Misplaced Pages

Talk:Salvador Allende

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Asterion (talk | contribs) at 20:28, 8 January 2007 (Removing Copyright violation text from http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=26000). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:28, 8 January 2007 by Asterion (talk | contribs) (Removing Copyright violation text from http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=26000)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
WikiProject iconBiography Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Template:FAOL

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.


Archive

Hatchet job

Someone has recently been trying to turn this into a real hatchet job . I've reverted some of this in the lead but there is a lot more to be addressed. For example, is Cuban exile Carlos Alberto Montaner really supposed to be an evenhanded source? - Jmabel | Talk 06:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


Actually different people have being making contributions. I know because I have only made some of the changes. Maybe you ought to acknowledge the possibility that you are a teeny weeny bit biased and view Misplaced Pages as your personal pulpit?

From what I have seen it has just been facts that you find uncomfortable - I grant however that I have not read the stuff about his racism nor the stuff about Carlos Alberto Montaner.

I bet you have! Long live censorship! Maybe when you demonstrate why the evidence is false, instead of censoring it because it makes you uncomfortable, you might get more respect.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.77.109 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


It seems to be the same person using different ip addresses, all starting with 88.109, 88.110, or 88.111, most recently 88.111.184.64 (talk · contribs). Vints 08:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to have any intention to stop.--CSTAR 23:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The current version of this article has several problems. Firstly, 40,000 votes is an uncertain figure , and "only" is a POV-word. The figure 350,000 USD for Cuban funding is mentioned, but not the figure of US and Soviet funding. Anyway, the lead section is no place to mention (repeat) all the details , and it's not necessary to repeat the notes found in the body of the text. The Opponents' view section is poorly sourced. The anonymous user also deleted the sentence about the American attempt to prevent Allende from taking office. I will revert. Vints 08:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


Yeah mathematics is so vague.

Except of course that it isn't since it is relevant to the issue at hand.

Actually if you read the article you will find figures for both.

The only reason people are interested in Allende is because of the coup, hence the need for background why it happened.

{8} Except of course when people demand the sources for the information.

If you mean the accusation about torture then evidence that opponents of Allende accused his goverment of relying upon torture is sourced.

I think you will find the information about the USA seeking to influence the election repeated several times. That is not what you object to, it is the reference to Soviet support you want to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.77.109 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Response to If you read the Chilean presidential election, 1970 article, there are different figures for the election result, from 36.61-35.27 to 36.6-34.9. This difference, with 3 million voters, is equivalent to about 10 000 votes. That's what i mean with uncertain figure.

(Well then come up with a figure that you believe is accurate. Do not censor the fact that his lead in the election was only small [I wonder why you would want to do that?} Come on as Leftist apologetics you are going to have to do better than that!)

Response to . Why mention only the Cuban figure and why repeat the same details in the lead?

It is pointed out that the USA supported the opponents of Allende. Indeed in a previous version of the article it was repeated so many times it would appear that this is the only thing Leftists want you to take away from the article. I simply mention that Allende was supported by the Soviet Union - a fact that deserves equally prominence. The details are expanded in later sections of the article. It is true that a specific figure is given for the Cuban support - to which the response "So What" comes to mind?

Response to So you are saying the coup happened because of Cuban and Soviet backing of Allende. That's a new and interesting theory.

It is an interesting theory. One entirely of your own devising needless to add.

Response to {8}. I asked for citation for Soviet backing of Allende's election campain. The Times article does not say anything about that. Anyway this claim was in an old version (). Notes 3, 4, and 5 in your version are still unnecessary as there are references for these claims in the body of the article.

I think even you will be able to spot your sleight of hand here. What is at issue is did Allende get financial support from the Soviet Union. If the answer is yes then the answer is yes - there is no need to go through his accounts and list what is spent it on. The claim that it was used to support his election campaign will not be denied by any person not deranged by Leftist bigotry. The introduction is a summary of the key facts. I would not have included the references myself since as you rightly point out they are mentioned later in the article. But wait a minute the introduction was being censored on the grounds that its claims were unsourced. You need to get your story straight!

There is no reference for the torture claim. I edited your recent additions to this Talk page. You might want to have a look at Help:Talk page. Vints 10:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

As for the claim that his opponents accused his regime of torture I simply provided evidence - in the form of an article published at the time - that his opponents accused his regime of using torture.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.106.92 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Now you are saying "I simply provided evidence". Judging from your ip address's contributions your first contributions were today, unless you are constantly changing ip address.
I think we could write "about 1,5%" or "a small margin". The percentages I mentioned is equivalent to a difference of about 39,000 and 50,000 respectively. It's not accurate to mention 40,000 in the lead as if it is an exact figure.
The amount of CIA and ITT and other companies' support are available in the Church report. There are amounts for both the election campain and campains during Allende's tenure. It's simply too much details to be mentioned in the lead section! The most significant foreign intervention is the US attempt to instigate a coup in 1970, which you try to censor from the introduction.
I'm not denying the Soviet support of Allende's election campain, I'm just saying you failed to source it accurately.
The Economist article you or one of your friends with almost identical British ip addresses provided does not say "his critics assert that torture was extensively", neither does it mention the La Portada newspaper. Vints 18:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


Agreed, the exact number of votes is not even necessary which is why I first tried to rewrite some of the additions by that annon. But obviously he's not interested in discussing the changes. And almost all of his additions are already covered by later sections of the article or by individual articles linked to.--Caranorn 13:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually it helps people to understand - although not in your case obviously - the slimness of the majority.

Well until you come up with evidence that undermines the claim that Allende had Soviet backing or a slim election victory or pursued policies that generated economic hardship then I will continue to put them in - otherwise it would be capitulating to censorship. I welcome the opportunity for you to undermine that information, in which case I will delete it. HINT - I am interested in history not hagiography.

Make up your mind - either they are a hatchet job or they are undisputed. If the first then refute them, and if the latter they are a summary of the substance of the later sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.77.109 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

In conclusion I am still waiting for the claim that his majority was slim, that he had financial backing from the Soviet Union, and the severe problems caused by his economic policies to be denied.

In short - censorship denied until you provide reasons why these claims are untrue.


My response to your response.

I am interested in truth. I appreciate that the New Left do not believe in truth (only power) but if you have that view then your only purpose in contributing to (or excising from) the Misplaced Pages is to generate fictions (such as Marxist apologetics).

I am happy to correct any contribution I make. Of course. That is the point of Misplaced Pages! So if I put in some facts and you delete them I simply ask you to justify this censorship with something more than I do not like it because I am a Communist. If all you do is delete all I can do is replace.

So what do you come up with?

You assert that giving precise election figures is unhelpful. Well the key point is the size of the majority. Did Allende have a big majority or a small majority? If the number of votes figure upsets you I could conclude that you wish to promote the myth that he had overwhelming popular support. Because I am a generous fellow I will dismiss this suggestion and for the sake of clarity replace the figure with percentages. I suspect the only word you want to see is 'plurality' because to a careless reader this leave the impression Allende had overwheling popular support. If this is true then you will find a reason why even percentages cannot be mentioned.

You claim that I am trying to censor the fact that the US government did not want Allende to become president? Eh? I specifically allude to the funding which the US government gave to his chief opponent. You claim that this is too much detail for an introduction, and on these grounds exclude mention of Soviet support. But you are happy to include details about the extent of US activity so long as it accords with the message you want to convey, namely that the USA was responsible for the coup; an extremely dubious and controversial claim that should be discussed in the main body of the article. The article introduction should simply mention that Allende got support from the the Soviet Union (and almost certainly Cuba) while his opponent got US support. It is fair enough to mention that the USA tried to put pressure on the Congress not to ratisfy him as President. If you want to link to sources that list the precise amount of support that each side got I see no problem with that so long as you link to trustworthy sources. Unless of course you want to delete any reference to amounts because it is only an introduction, in which case you need to make up your mind what you want - references or no references!

Simply deleting the introduction because it does not give sufficient emphasis to the role played by wicked capitalist Americans (as opposed to wicked communist Soviets/Cubans) hardly counts as a balanced contribution.

For some reason you want to exclude mention of the economic chaos that resulted from his policies - presumably wanting to create a myth about the economic disorder being caused by American intervention. Unfortunately for the myth making the policies he pursued where quite capable in themselves of producing the economic disorder, and mention of this is highly relevant to why a coup took place.

You note that providing evidence for the claim that his opponents accused his regime as using torture is different from saying his regime tortured its prisoners. Well I do not know if his regime did torture prisoners. I do know however that while he was in power his opponents accused his regime of doing just that, which is why I included a reference to an contemporary article that made this claim. If somebody comes along and provides credible evidence of torture (or credible evidence that the torture claims were just made up) then I will link to it. That is what people do when they are interested in truth. I am not interested in censorship or myth making (Marxist or otherwise).

P.S. Do you not know that Richard Gott was revealed to be a KGB agent? Is he the sort person you find a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.7.105 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you not know that these are only allegations, and that Richard Gott is an honorary research fellow at the Institute for the Study of the Americas at the University of London? Yes, I find such a person a reliable source for the subject at hand. Qwertyus 16:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
(Response: Because of his support for the Khmer Rouge Richard Gott's nickname amongst his Leftist colleagues on The Guardian was Pol Pot! Unfair of course because pride of place in his Hampstead home - and so presumably his heart - was a portrait of Stalin. When a high ranking ex-KGB officer identified him as an "agent of influence" Gott denied that he took any money from the KGB (although he admitted accepting various gifts) but that is because he gave his help for free! No I do not think Gott is going to be a reliable source. It is like asking a Cardinal for his balanced opinion on the validity of the claim that Mary was a virgin!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.109.156 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you the same person writing here before but with a new IP again? I didn't say he had overwhelming support, I even added "with a small margin". I never conveyed that USA was responsible for the actual coup in 1973. You confuse it with the attempt to instigate a coup in 1970; this attempt is not a controversial claim. In fact in Swedish Misplaced Pages I have frequently reverted claims that USA was responsible for the 1973 coup. How can you know what that led to the economic decline. Now your lead say "This led to a decline in production, which led to shortages and rationing." This is not a neutral point of view. There was US intervention, strikes and spoiling campaigns from the right, et cetera, which could also have contributed to the economic disorder. Vints 10:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

1. (Possibly. I have no idea. Various people have made various changes.)
2. OK
3. OK
4. If you mean the pressure brought to bear by the US to stop him getting ratified by Congress you are right this is not controversial.
5. OK
6. I refer you to what happened to what became known as "War Communism" in the USSR after the Communist Coup in Russia. Now I appreciate that Communist Party line at the time blamed the sharp economic decline on foreign interventions, but no serious economist denies the direct link between "War Communism" and the catastrophic economic decline. For a more recent example see Zimbabwe.
Now you might want to argue that foreign intervention or right-wing agitation exacerbated the problems (which may be the case although wishing does not make it so) but denying that his economic policies were able by themselves to cause the resulting severe economic disruption is not controversial (at least among economists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.109.156 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC) (edited)
To the anonymous user. Please read help:Talk page and Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines. Your present form makes debating with you impossible and it's unfair to expect of other users (like Vints) to edit your posts to make them readable.--Caranorn 19:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Marxist Apologists

If you are going to delete my comments then what the point of the comments section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.120.74 (talk • contribs)

  1. There is a clear Misplaced Pages policy on no name-calling. If you're not familiar with it, you can find it here WP:NPA
  2. You cannot assume that anybody that disagrees with you or makes a revert is a Marxist. Making that assertion is a clear personal attack.
  3. Your mode of response seems to consist of modifying your interlocutor's previous comments :(for example by directly inserting parenthetical remarks into these comments).
  4. Please sign your comments.
  5. Your continued failure to follow these basic rules of conduct will probably be construed by others as uncivil and disruptive behavior.

Such behavior may get you (and your sockpuppet accounts) banned from editing WP. If you like, please complain to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/incidents or file a WP:RfC.--CSTAR 03:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The following are comments of User:88.109.120.74. Placement of these edited by user:CSTAR for comprehensibility. Nothing other than whitespace was added or removed).

  1. (Well to be more specific I was talking about the person who deleted my comments about Richard Gott. But yes I can think of at least two of the people who have contributed to this forum fit that description. I withdraw it when they deny it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.120.74 (talk • contribs)
  2. (You mean responding to them like this?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.120.74 (talk • contribs)
  3. (I repeat if my comments are going to be deleted what the point of the comments section?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.120.74 (talk • contribs)
  4. (With a fictional cybername?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.120.74 (talk • contribs)
  5. (Call me old fashioned but I view deleting my remarks as uncivil behaviour) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.120.74 (talk • contribs)

(They and the readers can look at the history of the re-edits of the Allende article and make up their own mind!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.120.74 (talk • contribs)


Replies to User:88.109.120.74

Your replies have not addressed any of the issues addressed either here or in the edit summaries. In particular, (a) unsuitability of the references you have added with no specific date (b) the fact that references you have deleted satisfied the criteria for WP:RS, regardless of what your opinion of them may have been. I also urge you to consider WP:3RR. Note also that use of sockpuppets will not relieve you of adhering this rule.--CSTAR 04:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that my replies to the replies to my replies to the objections about the changes I had made to the Allende article were getting hard to follow. Not quite the same as saying I failed to address the objections. But never mind. It is unfortunate that somebody - they know who they are - deleted my comments about Richard Gott. I will do you the courtesy of believing that you are interested in what is true and what is false. Reading some of the edits people have made to the Allende article over the months this is a big presumption! If you think I have made a change to the wikipedia entry which is false (bearing in mind that not all the recent changes have been made by me!)I am too curious about the truth not to want to take any objection seriously. So let us start again. What is false?

Sock Puppets? I merely type.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.120.74 (talk • contribs)

I didn't delete your reply, I moved it as this discussion was unreadable with your remarks inserted in other editors' comments. Now I will restore the discussion and edit it to be readable.Vints 10:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


Many thanks for restoring the deleted comments.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.58.103 (talk • contribs)

It seems that the current objections to my edit is the assertion that the Allende was pursuing an "increasingly" radical programme, that his economic policies directly led to a decline in production and therefore shortages, and it is objected that his opponents claim - a reference to a contemporary newspaper article is made - that his government used torture is inadmissible. The absolute decline in GDP is delected and replaced by a reference to an article by Richard Gott that there were racial tensions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.58.103 (talk • contribs)

The suggestion that there was an increase in racial tension under Allende is covered by the reference to land confiscation. However, despite the fact that the article is by Richard Gott, a (notorious) pro-Soviet commentator, an argument can be made that the Indian v Spanish issue should be mentioned - so I have re-edited it accordingly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.58.103 (talk • contribs)

If you can get a link to a copy of said article that should be sufficient for inclusion in the opponents' view section. Alternatively give a good reference for a book that includes quotes from that article... A complete reference for the article I expect is not good enough either as few would be able to find an archived copy today to verify the data. Concerning the economic policies that's definitely contested. If you can document that claim you might want to add it to the opponents' view as well, but not to the introduction. As it is the introduction currently seems too long and includes a lot of data that would better fit into the later sections or the separate articles about those topics. I will try to reorganize parts of the article in the coming days without deleting content (though I might move some to other articles) once I recover from my cold...--Caranorn 13:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I haven't taken a look at your new changes yet, I can only dread the results.--Caranorn 13:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The claim that his economic policies alone led to the economical disorder is not consistent with a NPOV. There were several other factors, for example falling copper prices and cut off of aid. Our lead still says "decline (at an annual rate of 5.6% between 1971-1973) in average Real GDP." It wasn't deleted. I think we should also mention that the GDP increased with 8.6% in 1970 or delete all GDP figures from the introduction. The article also still mentions the torture claim, but what you wrote about it was not verified by the Economist article, thats why it was rewritten. Vints 14:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I restored my comment above as well as 88.110.58.103's comment above as these were modified by 88.110.58.103 (talk · contribs) . See Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable. Vints 17:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I was in the middle of editing my comments and got called away and returned to find two comments! You seem to have a lot of leisure time. Do you both work for the State? In the meantime I read the Gott article and it is so poor I have deleted it (arguing that opposition to Allende was on racial grounds is laughable!). It has no place in the introduction.

Equally laughable I am afraid to say is the suggestion - by "I am a Communist" Caranorn - that it is controversial to assert that his economic policies (such as property confiscation and tax and spend) were directly responsible for an increase in borrowing, inflation, and shortages, or had any connection with strikes and civil disturbances. You really have to be a Marxist fantasist - which it seems you are - to deny this so I continue to include it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.58.103 (talk • contribs)

I see it is "our" lead now! Comrades! You are right about falling copper prices and fall in American aid but if you think that confiscation of land and private businesses is not going to have a catastrophic effect on production you are even more economically illiterate than I thought (and to be honest I assumed you were pretty economically illiterate). My source for the torture claim is a contemporary source unlike your reference to recent article by a journalist asserting that anybody who criticizes Allende is only doing that in order in exonerate Pinochet. No doubt it gives you a warm feeling but as evidence it is useless.

If you are going to convince me that you are interested in what actually happened in Chile (as opposed to Leftist myth making) you are going to have to do better than that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.58.103 (talk • contribs)

For those who do not limit their reading to Marxist apologetics try reading this for a different perspective.

http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/004624.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.58.103 (talk • contribs)

Reference problems

I've been trying to do some citation cleaning. Among other things, there are some citations:

  • figures are from Nove, 1986, pp4-12, tables 1.1 & 1.7
  • Hoogvelt, 1997
  • Nove, 1986
  • Flores, 1997

I'm sure these are legitimate, and I suspect that the underlying sources were once in the references section of the article, but they are not there now. Does anyone know what works are being referred to? If not, can someone possibly sort through the article history or otherwise reconstruct this? - Jmabel | Talk 07:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

(Well since Nove and Hoogvelt and Flores are all Marxists they are going to be pretty much valueless as sources of information about Allende - unless of course you want Marxist fairy tales) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.77.109 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

personal attacks

88.110.58.103, please read Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks, Misplaced Pages:Civility and Misplaced Pages:List of policies. You've so far attacked at least three other users based on what you believe to be their political affiliation. In one case I understand you went so far as to falsify a user's talk page. This is not acceptable behaviour. The purpouse of these talk pages is to try and improve the related article, not to refight the cold war (or rather a rerun of McCarthyism). So far all the registered users have shown a lot of constraint regarding your accusations. Yet you continuously seem to violate wikipedia policies. So I would like to ask you once again to take a look at the policy pages and improve your conduct. Thanks.--Caranorn 16:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I know I should not laugh but the remarks such as the above made by "I am a Communist" Caranorn are hilarious. The threats! The hypocrisy! The sheer hate! OK I take it back maybe you do not work for the State. Just my little joke. If calling somebody a Communist who describes themselves as a Communist (why do I get the impression you are going to re-edit your entry now) is a terrible thing to do what can I do but apologise. Maybe Qwertyus is not a Dutch Leftist. Maybe Vints does not go on marches denouncing American imperalism. Perhaps you are just humble truth seekers who would not dream of censoring or denouncing somebody (as a McCarthyite!) simply because they pointed out things that conflict with your Marxist fairy tales. Until such time as you get power and send me to the political re-education camp - or whatever Leftists call the Gulag these days - if the sky is blue I say the sky is blue.

Is that clear enough?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.239.95 (talk • contribs)

The Allende Debray interview

The article makes the following claim in the intro:

"Allende later told Regis Debray that he signed them in order to become president, but did not intend to abide by them."

In fact this is not correct. There are several versions running around of what lies in thos interviews (aside from the interview itself, which I will refer to shortly). One version of Allende's comments comes from José Piñeras of the Cato Institute (certainly no left-wing ideologue). His account goes as follows (emphasis mine)

El diputado Orrego afirmó también que el Presidente Salvador Allende no estaba respetando el Estatuto de Garantías Democráticas que había hecho posible su elección. Este listado de derechos individuales había sido incorporado a la Constitución en 1970 como condición para que la Democracia Cristiana lo eligiera con sus votos como presidente, pues el candidato socialista sólo había obtenido el 36.2% del voto popular y, por lo tanto, el Congreso podía elegir a la primera magistratura a cualesquiera de las dos primeras mayorías relativas. Más tarde, Allende reconocería que él firmó este Estatuto sólo como una maniobra "táctica" (Regis Debray, The Chilean Revolution: Conversations with Allende, 1971).

What Allende actually says in response to Debray's question refering to the Statute of Guarantees: (see Conversación con Allende, siglo xxi editores, 1971 p 116)

Era absolutamente necesario? Era imprescindible negociar este EStatuto de garantías democráticas?

Allende responds

Si y por eso lo hicimos... Léelo y compáralo con nuestro programa de gobierno para llegar a la conclusión que no cambiamos ni una coma del programa. En ese momento lo importante era tomar el gobierno.

To extrapolate from the interview (and even from Pinera's account) that Allende had no intention of keeping the guarantees is a fanciful attempt at mind-reading. At best one could say "It is generally believed that Allende agreed to the Statute of Guarantees as a tactical move to achieve power".--CSTAR 04:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

My spanish isn't good enough to really understand the above, though I've also had some doubts about that claim in the intro, it seems at best to be taken out of context. Could you maybe translate the relevant parts? Or look for an english source? Thanks.--Caranorn 12:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Piñera's "account" (which is not a quote by the way) says merely that ALlende signed the guarntees as a tactical move.
In the interview Debray asks Allende "Was the signing of the guarantees absolutely necessary" and ALlende responds yes, explaining (the political situation withn the left/center left in Chile at the time that is not in the "ellipsis" part of the quote) and saying "At that moment the important thing was to take power".
You can interpret this any way you want, but you can't take one interpretation and put it into what is supposed to be a politically neutral encyclopedia.
One other thing. The anon keeps referring to "La Portada" newspaper as a source for the allegations of torture. Do a search: Go to any major university library or Google. There is not, nor was there any major newspaper in Chile by that name. It's possible there was some obscure periodical with that name, but that's hardly a reliable source.--CSTAR 16:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


Your Leftist bigotry prevents you (and your little cabal of totalitarian Leftists) from seeing the obvious - namely that Allende did not sign the Statute of Guarantees because he believed in them but only as a way of getting power. Needless to add once in power he then abused that power {or as an unreconstructed Leftist like yourself would say - the ends (the creation of a socialist tyranny) justify the means.

You assert that the weekly La Portada (Santiago) (November 1970) does not exist. An interesting suggestion. Although you are content to include a laughably bad article by KGB "agent of influence" Richard Gott, you seek to excise the memory of any article written at the time which accused his regime of using torture.

Somebody from Chile - not a know nothing Leftist bigot from the USA - can settle this question by going along to a good library.

—The preceeding unsigned comment was added by 88.110.239.95 (talk • contribs).

Aside from the question of the existence of "LA Portada", your reference is flawed on the face of it. The issue you claim alleges torture is from November 1970, Allende took office on November 1970. That seems pretty quick to get the torture racks up and running doesn't it? Not even the Uruguayan generals were so efficient.
As to the non-existence of La Portada consider: revistas de Chile, periódicos diarios de Chile. The most prominent weekly belonging to the center/right was "Que Pasa".--CSTAR 01:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


Well I am pleased to note that you can read and so have registered that the date November 1970 is November 1970 - I admit that producing such a newspaper article after he was in power for only one month did strike me as a bit on the early side but credit where credit is due you eventually did spot that but a change of political masters sometimes leads to rapid changes and so it is not on those grounds implausible. As for denying the existence of La Portada I do not regard the matter as settled until somebody from Chile does a bit of research for me. It is possible an error has been made in the date (these slips happen) or even in the spelling of the newspaper (which may indeed no longer exist) but it is interesting to me that even in a section devoted to his critics a reference to an article which attacked the use which the Allende government was making of torture is deleted. If somebody does some research and discovers that the reference is made up (highly unlikely ) I will of course delete it. I am interested in the truth. The fact that you have not heard of that newspaper means precisely nothing.

— The preceeding unsigned comment was added by 88.110.239.95 (talk • contribs).

Que Pasa, Ercilla were opposition weeklies and El Mercurio was a vociferous opposition daily. None of these were ever shut down. I have given you two websites which list all dailies and newsweeklies published in Chile. La Portada is not there. It's as simple as that.--CSTAR 03:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The reference to the way in which extreme Leftists shut down sources of opposition once they get power (see C20th history) is a reference to the way they are re-writing and censoring the Allende entry in the Misplaced Pages! Having said that I would be extremely surprised if Allende did not demonstrate the same intolerance. Although CSTAR keeps making reference to newspapers which are currently published in Chile it is unclear why he thinks that is relevant. Until I personally read the article or somebody in Chile does it for me I am prepared to delete the reference to the article. I am pretty confident it exists - since a reference to it was made in a scholarly tome - but even reliable scholars make errors and so I will delete that mention of it for the time being.

—The preceeding unsigned comment was added by 88.110.239.95 (talk • contribs).

Edit wars

Due to recent edit wars I think this article should be either semi-protected, or all controversial text should be deleted from the lead section (some of it could be inserted in other sections), or both. Vints 15:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Vints I plan to trim down the introduction anyhow. I've been pushing it out the past few days as I just can't concentrate for long enough with my cold. I also agree that semi-protection could be a good idea. Essentially the lead section should only include the main chapters of Allende's life, the details and particularly supporters' and opponents' views belong into the other sections and/or into separate articles.--Caranorn 15:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


There are no edit "wars" just a bunch of Leftist bigots such as yourself deleting information - it is called political censorship - because it upsets their Leftist fairy tales. For those on the far Left like yourself there is no such thing as truth only power - which is why you seek to re-edit sources of information such as Misplaced Pages.


You want a major re-edit to bring the Allende more back in line with orthodox Leftist disinformation about Allende - who could have predicted it!

— The preceeding unsigned comment was added by 88.110.239.95 (talk • contribs).

Okay, after two warnings I've now requested intervention for repeated violation of the NPA policy].--Caranorn 23:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Another note, the annon seems to just have broken the triple revert rule on the article. He's also once again broken that reference... I'm just too tired to track down the correct channels to report this latest violation. I only re-added the POV tag which he also removed every time.--Caranorn 23:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


It is interesting to see the way in which Leftists rely upon threats. I have had two warnings it seems! The totalitarian cast of mind is evident - start to think the way we think or we are going to punish you! Is the Left capable of letting something like Misplaced Pages exist without re-writing and censoring entries in order to suit its agenda. An article on President Allende is a good test case.

— The preceeding unsigned comment was added by 88.110.239.95 (talk • contribs).

In addition to reinserting several erroneous and unsourced claims, the anonymous user has added an incorrect amount ($350 000) for the US election campaing funding in the lead section (and this amount is not even mentioned in the article he cites). Figures of the US funding are available in the Church report . The CIA spent about $1M, ITT $350 000, other US companies about $350 000. The figure of Soviet spending seems to be underestimated. This article says: "actual and proposed payments to Chile's Salvador Allende totaling $420,000 both before and after his election as president in 1970." In the cited Times article $90,000 are just the figures of October and December 1971, and $60,000 of those were proposed, ie it's uncertain how much was actually spent.
I will request that this article be semi-protected at Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection, also because of the continuous personal attacks. Vints 10:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


I am happy to endorse any refinment of the amounts which Allende and his opponents received from the Soviet Union /Cuba and the United States respectively, although of course Cuba is still run by a Leftist gangster and so information is limited. In recent years there has been much greater access to KGB and CIA records. I look forward to attempts to supply something more substantive than Leftist fairy tales.

— The preceeding unsigned comment was added by 88.110.239.95 (talk • contribs).

trimming of lead/intro section

I'm seriously trimmed the intro section (maybe too much). All that material was then reinserted into the relevant sections. In cases where this material was already in said sections I only deleted their intro entry. I slightly expanded on the ethnic tensions in accordance with its reference. I have not reinserted the torture claim as that is still unsourced, requests for a source have been issued repeatedly the past weeks yet have not received any favorable response, as such there is no need to insert that material with a fact tag, deletion seems entirely appropriate and in line with wikipedia policy.--Caranorn 13:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Innacuracies

The article continues to have major problems. For example, though clearly there were some issues of economic mismanagement by the government which should be mentioned, there were other contributing factors including

  • subversive activities by the right, in part funded and encouraged by the CIA and other agencies,
  • subversive activities by partisans of the left which pressed for radical change, including unauthorized land seizures.

In any case, most of this material on the economy of Chile during the Allende years should be somewhere else.

This article on the whole is very amateurish. --CSTAR 16:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


To be honest I actually laughed out loud when I saw some of the comments and the re-edits. The one where some Leftist numbskull discusses deleting a link to an article that dares to question the Leftist version of events in Chile is a classic!


OK. I admit it. This was an experiment. How reliable is Misplaced Pages? Is the frequently heard accusation that Leftists are rendering it almost useless as a source of political information true? The verdict - watching Leftists having to pretend that they are interested in truth is amusing, and their selective editing and disinformation is instructive (it gives you an insight into their delusions) but sadly the emerging consensus that Misplaced Pages is about as reliable as the Soviet Encyclopedia as a source of information about politics is more true than false. Shame. It was a nice idea.

— The preceeding unsigned comment was added by 88.110.239.95 (talk • contribs).

Just in case you haven't seen it, may I suggest you have a look at this guideline: Misplaced Pages:Do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point? In particular, the section State your point; don't prove it experimentally. Now that you have stated your point, your further experimentation and disruption are no longer necessary it would seem.--CSTAR 21:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


Indeed.

— The preceeding unsigned comment was added by 88.110.239.95 (talk • contribs).

Accusations of Racism

The sixth paragraph of the section “Accustions of Racism” was altered and placed out of context. It was originally introduced as:

  • Surviving personal friends of Allende have completely rejected Farías accusations of racism and anti-semitism for two main reasons: Allende’s mother Laura Gossens Uribe was of Jewish-descent (though converted to Catholicism) and Allende himself considered himself a socialist Internationalist for most of his adult life. Or somewhere along those lines. - Чисто Золото 14:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it was altered by the anonymous user here . Vints 14:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Categories: