Talk:1973 Chilean coup d'état

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

An event mentioned in this article is a September 11 selected anniversary.

Contents

[edit] Archived

[edit] U.S. role

The only way we are going to NPOV this is to cite (conflicting) sources and indicate what they say. Right now we refer to documents declassified in particular years, but don't cite documents in any useful manner. I hold no brief for how the U.S. behaved: they certainly welcomed the coup, doubtless played a major role in creating the circumstances that led to a coup, and probably in some degree backed the coup materially, but it's a controversial matter and we should have better documentation (including any appropriate documentation of contrary beliefs). The fact that an article leans toward one's own views in a controversial matter shouldn't reduce one's standards of proof.

On the basis of what is present in the section "US role in 1973 coup", I think the wording in the lead overstates the case. The lead says, "the Chilean armed forces, with the backing of the US government, overthrew... [Allende]]". The section "US role in 1973 coup" suggest thats this may be too strong a wording. -- Jmabel 21:22, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

I suggest that a prerequisite for such additions is that users such as 172 and VV grow up and start behave as adults. There is little use in serious contributing to these articles as long as these editors cut away whatever they feel damage their propagandist agenda. /Tuomas 14:17, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] capital flight

In many of the histories I've seen of Chile, it's said that during the Allende years one of the chief causes of economic problems was the flight of foreign and domestic capital to other countries following the beginning of the reform programs. This was both the natural capitalist response in order to maximise profits and also a concerted effort to destabilize the country along the lines Kissinger discussed. However, I don't have references or in-depth knowledge. This is not discussed in any of the relevant articles: History of Chile, Salvador Allende, etc. Does anybody have information on this topic? Thanks! DanKeshet 20:37, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Good catch, Dan! I brought this up once, but I don't remember if it was a talk page comment or an article edit. We should definitely mention the effects of capital flight on the Chilean economy in the 3 years leading up to the coup of 1973.

Have any economic or political scholars discussed this issue? Has any "capitalist" said something like the following?

  • Serves him right, that no good Allende, for trying to steal from the rich (copper mine nationalization) and give to the poor (socialism).

Or have any socialists blamed foreign investors?

  • Those greedy capitalists deliberately sabotaged the Chilean economy just to make an excuse to have a coup and throw out Allende. Everything was going fine until then.

It probably is not as simple as "Nixon got the CIA to overthrow Allende so his buddies could get rich". On the other hand, if that's a popular viewpoint, than that POV should go into the article. --Uncle Ed 22:35, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] ...and other matters

I've probably done about all I will in this article by way of major additions for a while, although I do still plan to look over Allende's response to the August 22 document and see what can be used.

Here's what I'd urge someone else to take up next:

  1. I think the now-separate article about the 1970 Chilean presidential election needs more material on the various efforts to prevent Allende taking power, and this article then needs to give a quick summary of that
  2. I agree that capital flight should be discussed, as should more specific accounts of Allende's economic policies.
  3. We could use more on agrarian reform.
  4. We could probably have more on the various street demonstrations and the gradual break between the elected government and the military. After all, that's a big part of the story of the coup.
  5. Closely related, we should have more about the accelerating cycle of violence by the radical left and right. There were a lot of political assassinations in this period, and they are not yet covered in the article (nor is there an account of the appalling murders in the immediate wake of the coup, when tens of thousands were herded into the soccer stadium and thousands were killed, among them Victor Jara.

Thanks to Baloo rch for turning up multiple useful documents. -- Jmabel 23:24, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Citation on US involvement in coup

From a review of The Pinochet File in Foreign Affairs:

But what is very clear in all of this is that the coup in Chile is exactly what Kissinger's boss wanted. As Nixon put it in his ineffable style, "It's that son of a bitch Allende. We're going to smash him." As early as October of 1970, the CIA had warned of possible consequences: "you have asked us to provoke chaos in Chile. ... We provide you with a formula for chaos which is unlikely to be bloodless. To dissimulate the U.S. involvement will be clearly impossible." [1]

-- Viajero 00:14, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Recent insertion of POV

The recent edits by User:200.68.31.209 strike me as little but insertion of POV. I am inclined to revert them all, but as a major author of this inevitably controversial article, I'm hesitant to unilaterally prevent other voices. Do others agree with me on reverting this? Do you see anything in these edits worth salvaging? Maybe some additional content for the section on what was believed by supporters of the coup? -- Jmabel 05:11, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

Maybe his edits, or a substantial share of them, in this and correponding articles could be rephrased in wikipedia weasel term style. Of course it would have been much better if that pov could have been given references and quotations, but that might be too much to ask for - initially. /Tuomas 06:19, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • I gather this is sarcasm, but I'm not sure what your point is. Again, I'd have no objection to expanding the section on what was believed by supporters of the coup, but permeating the article with POV is another matter. There is probably at this point a slight bias (in selection of material) in favor of Allende, and I'd love to see it balanced better, but by adding relevant material, not by slanting the writing. -- Jmabel 06:39, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

Of course it was POV, of the ugliest nature, and I have removed it. --Cantus 06:24, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "even though"

The reason I took "even though" out of the sentence re: the CIA paying the coup officials is because there is no evidence that the CIA was opposed to the torture as "even though" implies. "because" would be a much better connector. The CIA (and the US generally) "established the conditions" for the coup; they gave quite a bit of aid to the military generally (meaning they know who they were), and they generally praised it. Their School of the Americas has taught many "anti-torture" classes on torture techniques among Latin American torturers. There is no reason to infer that they were opposed to the torture. DanKeshet 15:15, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The even though alludes to the supposition that the CIA perhaps should not have worked with contacts with human rights problems but did anyway. Because is ridiculous. And yes of course they were opposed to torture; don't be absurd. The use of such contacts was a subject of fierce debate back then. VV[[]] 20:00, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] broader U.S. reservations?

I removed this phrase:

and in fact that many CIA officers shared broader U.S. reservations about Pinochet's single-minded pursuit of power.

Yes, I know it is on the first page of the report. What "broader U.S. reservations?" Can someone substantiate this vague statement? -- Viajero 05:44, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The text merely states what the report concluded, which is useful information. Anyway, it's clear what it means, no? VV[[]] 05:59, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It probably means "Pinochet sure is useful to us but he's going so far that we'll look bad if some of these facts come to light." JamesMLane 06:37, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Global recession

The article doesn't really mention the global recession/oil crunch at all - it mentions the hyperinflation in Chile, but then doesn't say that there was global (near) hyper-inflation at the time. I don't know if it's relevant (don't know enouygh about the Chilaen exposure to oil in 1972) but surely it's relevant.

[edit] The disputed description of the link

The page has been protected because of a dispute between two different ways of describing this link:

"which provides documents obtained from FOIA requests regarding the US's support for the coup and Pinochet" or
"which provides documents obtained from FOIA requests regarding US attempts to promote a coup in 1970".

The edit summaries are a little sparse in terms of actually discussing this issue. The most substantive is that of Jmabel, who said, in support of the second version, "Pinochet has nothing significant to do with that matter". If "that matter" is the 1970 coup, I'd agree, but the link is not by any means limited to 1970. If you go to the site, you find a list of the materials available there. The list includes:

  • "Chile and the United States: Declassified Documents Related to the Military Coup of September 11, 1973"
  • "CIA Acknowledges Ties to Pinochet’s Repression: Chilean Secret Police Chief was a CIA Asset"
  • "On 25th Anniversary of Chilean Coup, Documents Detail Abuses by Chilean Military, U.S. Role in Chile" (dated 1998, so referring to 1973 not 1970).

On this basis, I believe the first description quoted above is clearly correct. The documents provided at that site do concern the US's support for the 1973 coup and for Pinochet. JamesMLane 04:19, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The website mislabels some of the information. The U.S. had no role in the 1973 coup, contrary to rumors. VeryVerily 23:30, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Interesting. Without following up the link, I had made the mistake of presuming that the person who originally added the link had characterized it correctly, that it referred only to 1970, and that Pinochet was therefore a red herring. But, yes, now that I follow the link, it looks like ""support for Pinochet" is a perfectly accurate description of part of what it covers. Sorry, guess I made a mistake, although I will add that it didn't help any that the person who made the change failed to explain the nature of the factual correction. -- Jmabel 07:35, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
Jmabel, I agree with your last sentence, except that the unhelpful behavior came from both camps. On one side, VV kept reverting in support of his position in a good-faith content dispute and gave the misleading edit summary "rv vandal". In doing so, VV was in keeping with the regrettable and widespread tendency, which has been seen in edit summaries by him and in edit summaries by people reverting him, to use "vandalism" to mean "an edit with which I disagree". On the other hand, the anon(s) reverting VV in this instance didn't provide even a misleading edit summary. Which of these objectionable approaches is more objectionable is left as an exercise for the frustrated reader. JamesMLane 10:58, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I probably more-or-less unconsciously took VV's edit summary at face value, since the other person wasn't refuting it. -- Jmabel 18:47, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
I called the user a vandal because the user is a vandal. I did not call the edit vandalism. The anon user (who logs in as Turrican) in question vandalized my user page several times and then began reverting all the edits I make to various articles. I agree that the trend towards calling good faith edits vandalism is an unfortunate one, which I myself resist taking part in, but this is not such an instance. VeryVerily 23:30, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
So am I to understand that when you write "rv vandal", I should never assume that you have reverted vandalism and that you are simply making a disparaging remark about the previous editor? Normally, when I see a remark like that from an experienced wikipedian, I take it as an indication that I probably don't need to look at the edit, as (I'm sure) do a lot of other people. I would say that (1) if you believed that the edit in question was not vandalism, this at least borders on a deliberately misleading edit summary. -- Jmabel 23:51, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
That user vandalized my user page multiple times (see page history of User:VeryVerily or this version) and went through my contributions and started reverting them all. I reverted back with the edit summary "rv vandal", I believe a wholly appropriate description. Maybe you would feel differently if someone called you a "disgusting Nazi", posted implicit death threats, and pasted swastikas on your user page; in that case you get the "WikiLove" award. Not me. And, no, there was no need to look at that edit. If you want to track all the edits recently made to an article, the page history is available, and where I first made the edit in question is documented without allusion to vandalism. VeryVerily 00:34, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree that there's a distinction between "vandal" and "vandalism" and that I overlooked that point in characterizing your summaries. I retract my comment to that extent. Nevertheless, "rv vandal" is not an adequate edit summary when it's obvious that there's a good-faith content dispute. Whether or not the anon user was the one who vandalized your user page, even a vandal can make some good-faith edits when not vandalizing. Many people would read your summary the way Jmabel suggests above. I adhere to my view that neither side in the revert war adequately discussed the issues before the page was protectd. JamesMLane 23:57, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I explained my edit when I initially made it. Whether it was adequate is a separate question, but until now it was not challenged except by the vandal. VeryVerily 00:09, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)


The links in question to FOIA contain documentation of US support of an aborted coup in 1970 as well as the 1973 coup. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.197.7.26 (talk • contribs) 11 September 2006.
This is a response to a nearly 2-year-old exchange. - Jmabel | Talk 05:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Left-wing" opposition

One of the subjects of multiple reverts is the passage describing Pinochet's conduct immediately after the coup. Why should we say that he moved to crush "left-wing" opposition? That might be defensible if, for example, certain parties had been outlawed, and their members expelled from Congress, if they were charged with being Communists or Communist sympathizers or whatever. What the paragraph says, however, is that the junta dissolved Congress. Left-wing, right-wing, centrist, all opposition was crushed. Obviously, people on the left were more likely to oppose the dictatorship, but I don't see any justification for specifying "left-wing". We should just say that he moved to solidify his position against any opposition. JamesMLane 05:36, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

concur -- Jmabel | Talk 19:24, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
You know, now that I look at that passage, I agreed too easily. Although Congress was dissolved, the only parties that were banned were the UP parties, that is those in Allende's coalition. The people herded into the National Stadium were almost uniformly leftists, as were the arrested and disappeared. Pinochet snubbed the traditional conservatives and the Christian Democrats, but he did indeed try to crush the left. There is a distinction here, and it should be made, albeit more clearly than the unclear phrase in the earlier version of the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:58, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
OK, I've taken another stab at it. I'd just prefer to avoid the phrase "left-wing" because I think it might, in some people's minds, marginalize the opposition -- as if, in the U.S., the government had arrested a few leaders of the Communist Party USA. Instead, I've tried to convey both ideas: that Pinochet moved to foreclose all opposition, and that his particular target was Allende's coalition. JamesMLane 06:17, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Much better. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:59, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
people were killed and tortured, you dummy, thats why is called "crushing left-wing oposition". Was the right or centrist wing tortured, exiled or killed?... i think we all know the story. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.113.119.254 (talk • contribs) 23 Feb 2006.

[edit] Edit wars

Can we please try to use the talk page to sort out the various matters that keep going back and forth instead of engaging in edit wars? It looks to me like we have consensus now on one passage, at least among those of us who bother to state our views rather than make uncommented edits, or edits that are justified only by their view of the character of another editor.

One passage in the article as it stands at this writing says, "His personal doctor said that he committed suicide with a machine gun given to him by Fidel Castro, and an autopsy labelled his death as suicide, while others insist he was murdered by Pinochet's military forces while defending the palace." This breaks down to several assertions:

  1. "His personal doctor said that he committed suicide": I'm pretty sure I've seen this from an entirely reliable source, though citation would be welcome.
  2. "His personal doctor said that he committed suicide with a machine gun": I believe this, too, is true. Again, citation would be welcome.
  3. "His personal doctor said that he committed suicide with a machine gun given to him by Fidel Castro". Well, I believe he did indeed own a machine gun given to him by Fidel Castro, but I don't believe his doctor said anything about that being the machine gun with which he killed himself. I'd want to remove this assertion unless it can be cited.
  4. "an autopsy labelled his death as suicide": I believe this is true. Again, citation would be welcome.
  5. "...while others insist he was murdered by Pinochet's military forces..." Certainly a true statement, but citations of who says this would be in order.

I also suspect there is more to say in the matter, like whether the autopsy was performed by anyone who should be considered a trustworthy source and whether Allende's doctor (1) made this statement on the basis of first-hand knowledge or just hearsay (i.e. did he actually see the death scene and/or the body) and (2) made this assertion in a context where he could be presumed free of coercion.

Clearly there are other passages at issue. I'd welcome similar summaries of what is at issue on the others. This matter should not be settled by who has the most endurance at reverting edits. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:41, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Just to note, most of the revert warring is due to the user Turrican, who is anonymously reverting edits of mine largely at random as well as (formerly?) vandalizing my user page repeatedly, all with personal attacks. One of his IPs was blocked, but he switches to others. Just revert him on sight. The information about Fidel Castro needs to be cited and possibly clarified by rephrasing, but what is there is fairly sound. I agree the additional information you seek would help as well. VeryVerily 23:49, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
As is evident from my most recent and somewhat bilious edit summary, I agree wholeheartedly with Jmabel. I do not agree with "revert him on sight" as a policy. VV has a pending arbitration request re Turrican, but until the ArbCom acts, neither VV nor anyone else is authorized to declare that Turrican is a free-fire zone and his edits can be reverted without being read. JamesMLane 00:11, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I imagine you might feel differently if this was done to your user page. Also, all of his edits for quite some time have just been reverts, usually of me. And yes I can revert him, it's a wiki. VeryVerily 08:34, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Back on that "personal doctor" thing

I've edited slightly (per discussion above) and cited some sources, but where exactly does the vague, uncited claim, "His personal doctor said that he committed suicide with a machine gun" come from? Róbinson Rojas The murder of Allende available online but published in 1975 by Harper and Row says Allende's personal doctor was Enrique Paris. Is this in dispute? Rojas gives an account of Allende's death as murder, not suicide, with Paris supposedly arriving moments later.

I'm not saying I unquestioningly trust Rojas's account, I'm just saying it casts doubt on our statement about what Allende's personal doctor may have said, so I would really like to see a comparably respectable citation for Wikipedia's version: I've looked, and I can't find a thing. (BTW, Paris himself appears later to have been arrested and killed [2]; his son, who has the same name is still alive, so be careful in any checking of sources to know which one is meant). -- Jmabel | Talk 05:52, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

One of his doctors, Patricio Guijon, was found with the body by the military. According to the witnesses, Allende had ordered a capitulation, and he stayed at the end of the line of the people leaving, entered to the independence hall and commited suicide. Only Dr Guijon came back after noticing that Allende was not there, and found him dead, with the gun between his legs. For a long time his was the only account, apart from the autopsy, that he had commited suicide. Another doctor from the group, Jose Quiroga, revealed in 1988 that he had also witnessed the suicide, as told in a couple of paragraphs here and here. On september 11 2003 he said in another interview that there were a total of six witnesses to Allende's suicide, that they saw him through the smoke and the antigas mask. And that they didn't say anything because they thought it was important that Allende was considered to have been killed by the military. The interview is in Spanish, in a Los Angeles newspaper La Opinion No serious person talks about Allende being directly killed by the military anymore. --AstroNomer 15:35, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV again

Johdl, who has obviously done a ton of research, recently added a large amount of generally good material to this article, his/her first contribution to Wikipedia, at least under that name. Unfortunately, a lot of his/her writing was very POV; I'm trying to remove the more blatant POV sentences (which mostly just overtly restate in POV terms facts that speak for themselves). -- Jmabel | Talk 00:43, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Factor out Chile under Pinochet?

A lot of what Johdl has written seems to cover a much broader historical period than the coup itself. We've been slowly accumulating a lot of material on the history of Chile (here and elsewhere, including -- surprise! -- History of Chile). Maybe the time has come to do a proper article series on the History of Chile, as was earlier (prematurely) proposed? If so, a lot of this would probably move to an article on Chile under Pinochet or some such, because it's not really about the coup. Johdl, if you are checking this page, would you agree to that? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:43, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

And some of this probably belongs in a new article Chile under Allende, too. Which is to say, there is a lot of good material here, but it doesn't all belong in an article on the coup itself. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:56, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

I have fixed the Debray reference, I am assuming that is the only one I omitted? I checked the references fairly carefully (I added quite a few) and I must have failed to see the reference in the text and thus deleted the reference (because I thought it wasn't referred to in the text).

I am happy with the stuff I have added. You are free to delete the section "Chile under Pinochet" if you don't think it's relevant to this article. You can place it somewhere else or delete it altogether if you wish.

I would appreciate if you left alone the paragraphs I have added in the other sections. I added a bit about Chile under Frei throughout the article because what happened under Frei was directly relevant to what happened to the economy under Allende. I have also added a bit to the section on US involvement. If you want to change some of that I don't mind you doing so, but I'd appreciate it if we had a discussion about what you want to change before you change it. I referred to a couple of the documents Clinton released which were not previously referenced in the article.

Let's have a discussion about what you want to change. I have directly quoted Karamessines and Kissinger. I think these cables proves that the US was plotting behind the scenes for a coup to happen (was it Karamessines who said it is essential that the US Government's role be well hidden?).

As for the references, as far as I know there are none missing (now that I have fixed the Debray reference as requested).

Regards. Joh.

Much of the material in this article clearly doesn't belong here. Discussion of post-coup Chile is appropriate only to the extent that it represents the "mopping-up" phase of the coup, including the arrests of the junta's opponents and the dissolution of Congress. I suggest that the rest be moved immediately to History of Chile (with, of course, a wikilink here). Similarly, the lengthy discussion of the Allende years doesn't belong here. What's appropriate is a much shorter section that would give the highlights of the origins of the opposition to Allende. We have an article on Salvador Allende, although that should be primarily a biography and most of the information about the government's policies during the 1970-73 period should also be moved (initially) to History of Chile.
There would then be the separate question of whether History of Chile was getting long enough to justify spinning off daughter articles to cover some of the particular time periods. As matters stand, History of Chile has fairly detailed sections on History of Chile#1970-1973 and History of Chile#1973-1978; much of what's in this coup article unnecessarily duplicates the information there, e.g., the involvement of the Chicago School economists and the results of their policies. JamesMLane 06:21, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've agreed that the Post coup section can go. I will remove it as soon as I finish typing this message. I disagree about removing the discussion of the Allende years. You say it doesn't belong here, I disagree, because it is directly relevant to why the coup happened. It should stay in the article, otherwise you end up with a short article about the coup itself and no explanation of what led to it or what the conditions were that led to it. I am off to delete the post-coup stuff. It can go elsewhere, but I won't touch the information that directly refers to the reasons for the coup happening. That is necessary background to the reason this article exists in the first place. Regards. Joh.

OK I have removed the Post-coup section from this article. With it goes the following references: Roberts, Valdes, Contreras, Remmer, Sznajder, Petras & Vieux, Schatan, and Christian. I won't touch the article again as I am happy with its contents. If you want anything else removed let's discuss it. Regards. Joh.

By saying remove from the article, I certainly didn't mean remove from Wikipedia. Give or take some too-POV wordings, this is good stuff. It just needs to be factored out to a more appropriate place. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:50, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
I've now moved it all to Chile under Pinochet -- Jmabel | Talk 07:04, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
With regard to the post-coup material, I completely agree with preserving it, and I think Chile under Pinochet is a good way to go. As for the pre-coup period, I agree that the scene has to be set, but what we have is too detailed. Much of it would belong either in History of Chile or in a new daughter article, Chile under Allende. I set up a sandbox to facilitate the process of keeping the basics necessary for this article. You can see it at User:JamesMLane/Temp:Chilean coup. I began by copying the material now in the section on "Situation before the coup" in Chilean coup of 1973, and then editing it, so you can see what I did. Even with these cuts, I think it may be too detailed. I'll try to revisit it and see how it looks when I'm not immersed in it, but in the meantime, everyone is invited to edit it or to discuss it. JamesMLane 08:59, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm probably going to trust others to work out this scene-setting part unless I'm explicitly asked for my help. Just remember to move/copy references in parallel with moving/copying other material. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:51, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Summarizing my edits downstream of Joh

I've made a number of edits. I don't think any of them are drastic. I've kept 100% of Joh's citations. Mostly I have:

  1. Rearranged so that overview statements come at the start and end of sections
  2. Tried to remove phrases and sentences that do nothing but add POV (e.g. "It is important to note that...")

At this point I am pretty happy with what we have (with the one exception about Debray, noted below), although I suspect that some people well to my (and, I presume from his choice of sources, Joh's) political right are going to want to add information from some different sources. Again, more of this may eventually end up summarized here and rendered in full elsewhere: that's part of the usual process of growth of an article. This article has now had at least two good articles factored out (1970 Chilean presidential election and Chile under Pinochet). -- Jmabel | Talk 07:55, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Regis Debray

The thing here that most gives me pause in terms of POV is the paraphrase of Regis Debray, a very partisan source. I'd rather see a direct quote (or even an indirect quote) from Debray, explicitly presented as such in the article, rather than paraphrasing him in the article's narrative voice. Joh, is there one single apropos quote from Debray that says most of what you use here (I notice your reference has a single page number, so I'm hopeful). If not, we can use indirect quotation style. Either way, it should be made clear that terms like "organised financial panic" and "terrorism" (this last being a word we usually try to use very sparingly) are Debray's, not those of the narrative voice of the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:55, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Debray removed

OK I deleted that whole paragraph (and the reference). I also have a copy of Allende's first speech to the Chilean parliament after his election (speech was 21 May 1971). If someone wants to format it and post it in the history of Chile section you are welcome to do so. You can find a copy here...

[edit] Inaugural speech and other Allende-years matters

http://users.bigpond.net.au/ftr/allende_speech.html

It's on the public record in Chile so there should be no problem posting it here. There is no copyright for it. I copied it word for word from a 30 year old pamphlet in the University library a couple of years ago.

Regards. Joh.

  1. Joh, thanks for just removing that, it probably will make all of this less contentious.
  2. The speech would be more appropriate for Wikisource and/or source.wikipedia.org, and any mention of it probably belongs either in the article 1970 Chilean presidential election or the new scene-setting one JamesMLane has started (which I'd suggest titling Chile under Allende by analogy to the Chile under Pinochet that I just started with your material). You might want to take a look at the second link in section Chilean_coup_of_1973#Allende_responds, which links to my translation of Allende's last speech.
  3. By the way, the easiest way to sign your comments here is with ~~~~, which will add your username (linked to your user page) and a timestamp. Makes it clearer what's going on.

Jmabel | Talk 23:06, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

I agree about putting the speech on Wikisource. Just to clarify, my sandbox at User:JamesMLane/Temp:Chilean coup isn't intended to be the new article. It's my first draft of the "Allende years" section of this article. That's why I cut out some detail. My suggestion is that the sandbox or something like it be substituted into this article. The full level of detail about 1970-73 from the current version of this article would be preserved, but in a separate article. Most of it would be in History of Chile or, as Jmabel suggests, at a new article called Chile under Allende. For the specific election information, like the table of votes, 1970 Chilean presidential election would be a more appropriate place. JamesMLane 01:02, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've created that Chile under Allende article with material from here, so people can feel free to edit down in this article. Please don't remove from this article any of the material about Congress's accusation and Allende's response: that is directly germane to the coup, and the Chile under Allende article merely summarizes it and refers to this article as the main place it is covered. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:44, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Similarly, I have copied to U.S. intervention in Chile all of the relevant information from this article; I've also organized it a bit better there than it was here. I am pretty certain that my copy was without loss of information, but I might have missed something. Feel free to check on me! In any case, the intent is that information about U.S. involvement that might exceed what is relevant to this article on the coup can be edited down without any fear that it will be lost to Wikipedia. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:11, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Links

I added a link on the page to the wikisource article containing the May 1971 speech to Congress. I also added it on the Salvador Allende page. If you notice a few edits, it was just me trying to get the link working. For some reason it took a few attempts. Anyway, the link is working now. I also borrowed some of your links from this page and added them to the wikisource article.

I also added full given names in the references section for those whose full names I could find (replacing the initials).

Regards, Johdl 22:19, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] grammar

A recent edit by User:Trey Stone ended up with a sentence beginning "Later, Kissinger The CIA provided funding and propaganda support to political opponents..." I'm not sure what he meant here, so I can't fix it. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:58, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Opposing views of the coup

While some of User:Martin Wisse's recent edits to "Opposing views of the coup" may be legitimate, others are clearly blatant POV. We can not, in the narrative voice of the article, call a view "ridiculous and hypocritical". If this came from an anonymous user, I would simply revert without reading more closely. Also, why single out one particular victim just because he happened to be a U.S. citizens? Martin, can you please re-read what you wrote and see if you can do an NPOV version of your recent work yourself? -- Jmabel | Talk 21:31, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

I took the "ridiculous and hypocritical" line from the previous version of the article. I'm not sure I agree with your view that the narrative voice of an article should not call something this if it is ridiculous and hypocritical, but neither am I opposed to making it clearer this view is of course held by the coup's critics and opponents.

The Charles Horman article was linked to because it was a clear, well known example of the consequences of the coup, making it somewhat more immediate.

I myself do not find my altercations to be non-NPOV and made them because I felt the previous version of this section was too mealy mouthed, too much "he said, she said" rather than NPOV, making it look as if the arguments by the coupists and their opponents have equal weight, when they in fact pit hypothetical dangers against actual facts. --Martin Wisse 21:41, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Opposition to Allende

The government's efforts to pursue these reforms led to strong opposition by landowners, some middle-class sectors, the rightist National Party, the Roman Catholic Church (which was displeased with the direction of the educational reforms [2]), and eventually the Christian Democrats.

There's something employed in this paragraph, enumeration, that makes it sound somewhat POV. From the look of it it would seem as Allende had a lot of opposition, but didn't he have the majority behind him? Perhaps it should be mentionned that the upper-class was very small in Chile in that time, and that the lower classes were the huge majority. Also, both the National Party and Christian Democrats take their support from the groups mentionned, so it's a bit futile to include them as well.

allende won by with about 30-something percent of the vote, while Christian Democratic candidate Tomic got in the high 20s and had run on a left-wing platform. however this was before the economy started to fall apart in the 2nd and 3rd years of his term. so you can imagine that opposition had grown by that time and as a consequence the Christian Democrats moved to the right and in the end called for the military to oust him and call new elections.
i think that paragraph is a little excessive but if it is trimmed we shouldn't water down the opposition by tarring it as all wealthy interests when it wasn't. J. Parker Stone 02:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
While Mr. Stone and I are usually very far apart on politics, I think this should stand. Allende entered office with the active support of about a third of the country, the active opposition of another third, and a third in the middle ready to give him a chance. Part of the story of his fall is that the middle third moved variously toward neutrality and toward active opposition: at the end, few Christian Democrats remained in his camp (though it's hard to say how many had moved into active opposition, and they certainly regretted what replaced him). The list here accurately reflects a chronological progression. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:43, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Songs

Not sure what I think of the mention of the Toad the Wet Sprocket song "Chile". There are a lot of songs about the coup (at least one each by Holly Near and Arlo Guthrie leap to mind). Do we want to accumulate material like this in the article? In a "sidebar" list somewhere? Suggestions are welcome. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Who backed Allende?

So we know what branches opf the army and police backed Pinochet. Who backed Allende? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ksenon (talk • contribs) 21 Jan 2006.

investigations school, that was the last one who stayed with Allende. Also, with Allende was the GAP, who acted as their personal guard. Other groups that have no affiliation with Allende, but were leftists (although trotskist) were MIR, VOP and later the FPMR in the 80s —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.113.119.254 (talk • contribs) 23 Feb 2006.

[edit] Differentiating the deposement from the coup

In my last edit summary, I wrote: "RV; the POV consists in failing to differentiate between the legitimate removal of Allende, and the *after the fact* refusual to relenquish martial law by Pinochet." The text redacted claimed:

  • "Although this call (referring the Resolution of August 22, 1973) for "redirecting government activity toward the path of Law and ensuring the constitutional order of our Nation and the essential underpinnings of democratic coexistence" was invoked to justify the September 11 coup, in retrospect that was clearly not the agenda of the coup."

The oxymoric phrasing "in retrospect... was clearly not" is at best POV, and at worst, merely a redundancy (since "in retrospect", ie. after the fact, Pinochet clearly (did) not return power to the Chilean legislature after the legislature implored the military removal of Allende. What the passage fails to account for is that Allende's military ouster was implored by Resolution; the "coup" proper was a subsequent event, and consisted of Pinochet's refusal to return power back to civilian government.--Mike18xx 09:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The coup was, in any event, an extraconstitutional act. The majority of the legislature approved a resolution saying that Allende had abrogated the constitution and called for extraconstitutional means to re-establish the constitution. Clearly, Pinochet et. al.'s coup was nothing of the sort: it was a seizure of power, that used the resolution for cover. This is a classic scenario for a coup: neutralize numerous elements of society at the crucial moment by having them believe, falsely, that you are acting on their behalf, then seize power for yourself. George Papadopoulos did much the same thing in Greece, as did Napoleon in the coup of 18 Brumaire. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I think the semantic differences aren't very meaningful as long as we include all the information. Do you consider "the coup 'proper'" to be the deposement, the seizing of power, the resolution calling for military intervention? Does it matter? We say what happened, let the reader decide which parts are part of a coup. I agree, though, that the "retrospect" sentence is awkward at best. DanKeshet 17:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I heard some people saying : "I was in favor of September, 11th but against September, 12 th". The declaration of the Chamber of Deputies is only one more of the signs of disgovernment and political turmoil of Allende's administration and the coup probably would occur with or whithout it. Depite I agree with Jmabel about the non-constitutionality of the events of 1973 (in my POV most of the political life and government acts where running out of consitutition before September 11th, 1973), it is insteresting to notice that prominent Democrat Christians - who oppossed military regime - appearead at the press during the first week with approbatory words for the removal (Pres. Frei Montalva, Pres. Alwyn). Baloo rch 12:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] too damn POV

are you kidding me?, the source of information is Jose Piñeras' page?, the man that made himself rich in the dictatorship by creating the AFP (privatization of pensions, but thats another topic). This page is really pov, lacking a lot of info, giving importance to info that didnt seem really all that important and most importantly, the vast rightitst POV that the page has, it just needs a lot of re-work, checking both sides, not just multi-millionaire Jose Piñera side. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.113.119.254 (talk • contribs) 23 Feb 2006.

Hello, anymous collaborator!. Despite you don't like the source, the documents are real. At this time it seems this is best source found. If you want to improve wikipedia you can do the following:

  • Transcript the documents to wikisource and link that page. (There are Chile's Chamber of Deputies public documents, so there is no problem to do so).
  • Find a more neutral source (v.g. try if there are at the Chamber of Deputies website).
  • Acknowledge that in article like this there's not one solely POV and if you want to know further you probably will find different opinions about the same event/topic. In this case there are both pro and against coup links and instead of delete all of them, they should explicitly marked and categorise in order to tell the reader what's is going to find.

Regards, Baloo rch 12:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section "Allende becomes President"

A comment is made in the article of Allende's portion of the vote, and so on, and the question of whether he could claim a mandate. Such election victories and mandates are hardly unusual in the democratic world, e.g. Denmark, Italy, Norway, Israel. It seems wrong to me to raise these doubts without giving that context. I wonder if anyone has any comments on an appropriate way to add some wording along these lines?

I understand the point being made that Allende's actions in government went beyond what might seem reasonable given the election conditions (although that's hardly unusual either...), but as it stands the article doesn't seem to me to distinguish that objection clearly enough from what appear to be objections to the fact that he won the presidency at all. —WebDrake 09:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

For all this political debate, has anyone even noticed that the coup execution (which this article is supposed to be about) is barely discussed? All we know is that someone bombed the Presidential Palace, then BAM Allende's dead and Pinochet is in charge.

Also, the U.S. section seems disproportionately large considering the almost non-existant role in this coup... could this be shortened to two paras with a link to the main article (its starting to look like one already). CJK 00:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute, it is the copy of the main article. How dishonest.... CJK 19:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
While I do think that the politics of the matter are of more general interest than the tactics of the particular coup, anything on the practical execution of the coup would, of course be welcome. - Jmabel | Talk 00:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appalling Vandalism

Please cease this appalling vandalism. The reason that there is such large deletions is because its a COPY of the MAIN ARTICLE. I shortened it with an accurate summary, if someone wants to know more click the link. CJK 01:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

There are fundamentally two points in what you (jokingly?) refer to as vandalism. 1) This is an article about the coup. Even though it has its own article, the role of the US is very critical and must be treated seriously. 2) Removal of some very manipulative formulations – such as claiming that Pinochet just removed Allende, and thus implying that he did not assume power. Bertilvidet 17:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Btw, please also have a look at Wikipedia:Ownership of articles Bertilvidet 17:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

1. There is nothing there that actually shows a U.S. role in the 1973 coup, thus the size is totally out of proportion. Besides, its (almost) an exact copy of United States intervention in Chile why have two articles that say the exact same thing even thoough 90% of the stuff I summarized has nothing to do with 1973. 2. Pinochet removed Allende on September 11 and dissolved Congress on September 13. Not the same day as the coup. CJK 19:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles. You're entitled to think that "there is nothing... that actually shows a U.S. role in the 1973 role", but not to delete 3/4 of articles. Each article is supposed to stand by itself & explain the context. Tazmaniacs 22:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you read what I said? I didn't say it didn't belong there, I said that since there is an entirely different article saying the same exact thing, a summary of the charges would be appropriate. CJK 17:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not a question of respecting "your text", once submitted to Wikipedia it becomes public domain. As long as the dispute goes on, let's at least admit by keeping the POV-tag. Bertilvidet 19:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
And please, also stop labelling edits you disagree with as vandalism. You have to accept that Wikipedia is a community where we work together. Bertilvidet 19:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

When summaries are being systematically deleted and an "article within an article" is created, it is vandalism. See WP:SS CJK 19:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If adding information to an article is vandalism, a good wikipedian is a vandal. Honestly, such respectless attacks on other people's edits are not reaaly fruitful for creating the optimal atmosphere for good cooperation. Bertilvidet 20:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
See WP:SS. You are violating our guidelines by insisting on having 2 articles in 1. CJK 21:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
At least, please be decent and the POV-tag. Noone can deny that it is disputed, even though you might consider other Wikipedians as a bunch of vandals. Bertilvidet 20:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I put a POV tag on, but I will eventually pull it if you can't make a decent arguement against Summary Style. CJK 20:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

CJK, your version is not factually accurate, and it is too short.Vints 06:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
CJK, a quite impressive perservere one-man army fighting the other editors' consensus on vandalizing "your" page by adding more well sourced info and ensuring accuracy. Bertilvidet 20:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Much of the content in the section "U.S. role in 1973 coup" is not contained in the main article (U.S. intervention in Chile). I think some of the text not relating to the 1973 coup could be merged to the U.S. intervention article, but not simply deleted. Vints 15:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Put a fork in Allende already

As I have demonstrated elsewhere repeatedly, it is you who are short on the facts, Vints; I have no objection to most of CJK's revision, and suffice to say that it won't be long before I've cleaned out the lingering propaganda from ALL of the Chile articles (some of which ought to be merged, btw). Basically, with the Mitrokin material and CoD Resolution Wikisourced, Allende is "done, put a fork in him", as they say, as a credible vehicle for socialism-with-a-human-face hero-worship (and: I've *yet* to get on the ball regarding Castro's 5000 stooges or the MIR). I reverted the last CJK merely because I was tired of seeing the link to the Resolution munged amongst all the rest. Otherwise, hard as it may be for you to fathom, voluminous blatherings of Kissinger's contingiency-planning (and fervent hopes, wishes and dreams, and by golly it'd be great if we won Vietnam too...oh wait, I was carrying on there...) aren't pertinent, let alone *necessary*, to the scope of THIS article (i.e., the removal of Allende and subsequent establishment of the Pinochet junta, an entirely Chilean affair); what matters are actions.--Mike18xx 08:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This quote from CJK's summary has never been proven: "That option was later turned off by Kissinger who thought it would fail." See United States intervention in Chile.Vints 10:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
As soon as I gut that sucker like a carp in the bottom of my boat tomorrow, you'll no longer have your usual "But this other Wiki clone-entry sez it!" argument to stand on anymore, and you'll have to go do some real work.Mike18xx 10:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I have proven you wrong repeatedly before.Vints 10:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure you have.Mike18xx 10:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Your only objection is that the sources are not reliable. Vints 10:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh I said that about that, and that was my "only" objection, eh? I think you have me confused with one of your numerous other critics.--Mike18xx 10:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Given that your objective is "to pillage and destroy facts and history on the internet," [3]...Vints 16:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
After learning to read attributations, you should start watching more Monty Python to develop an appreciation for "s-s-s-arcasm".--Mike18xx 05:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • And you learning to spell "attributions", what should you do? - Jmabel | Talk 01:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Crucial to proper delivery of an ad hominem grammar put-down is the necessity of making absolutely certain that nothing is amiss with one's own sentence. (Better luck next time.)--Mike18xx 22:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Got me there. One point to Mr. Mike. - Jmabel | Talk 01:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
...I wouldn't be surprised if you rewrote that article too.Vints 16:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Whatever it takes to get the rubbish out.--Mike18xx 05:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikisource

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chilean_coup_of_1973&diff=70108460&oldid=69935040

Now, CJK here says he reverted while keeping the Wikisource link to the resolution intact, yet the edit log shows that the link was not maintained. ...explanation?--Mike18xx 21:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for consensus edit

I see this is protected. I would like to reword "Those who opposed Salvador Allende point out that he received less than 1% more of the vote than his closest opponent…" as "Those who opposed Salvador Allende point out that he received a plurality of only 1% over his closest opponent…" Are there any objections? - Jmabel | Talk 07:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Lacking objection, I am editing. - Jmabel | Talk 18:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

What's all the fuss about? I created this article a couple of years ago, as a spin-off from Augusto Pinochet to settle an edit war. Now, we're at war again. Why? --Uncle Ed 14:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Looking through the history, the fuss seems to be over whether there should be more than a paragraph or so on U.S. involvement in Chile. And, apparently, none of the parties to the disagreement have come to the talk page discuss it. - Jmabel | Talk 18:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
There should be at least one paragraph, perhaps several. Possibly even a spin-off article on U.S. involvement in Chile or U.S. support for the Chilean coup of 1973. It's the aspect most readers are interested in, because it bears on the question of whether Pinochet did the "right thing" or the "wrong thing" by deposing Allende (the "democratically elected" leader). --Uncle Ed 09:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Creating a spin-off never solves an edit-war; it only multiplies the edit-war by "cell-division", and dilutes and obfuscates the main articles. There are at least a half-dozen articles that should just be merged into Allende and Pinochet main entries (some chapters of which are now longer and more detailed than the alleged independent "main" articles!). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mike18xx (talk • contribs) 5 September 2006.

There is a United States intervention in Chile. Probably the word "intervention" makes for an overly narrow article, though. I'll suggest that be moved to United States involvement in Chile or even Relations between the United States and Chile, because the current title more or less states a conclusion. - Jmabel | Talk 00:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

As for U.S. support for the Chilean coup of 1973: even speaking as a Lefty, I think that is a bit of a red herring. The U.S. government was certainly responsible for the creation of some of the economic circumstances that led to support for a coup in Chile, brought about some of the diplomatic and political circumstances that made it possible, was a cheerleader for the coup, and was happy with the results (obscenely happy, considering that those results included piles of corpses and an end to Latin America's longest-running tradition of democracy), but, still, it would be like writing Season-ticket-holders role in the Yankees winning the World Series. Which is to say, not totally off the mark, but not exactly well-focused, either. - Jmabel | Talk 00:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason for the edit war, on the deletion side that is, is because the material removed already exists in its entirety in another article: United States intervention in Chile. The choice would appear to be to leave it at a one paragraph synopsis here, or delete the other article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph 7-12 (starting from "Once it became clear") in section U.S. role in 1973 coup is not contained in the United States intervention in Chile article. CJK's version is also factually erroneous.Vints 05:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

I'm in the process of cleaning up the citations for this article. So far, I've found almost 50% dead links, but I've been able to find what I am sure are equivalents for each of these.

Some citations may fall below the usual standards for reliable sources; of the ones I'm about to mention, I don't doubt any particular statement that is cited, but I'd still like to find better citations. The section Supreme Court Resolution is cited from a rather minor and very right-wing U.S. publication, The New American; its politics can be gleaned from the fact that the page is selling a book called 20th Century Heroes, with Pinochet as one of the heroes in question. Similarly, from the other side of the political spectrum, the citation for the Tanquetazo is a (well-sourced, footnoted) page from a Canadian group called Rebel Youth; the piece is no longer even on their site, but it is on the Internet Archive. Anyway, either or both of these could certainly be replaced by sources we would usually consider more reliable. - Jmabel | Talk 02:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I've done my share, at least for a while, of sorting out citation. There is certainly more to do. There are about half a dozen things in the article that are, I think appropriately, marked as needing citation. I believe they are all accurate, but should be cited for. There is probably some overlap among notes, external links and references: someone may want to sort that out. But at least now there are no longer any blind URLs that you have to follow out of Wikipedia to get a clue what they are. - Jmabel | Talk 03:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes

The quotations section seems to me to show a strong U.S. (or anti-U.S., or anti-Nixon/Kissinger, or some such) orientation. Given that this is not an article on U.S. involvement in Chile (we have United States intervention in Chile), nor is it Chile under Allende, and given that the U.S. government, while it certainly undermined Allende, was not, according to any widely acceptable account, directly responsible for the coup, there is an awful lot of focus here on U.S. policy and U.S. politicians. Indeed, an uncited Pinochet quote is the only quotation from a Chilean.

The coup in Chile was not primarily an event in U.S. history. - Jmabel | Talk 05:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree totally. Enough of so much POV. Let's get some facts here. Mel Romero 06:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Debate: against the coup

Problems with this paragraph:

Gazpacho 18:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Also you can mention the lists in Chilean coup d'état to support the precedents Mel Romero 12:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing change, probably should be reverted

Somewhere in the last month (I'm not going to try to track it down):

Although the wide known support from the CIA, inIn the book in which he the dictator General Pinochet recounts the coup (El Día decisivo), General Pinochet he affirms that he was the leading plotter of the coup and used his position as Commander of the Army to coordinate a far-reaching scheme with the other branches of the military. In recent years, however, , several CIA documents have been declassified, revealing that Pinochet was just a part of the coup. Also, high military officials from the time have said that Pinochet only reluctantly got involved in the coup a few days before it was scheduled to occur, and then only followed the lead of the Navy and Air Force, as they triggered it.

  • "the wide known support" is poor English; I'm not sure what it means to say (and at the very least it needs rewording) but as far as I know there continues (somewhat disconcertingly) to be no clear documentary trail for CIA sponsorship of the coup. Certainly the U.S. had put massive economic pressure on Chile; certainly they were involved in the 1970 kidnapping in which Schneider was killed; certainly the Nixon administration was thrilled with the coup and was involved afterward in Operation Condor. There is documentary evidence for all of that, and that makes it all the more notable that there is none for direct support for the coup.
  • "several CIA documents have been declassified, revealing that Pinochet was just a part of the coup" is hopelessly vague. Referring to "several documents" and not identifying any of them is simply not citation.

I'll leave at least a couple of days for someone to try to make this into something intelligible, but barring that I will revert. - Jmabel | Talk 07:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree with your opinions, but I think you don't go far enough. This article should be ABOUT the coup (i.e. how it was organized, how it happened) instead it only talks about the situation before and after, and there's remarkable little information on the "during"... needs to be extensively rewriten. Mel Romero 08:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I would be entirely in favor of someone making such additions. Mostly, right now, I'm just trying to stop the article from deteriorating. - Jmabel | Talk 06:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Role of CIA

Writing about this coup without including CIA is like writing about Sept. 11, 2001 without Al Qeada. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.188.142.75 (talk • contribs) 2 February 2007.

While I agree that the CIA should be mentioned, and presuming that you meant Al Qaeda, the above is quite an overstatement. Other than fringe theories, there is general agreement that Al Qaeda were the main force that brought about the 9/11 attacks. While the U.S. gov't as a whole did a lot to "make the Chilean economy scream", the precise role of the CIA in the '73 coup is pretty controversial, and the role of the Chilean military in that coup is pretty incontrovertible (whereas claims that the U.S. military was involved in the 9/11 attacks are, again, in the range of fringe theories). - Jmabel | Talk 07:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, at the moment the lede refers to "CIA-sponsored General Augusto Pinochet". I'm not saying that is necessarily wrong, but nothing cited in the article backs it up. - Jmabel | Talk 07:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Still neither substantiated nor removed. - Jmabel | Talk 22:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../1/9/7/Talk%7E1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat_c11a.html"