Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:59, 16 August 2006

Please do not delete

Please do not delete links to articles nor description of articles in the see also section.

Project FUBELT - secret CIA operations documents: US government spent millions of dollars to unseat Allende. Explains to the user what the program is. This is factually correct, as are the other comments. Salvador Allende was deposed by 1973 coup and Augusto Pinochet - took power in the same 1973 coup.

Further, a referenced paragraph with more historical details is always preferable to a non-referenced article with less histrorical details. Please provide references for new material and do not delete referenced material without discussing it on the talk page.

The removal of Allende was a coup, the use of this word is much more descriptive and accurate than "overthrow". If necessary, I will add several historians who also call it a "coup".

Signed:Travb 10:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

US aligned/Soviet aligned

Due to recent edits, which explain that Allende was "Soviet aligned" to balance the article, I added that Pinochet was "US aligned". I personally feel that both adjectives should be deleted, but to add balance to the edits, this seems like a good, temporary solution.Travb 10:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd really rather get rid of both. I think both are somewhat misleading. But I believe I've already made these remarks elsewhere. Mike18xx seems to have made much the same obviously controversial edits to at least half a dozen articles with little or no discussion on the talk pages. Among other things, he keeps writing that the "Chamber of Deputies of Chile Resolution of August 22, 1973 condemned Allende and implored his forcible removal" with no mention that it failed to achieve the two-thirds majority in the Senate that would have given it legal force. Clearly a resolution like that indicates a constitutional crisis, but he seems (to me) to be building up a picture that Pinochet was somehow carrying out the will of the Deputies in overthrowing Allende, even though their beef against Allende was that they believed him to be subverting exactly the representative democracy that Pinochet simply abolished.

I think that if we are really going to sort this out, we may need to agree to have the discussion centrally in some one place, instead of hashing through the same issues here and at Chile under Pinochet, History of Chile, Salvador Allende, etc. I would say that Talk:Chilean coup of 1973 would be the best place to do it, because it seems to be the pivotal event. - Jmabel | Talk 05:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Parenthisis

I rewrote the first disputed paragraph, deleting paranthesis and deleting "indicted for treason" which is no where found in the text of the document cited. I replaced this unverifable claim with a verifiable source.Travb 11:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Support for Allende

Mike, the second source says: "Whatever the intended outcome from the kidnapping/assassination, it ultimately increased the desire of the politicians and most of the military to ensure that the constitutional process was followed. Although Valenzuela was in a powerful position and could have taken over, the mood had changed so dramatically that he did not make a move."

In addition, this article, Chile: Allende's Rise and Fall, says: "The Schneider incident infuriated Chileans and probably removed the last roadblock to Allende's election ... The Chilean military supported the regime and Allende was careful not to offend it." So the military, citizens, and politicians supported Allende after the assassination of Schneider.Vints 05:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

So you are now conflating "supported the regime" with "supported Allende", eh wot? And what "regime", since Allende had yet to take office? (BTW, Mabry's superscript "5" doesn't indicate a source for his statement.) The desire of the Chilean military to avoid a coup at a time when a coup would be unpopular should not, any reasonable mind ought to conclude, be construed as being equivalent to supporting the intended target of the coup. I think these attempts to weasel in the erroneous asssumption that the Chilean military supported Allende are highly innappropriate. Now, you COULD write in support the constitutional process, or some such, and I wouldn't have any objection.--Mike18xx 07:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I equated "the regime" with the regime after the congressional election October 24, ie Allende's regime. To support the constitutional process and to support Allende is essentially the same.

I've yet to hear of anyone anywhere who's equated a "regime" to a political polity not yet in power. Your argument here is simply untenable -- You might as well maintain that since I don't want to strangle Hillary Clinton right now, (chiefly for the reason that I wouldn't be able to get away with it) why then I obviously must "support" her. Even after I've just snuffed her chief-of-staff. It's simply ludicrous.--Mike18xx 13:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The whole quote reads: "The Schneider incident infuriated Chileans and probably removed the last roadblock to Allende's election. Whom Congress on October 24th voted 135-35 to elect Allende, he became the majority-elected president of Chile. On November 4th, the first freely-elected Marxist president was inaugurated. Allende's commitment to create a Marxist socialist state by democratic means was not as unrealistic as his narrow victory in the popular elections or Popular Unity's minority position in Congress might suggest. There was broad support to expand the government's already large role in the economy, to acquire all of the assets of the copper companies, to redistribute land, and to break dependency upon foreigners. A large faction of the Christian Democratic party had advocated measures as radical as those of Popular Unity and the combined Christian Democratic-Popular Unity vote could be interpreted as a popular mandate. Popular Unity, although rent by ideological splits, was sufficiently unified in the beginning to make Allende's peaceful, democratic approach a possibility. The Chilean military supported the regime and Allende was careful not to offend it." Vints 12:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If you were quote an even longer portion, you might possibly be able to get my objection above ("BTW, Mabry's superscript "5" doesn't indicate a source for his statement.") to scroll off the top of the page. Suffice to say, you've yet to find a credible outlayer opposed to the norm of a military grudging holding its nose and biding its time.--Mike18xx 13:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way I never wrote anything about CIA guns as you suggested in the edit summary.Vints 12:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't suggest that you wrote it; I suggested that you failed to correct a known error.--Mike18xx 13:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. In this sentence: "The Chilean military supported the regime and Allende was careful not to offend it." "the regime" refers to Allende's government and "it" refers to the military. Don Mabry first mentions Allende's inauguration, and then "the regime". The note you mention is not important. There are no requirements that sources also, in turn, have references for each statement.Vints 16:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Simply regurgitating your previous arguments in defiance of your critics' retorts is not a logically valid buttressing of your position. Unless you can find a credible source which specifically states "The military...supported Allende," I'm not going to buy these arguments -- because you'd think that in 36 years, somebody would have done so if it were true. The military refraining from instigating a coup on the spot does not qualify as "support". --Mike18xx 06:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If the Chilean military had supported Allende, then they would not have done a coup against him. Tazmaniacs 13:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The military supported Allende after Schneider was murdered in October 22, 1970. Before that incident some military groups participated in attempts to promote a coup. And there was a successful coup three years later, in 1973.Vints 16:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Regime here simply means the constitutional regime of Chile. Electing a new president is not customarily seen as a change of regime, much though that has become a common usage in the U.S. in the last five years. - Jmabel | Talk 23:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

"Reforms" vs "policies"

Although I might understand why you substitute "land reform" by "land redistribution" (underscoring, as I read it, the fact that it was not a "real" land reform), the word "reform" in itself has nothing POV, and Allende was democratically elected to reform Chile. Everybody wants to reform, even neoliberals do it today! There's nothing POV in the word, only the way you read it. Cheers! Tazmaniacs 13:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Un, Taz; "reform" is a purely arbitrary euphemism for property redistribution. It's hard to find a better case of POV on Wiki.--Mike18xx 13:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. I don't know what the Webster says, but Wordreference gives many sense to this word. The only POV is your reading in it. Reform can be an euphemism for property redistribution, as well as today an euphemism for the Washington consensus policies implemented in the 1990s in South America. It has many different senses. Tazmaniacs 13:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I challange you to find any case of "land reform" which does not include some form of government swiping and redistributing stolen property.--Mike18xx 06:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Mike, when the various Eastern European governments redistributed publicly owned lands after the fall of the Communist regimes, who exactly do you feel they were stealing from? - Jmabel | Talk 23:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with those, but you're making a false-analogy if you're equating that to Allende's land- and mine-grabs. Furthermore, since "land reform" is a English term, but Chile is a Spanish-speaking nation, I see no credible reason for labeling Allende's policies as "reforms" due to usage.--Mike18xx 04:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"First freely-elected Marxist blah-blah-blah"

Perhaps Vints should go over to the Nazism page and edit in a couple remarks reminding everyone, obsessively, that the Nazis were freely elected. Because, after all, that's soooo relevent and justifies dictatorship. Er, right.--Mike18xx 05:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Allende being the first freely-elected Marxist president is historically interesting, as most Marxists came to power through a revolution. As for your remark about the reduction in economic aid, the section name/heading is "United States opposition to Allende," not intervention. If that doesn't belong there, then neither does Allende's love life in the Soviet section. And why do you try to disguise your changes? Here you make some remarkable changes and deletions, not commented in the edit summary, and at the same time you rearrange the text so the history won't show the changes. The actual changes are made visible here. Most of them appears to be factually incorrect. I would call that vandalism. ] 16:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"Historically interesting" is your POV. (Leftists never find it "historically interesting" that the Nazis were elected.) (And Franklin D. Rossevelt is the first elected "Marxist" president, not Allende, if the "walks like a duck, quacks like a duck" test is passed. Unsurprisingly, both presided over destroyed economies. Suffice to say that Allende was preceded by scores of elected property-redistributionist politicians; what's distinct about him is merely the overtness of his association with communist totalitarians.)--Mike18xx 01:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It was interesting that you did not reply to my main objection, these changes, visible here. Why did you try to disguise them? About Allende being the first freely-elected Marxist president, of course that is historically interesting. It's mentioned in several articles on Allende (even Jose Pinera mentions it). I doubt there has ever been a president or Marxist named "Rossevelt." Most people know that the Nazists were elected in Germany.

The hell they do. Go breathlessly announce it on the Nazism page, Vints, and see how far the fluffing gets.

But they were the only nazi government in history, so why write they were the "first freely-elected."

Come now; let's now discount the existance of all the other fascist crumbs right down to the present in the form of (elected!) "bullethead" Chavez.

About the $35,000, search the Hinchey report for "humanitarian". You also deleted a sentence in a direct quote in your last edits. Vints 05:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I deleted a sentence with a CBS "round-up" source-quote (i.e., not a REAL source). You now have a better, original source (hooray!) I shall examine your latest addition to see if it accurately quotes the source, or remains curiously committed to the erroneous implication that the CIA wanted Schneider murder and was rewarding the group for that reason.--Mike18xx 10:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)