript. That the US backed a coup is undeniable from the sum of evidence, not the least of which is the direct statement to that effect. As I also pointed out, the continuation of policy is most vividly demonstrated by the 1970 CIA memo which states that the "American hand [must] be well hidden", and the 1973 comment by Nixon that the "American hand doesn't show on this one." The facts are crystal clear: the US backed the coup. We don't say anything more than that in the intro.--Eloquence*
Based on your earlier comment, I'd say that you and I simply have different understandings of the word "backing." For example, there are people outside the U.S. who want Kerry to win the election, but they can't vote or contribute money. Are they "backing" Kerry? It could be argued either way. I think many people would understand "backing" to mean something more substantial than hoping for a particular outcome; our use of that term would suggest the kind of "direct role" that the CIA continues to deny. A PBS broadcast walked the line by saying, "The documents tell the story of US attempts to prevent Allende's inauguration and, when that failed, to undermine him. Augusto Pinochet overthrew Allende in 1973 in a violent military coup that was welcomed by the United States." I think that statement is fully supported by the available facts. If that's all you mean by "backing," maybe we could combine the undermining of Allende plus the creating the conditions for the coup plus welcoming it plus supporting Pinochet's government once he took over. As for 172's suggestion (below) about moving on by restoring the footnote, I'd rather not use a potentially confusing word that must immediately be explained in a footnote. Let's just get it right in the text. JamesMLane15:28, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
The American Heritage Dictionary defines our use of "backed" as "To provide with financial or moral support; support or endorse". As the article states, the US provided financial support to the Chilean military, they created the economic and political conditions for the coup to take place, they did not prevent it or warn Allende even though they had prior knowledge, they immediately endorsed Pinochet's government. And this is just the set of actions which nobody disputes - the death of Charles Horman is just one of many puzzle pieces which, for NPOV reasons, are not considered here.
The sum of documented, well-established US actions alone fully satisfies any reasonable definition of "backing" you can come up with. This could have been called into question prior to the new evidence, because one could have alleged a change of policy; such an allegation is now flatly contradicted by Kissinger's and Nixon's statements on the historical record. As such, it is perfectly neutral and factual to speak of a United States backed coup. It was already very close to being neutral and factual before the new evidence emerged, which is obvious from the fact that other encyclopedias have already used the phrase.--Eloquence* 16:26, May 30, 2004 (UTC)
I don't think it's realistic to rely on a dictionary definition on an issue as politically charged as this one. I voted "No" in the poll because I agree with you that someone who reads the phrase "U.S.-backed," and reads the explanatory footnote, and perhaps consults a dictionary, should not infer that the article rejects the CIA's claim that it played "no direct role" in the coup. As a practical matter, though, not everyone will parse it so finely. Some people will come to this article because they want a quick take on the question, "Did the CIA orchestrate the coup, or provide direct encouragement and/or material support?" We serve our readers best if we delineate more specifically what's established and what's in dispute. JamesMLane00:32, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
Re: "Did the U.S. specifically urge the military to stage the coup of 1973?" This is a non-issue for our purposes. The article asserts U.S. backing; it does not assert that the U.S. staged the coup. Perhaps we could all move on if we agree to the restoration of the footnote? 17212:32, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
Controversy over the 1973 coup
I have created a 350-word article at Chilean coup of 1973 which I hope will help to mitigate the intensity of the dispute over the Augusto Pinochet article. Almost everything we Wikipedians have been wrangling over is directly related to the coup, so I feel it merits a separate article.
After the dispute is settled to our mutual satisfaction, we can see whether it will best to leave the new article intact or merge it back into History of Chile or Salvador Allende or Augusto Pinochet.
In the nearly three years I've volunteered at Wikipedia, I've found that splitting off the disputed part of an article is the quickest and easiest way to settle a dispute. (Sometimes, the info is re-integrated, sometimes not. But it always has helped resolve the dispute. --Uncle Ed14:15, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
Three very similar intros are currently being fought over in this article. Please vote for the one you believe should be included when the article is unprotected:
General Augusto José Ramón Pinochet Ugarte (born November 25, 1915) was leader of Chile from 1973 to 1990. He came to power in a military coup d'état that overthrew the government led by the elected socialist President Salvador Allende. Pinochet's government passed a new constitution with several reforms in 1980. After he lost a plebiscite in 1988, multicandidate presidential elections were held which restored civilian rule in 1990. 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 that could only be stripped by high courts.
Pinochet remains a controversial figure. Some regard him as a great modernizer who staved off communism and rescued a faltering economy (the "Miracle of Chile"), while others regard him as a brutal military dictator responsible for severe human rights violations and social decay. The United States has been criticized for lending support to Pinochet's government as part of its Cold War policy and has been implicated in backing the 1973 coup.
Pinochet was arrested in 1998 during a visit to London and charged with international human rights crimes. After a failed attempt to extradite him to Spain, he was returned to Chile in 2002 where the charges were dropped due to medical reasons.
Support:
AquaRichy 07:37, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC) - I think uncertainties should not be asserted
General Augusto José Ramón Pinochet Ugarte (born November 25, 1915), military leader of Chile from 1973 to 1990. He was one of the leaders of a United States-backed coup that deposed the socialist government of Salvador Allende in 1973. After losing a plebiscite in 1989, Pinochet stepped down from the presidency in 1990 and multicandidate presidential elections were held. He was succeeded by Patricio Aylwin, a civilian. Pinochet retained his post as commander of the army until 1998, when he assumed a lifelong seat in the Chilean Senate, which brought him immunity from prosecution.
Pinochet's government was responsible for severe human rights violations, particularly the murder, torture and "disappearance" of hundreds of suspected dissidents. His supporters credit him with what they call the "Miracle of Chile," a long period of economic growth brought about by neoliberal market policies; however, both unemployment and poverty rose dramatically during Pinochet's rule.
General Augusto José Ramón Pinochet Ugarte (born November 25, 1915) was Chile's de facto head of state from 1973 to 1990. He came to power in a U.S.-backed military coup d'état which overthrew the democratically elected government of socialist president Salvador Allende. After he lost a plebiscite in 1988, multicandidate presidential elections were held which restored civilian rule in 1990. 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.
Pinochet's government was responsible for severe human rights violations, particularly the murder, torture and "disappearance" of hundreds of suspected dissidents. His supporters credit him with what they call the "Miracle of Chile," a long period of economic growth brought about by neoliberal market policies; however, both unemployment and poverty rose dramatically during Pinochet's rule.
It's too early for a vote. Let's discuss it more first. Okay, I'll start :-)
The purpose of an introduction is to let the reader know what is coming. It sets the stage for the rest of the article.
If the article is about some boring old obscure guy no one cares about, it's pretty easy to write. If it's about a controversial figure, we have two options:
ease into it
sum up the consensus
I daresay the latter option is impossible for Pinochet...
So why not try the first option? Let's try something like:
General Augusto José Ramón Pinochet Ugarte (born November 25, 1915), president of Chile from 1973 to 1990. He was one of the leaders of a coup that deposed Salvador Allende in 1973. After losing a plebiscite in 1989, Pinochet stepped down from the presidency in 1990 and was succeeded by Patricio Aylwin, a civilian.
This hits the high points while omitting any mention of the controversies.
A second paragraph could say something like:
Most aspects of Pinochet's presidency are controversial. From the U.S. role in the 1973 coup, to the allegations of human rights violations of his opponents, Pinochet has come under intense criticism.
I strongly agree that it's too early for a vote. (Yes, the wrangling has already been protracted, but it's been largely unproductive.) I personally favor somethng along the lines of Version #1, but I disagree with Ed's suggestion that we try to craft an intro that doesn't even mention the controversies. I'm much closer to MW's suggestion below. This is why Augusto Pinochet/intro was set up. There can be a new poll entry if that version is edited by people who don't like a flat assertion that the coup was "U.S.-backed" but who want to see some mention of the issue in the intro. JamesMLane02:12, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
Your version also suggests, indirectly, that Pinochet was a legitimate president, which is highly POV. --Cantus03:54, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
I agree that to "Pinochet's government was legitimate" is a POV. I certainly didn't intend to promote that POV (because I disagree with it and because, in any event, I support the NPOV policy). The current version of Augusto Pinochet/intro states that Pinochet came to power in a military coup d'etat that overthrew an elected government. To my mind, those (indisputable) facts establish that Pinochet's regime was not legitimate. Of course, it's also an indisputable fact that Allende was a socialist. Some people may believe that his political platform was so abhorrent that any measures to bring him down were justified. Kissinger was evidently in this camp. I don't think we should promote that POV, but at least one of the facts that the Kissinger types rely on, namely Allende's political orientation, is certainly important enough to be included in the intro. That's not promoting a POV.
Beyond that point, I don't know what there is in this version that sparks your comment. Please feel free to edit it appropriately. That's what the sandbox is for. I would prefer that people not edit it to just return to "U.S.-backed coup," without admitting of any nuances about the nature of the backing, or if they want to go completely in the other direction and excise from the intro all the facts about U.S. involvement. Those two versions have already been made available for consideration. I think it would be useful for people dissatisfied with both of them to edit Augusto Pinochet/intro to try to create something between those two extremes. JamesMLane23:09, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
I favor #1 subject to the following change:
The United States has been criticized for lending support to Pinochet's government as part of its Cold War policy and has been implicated in backing the 1973 coup.
becomes
The United States has been criticized for its efforts to preempt, and later to topple the Allende government, and its subsequent support of the military government as part of its Cold War strategy.
Regarding the photo, and this is not as important to me, can we settle on the one of Pinochet and Allende standing together? That picture seems neutral enough, neither "grandfather" nor "Darth Vader." -- MW
I don't think the edit war was really over the picture. 172 simply reverts on sight anything he doesn't like in any degree, including unrelated changes. I'm sure he likes the picture that makes Pinochet look like Darth Vader (compare how he erased all even mildly unflattering portraits of Fidel Castro from that article), but that might not have been his intent. VV21:26, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
I hate to break it to you, but it's not 172 who made Pinochet "look like Darth Vader". Pinochet was a military dictator. Photos of his time as dictator are likely to reflect that fact. Do you allege that the photo of Pinochet's junta is a forgery? Do you allege that it is not representative of this period of his government? If you do not make (and support) these allegations, then the photo is not "POV". It is a historical picture of Augusto Pinochet as head of the military junta which, with United States backing, overthrew a democratically elected government. I do not insist on it being the only photo in the article or even the introductory one, but we should definitely include it.--Eloquence*
Agreed, the photo doesn't make Pinochet look menacing. It's an accident of the sunglasses, relaxed mouth, and especially the way the colors came out (not his status as a dictator). Presumably he's wearing the same uniform that he is in the color photo. I only meant that the two photos seem to characterize how the opposing POVs see the man. Like I said, it's not a big deal to me. -- MW
Thanks for the constructive comment, Eloquence. VV, frankly I don't think your continued appeal to some problem with 172 is constructive. There is an ongoing discussion of the opening, involving many people. this is not about 172, or you (or me) it is about the best way to introduce the article. Personally, I favor #2, but I see the value of ongoing discussion. As for Ed Poor's point, although I think it is reasonable I do have one comment, echoing a comment someone else made earlier: not all things are equally controversial, or controversial in the same way. We need to understand the difference between controversial statements of fact, controversial explanations, and controversial moral judgements. that the US backed the coup in Chile may be morally controversial; there may be controversies as to why; but it is not a controversial statement of fact. Slrubenstein
Review of 'backing' arguments
VV This conversation is being spread too thin and confusingly, and the excellent arguments made by me, Cadr, AstroNomer, and JamesMLane about the problems with backing are being lost in the shuffle. Since there are still many who seek to dismiss the several objectors and state a very non-consensus assertion, it is worth reiterating the primary arguments against U.S.-backed:
It is not accurate. There is no proof the US was still seeking a coup, and abundant evidence they were not seeking this particular coup. Thus, saying this coup was "backed" by the US is wrong. The CIA only became aware of the plot just before it occured. Neither other opposition to Allende nor unrelated and abandoned pursuits of different coups three years earlier are on point.
It is ambiguous. Many who read it will take it to mean the US directly organized or instigated this coup. Three English speakers have reported that that is their reaction to the text, "dictionary definitions" or no. (The problems with the footnote approach - saying in a disjoint way what could well be said with a few choice words in the intro - are well-established.)
Even if the US's feeble connection could be considered "backing", the prime positioning of U.S. in the article is deceptive and implies importance it does not possess. Why mention the US and not more important elements, say, "backed" by other elements of the Chilean military? Backed by the Chilean Congress? Backed by Pinochet's wife? Based on the bizarre connections given, we could as well speak of Bush's Dennis Miller-backed election victory in an intro to George W. Bush. The front-and-center placement implies a falsehood, that the US was the factor.
As for the "new" documents, I will summarize my arguments here:
Kissinger said the US helped create conditions for the coup. That is not new information. I could have told you that. He is not reporting on a secret CIA operation, he is not giving clandestine information, he is stating a believed cause-and-effect relationship between publically known actions by the US in isolating Allende and the subsequent coup. There is just no revelation here.
At any rate, he is merely stating his own opinion. While he may possess extensive knowledge of Chile, his speculation that the US's role made a difference might be wrong; Allende's actions might have provoked a coup anyway. Again, he is not communicating anything "secret".
The most ironic thing about this is that, despite the "spins" above, the new documents disprove the old canard about the US being behind the coup! Several users (including Eloquence) have stated that the US probably did organize or stage this coup. Unless you believe Kissinger was lying to the president, him saying the US "didn't do it" puts these accusations to rest once and for all.
I hope this helps. (Note that these are independent of the issue of 172's bullying on this page, which is also a major point with me.) VV22:31, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
I don't think that the new documents are exculpatory. Kissinger might indeed have been lying to Nixon, or the CIA might have been lying to Kissinger about what it was doing. The most likely interpretation, though, is that Kissinger and Nixon both understood that they were talking about the public perception: "We didn't send in the USAF to do the bombing, so there's at least some level at which we can claim that we didn't do it, and what we did do was sufficiently covert that it will never come to light to embarrass us." The conversation would be consistent with a fairly substantial U.S. role in backing the coup, such as explicitly urging the military to act. JamesMLane23:53, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
Well, I don't think these interpretations are likely, but, to stay on topic, the documents certainly do not prove backing. VV00:25, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
It's becoming increasingly clear that the extent of US support for the coup is a matter for historians to discuss, not Wikipedians. I think given the controversy over the interpretation of the available evidence, it would be far better to summarise the various POVs wrt. this evidence in the intro that it would be to flatly (and ambiguously) assert US-backing. The article has an enormous section on the coup, so the reader will be perfectly well equipped to decide for themselves which POV is correct. It's always a bad sign when you start having a debate over historical truth in Wikipedia, because it's not the aim of Wikipedia articles or talk pages to decide which of several versions of history is true. Cadr11:16, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
U.S. & CIA - Upon Allende's popular vote plurality victory, decided to a) find a way to get the Chilean legislature to select Alessandri for president (2nd place) (failure) b) fund opposition parties (which we did) or c) direct military coup. Initially contemplated backing coup in 1970, later decided it would fail, but maintained contacts with Chilean military. Coup ended with botched kidnapping of Gen. Rene Schneider. Didn't directly back Pinochet coup, but (obviously) was not opposed to it, given Allende's Marxist ideology.
At least that's how I understand it, as far as direct backing went. Trey Stone 04:28, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Biased version and reversion wars
To the editor/controller of this discussion: I have tried several times to eliminate POVs and FACTUAL mistakes from this page, in order to bring it in line with a more objective and unbiased biography of the subject. I have been working my way slowly down the paragraphs, trying to correct only when unavoidable, even letting some minor POVs pass unchanged. But I have been foiled time and again. Without condoning or endorsing any subjective point of view, facts cannot be altered to suit one's own personal views on a subject. Why do you allow this person to hijack the historical subject? He in good faith or otherwise alters the facts.
An small tidbit by way of example: he charges that Pinochet devised the title Capitan General out of emulation for the figure of Libertador O'Higgins. In fact, O'Higgins himself hardly used such title, preferring the much simpler of General or Director Supremo. The title was in fact used by the colonial authorities that were at the same time governors of the realm and titular heads of the army. (Chile was a Capitanía General, by the way), and Pinochet used it with the same sense, and in order to place himself on a higher rank than the other generals. The title, by the way, still exists under Chilean legislation, but the official rule is that it can only be granted to an active General that is at the same time President of the Republic and Commander-in-Chief of the army.
Another example, this person charges Pinochet with "devising flashy uniforms" for his use and that of his generals. The comment almost doesn't merit a disclaimer. If he had taken the time to look at the pictures of General Prats (Pinochet's predecessor in the army) on parade uniform, standing next to president Allende, he would see that he is wearing the exact same uniform. And of course, if he keeps on digging, he will find the same exact case all the way back to the 1930s. The last modification of parade uniforms in the army took place around the time of world war II, in order to eliminate some of the more obvious similitudes with the German ones.
This are just two of the most glaring examples out of many that could be pointed. The section on the economy during the years 1970-1990 is so wrong as to be beyond belief. On the Pinochet Presidency, if one reads it without any other knowledge on recent Chilean history, the unwary reader would get the impression that Pinochet used to sit all day making lists of people to whom torture and murder should be applied, while the country went into hybernation for 17 years.
This person seems to have just lightly scanned newspaper compilations and anti-Pinochet sites in order to construct his own version of History. The man (Pinochet) was no saint (nowadays I doubt if he is able to notice much, that's why I don't use the present), and in fact did much that is questionable and outright wrong, but he, as much as anybody else, also deserves a fair and factual bio, not a biased, uninformed tirade. Mel Romero 03:39, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
