Talk:Pablo Neruda

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pablo Neruda article.
Article policies
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
[[User:Spanish Club|Spanish Club]] has pledged a reward of $50 USD to the person who improves Pablo Neruda's to featured status according to his rules. Please check out the Wikipedia Reward Board for more information on how you can help yourself!

Contents

[edit] ode to stalin

It seems perverse to quote a long passage from his ode to Stalin and none of this other works; it is not even considered one of his better literary productions. -- Viajero 21:16, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

well, y'all wanted evidence of his Stalinism, so I presented it in the article. TDC 21:19, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
I might also add that although it might not be Neruda's finest it certaily is one of his most revealing. TDC 21:21, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
I have condensed the Stalinst material and moved it to its own section. Neruda is first and foremost known as a poet, not a Stalinist, and the article should reflect that in its editorial balance. I have also removed the long citation from the ode for the reason stated above. If you wish to add an external link to this work, be my guest, but I didn't find copy with google. -- Viajero 10:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Isn't there something a bit wrong with that? Although he worked for the NKVD and helped Stalin and his disgusting regime commit act of murder and depravity, he is known for his poetry? Martin Amis was dead on.
Anyhoo's your asertion that Wiki should "reflect" this "editorial" balance is pure bullshit, both in practice and in theory.
Toodles TDC 00:57, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute

I see that this has been tagged {{totallydisputed}}. I can see what the POV dispute is presumably about (although it would be very helpful if the person who added the tag would make explicit what he/she is raising to the level of a formal dispute), but I have no idea what is the claim of factual inaccuracy. Much though I think that TDC is adding disproportionately much about Neruda's Stalinism to the article, and that some of his writing is slanted, I don't have any reason to believe that what he is saying is false. If there is no clear statement of what facts are in dispute, I am at least going to reduce this to an {{NPOV}} tag. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:57, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I'm disputing every fact that TDC and his sockpuppets have added to the article. TDC has a history of POV pushing and dubious accuracy: see Talk:Paul Robeson where he produced sources for his edits which were found not to even mention the issue he was pushing, so he simply moved on to pick another source for the same material, when that was checked and found wanting, he moved onto the next one.... Gamaliel 07:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
First of all, and lets be quite clear on this one chief, I DO NOT, HAVE NOT AND NEVER WILL USE SOCKPUPETS so take your libelous slanderous bull malarkey and cram it sideways. Secondly, the Paul Robesion material is now well sourced and as I stated before, my sourcing has evolved quite a bit since I was began contributing to Wiki. Lets be clear on this Gamaliel, if that is indeed your real name, the Robeson debate you are talking about is one year old, when I was a new user, thankfully I am a quick study.
But on to more pressing matters ......... so Gamaliel, have you finally come to the talk page to raise a specific issue with my contributions, or are you here to beat your fists in the sand and whine about me taking your toys from you? TDC 13:59, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

The fact that I agree with TDC's edit, which is factually correct, should not be the basis of an attack on him or me. I'm entitled to contribute to Wikipedia like anyone else. I'm new but entitled to have a chance. Dagen 15:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gamaliel, as you can easily see above, I don't think some of it belongs in the article, but as far as I know it is generally factually correct. I haven't followed up the particular citations (and don't intend to), but

  1. the poem on the death of Stalin is pretty well-known and seems (I haven't got a source handy) to be accurately quoted. I just don't see the argument for quoting it at such length.
  2. the remarks about his role in terms of Spanish Civil War refugees fit in with what I've heard before from sources that were certainly not on the political right.

If you haven't followed up the citations, and you don't have any citations to the contrary, saying that you dispute the accuracy (rather than merely the POV) of article simply because of your assessment of the character of the contributors frankly seems out of line.

You say you are disputing "every fact" that TDC put into the article. Are you actually disputing that the poem in question exists? Accuracy disputes are supposed to be about the content of the article, not of the editors' souls. And they are, consequently, supposed to be able to be resolved by research. If you are going to raise an accuracy dispute, you owe it to all of us to indicate what statements in the article you consider factually inaccurate.

Again, I have POV issues myself with what TDC wrote, and it is possible that some of it is factually inaccurate, but you haven't presented a shred of evidence for that. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:51, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

If you want to pick some obvious examples like the poem that are obviously true and then claim from that that everything TDC inserted is true, the logic of that escapes me. And I rather think it would be incumbent upon someone to cite their sources rather than force the onus upon someone else to prove the facts are not true, especially when we are dealing with inflamatory nonsense like some of the items in this article. But fine, we'll start with the idea that Neruda was an organizer in Trotsky's assassination, an idea Neruda calls "sensationalist politico-literary harassment" on page 292 of his memoirs Confieso que he vivido. That's one more citation than TDC has provided. Gamaliel 07:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No, I picked that obvious example because you said that you were disputing "every fact" that TDC put into the article. I was pointing out that that was clearly not a useful statement of what you were disputing. Please make a list of what is actually in dispute. How else can we ever get to a resolution? Are you now disputing only the one statement about the Trotsky assassination? Or are ther other matters.
By the way, as I read what TDC wrote, he is not making a claim that Neruda was involved in the successful attempt on Trotsky's life, but in an earlier, unsuccessful attempt. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:27, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
We can get to a resolution when TDC cites his sources and they are checked. That would be more than satisfactory for me, and if not policy I think basic Wikipedia civility demands this in any case. Gamaliel 07:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

None of my contributions even remotely claim that Neruda was an organizer, just a co-conspirator in the first failed attempt on Trotsky’s life, and that Neruda arranged for a fellow NKVD agent to be taken out of Mexico shortly after the first attempt on Trotsky’s life, Neruda also, and I did not put this into the article, allowed Siquieros to live in his house while in Chile.

Sources for material: Adam Feinstein’s book; Pablo Neruda: A Passion for Life, New York Times Book Review January 1988, Annals of Stalin’s Killerati, Persona Non Grata, Commentary Magazine June 1978

As far as Neruda screening Republican refugees, all sources are attributed, and I refuse do any more leg work for you than that. TDC 15:50, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] misleading edit summary

User:Dagen recently made an edit here, going even further into repeatedly labeling Neruda a Stalinist that even TDC did, and wrote in his edit summary "a compromise". I'd like to remind him (or her? I doubt it.) that misleading edit summaries are against policy, and can be the basis for an RfC and even, if there is a pattern of doing this, banning. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:07, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TDC

TDC various people are reverting you over multiple articles due to your POV-pushing. Please conform to Wikipedia protocols. Ruy Lopez 21:02, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Issues with most current version

1.On Stalin's death in 1953, Neruda wrote an ode to him, which is now considered one of his least effective works.

Why is this considered one of his “least effective works”? It is certainly one of his least well know, as it has never been translated for obvious reasons, but who considers it one of Neruda’s “least effective works”. I could point to dozens of people who cite it as yet another brick in the wall of Neruda’s Stalinistic lovefest.

2.Like many left-leaning intellectuals of his generation, Neruda came to admire the Soviet Union and Josef Stalin. Records show he collaborated with International Comitern's NKVD program from 1932 or 1934 onwards. [1].

It goes far beyond “collaboration”. IF Stone. it could be argued, “collaborated” with the NKVD and later the KGB. Neruda was an active NKVD agent while a diplomat. I also object to the term admire. Once again it went far beyond admiration, as he covertly went to work for him.

3.At the tail end of the Spanish Civil War, at the behest of Moscow, Neruda is said to have helped screen Republican refugees to prevent anarchists and anti-communists from gaining refuge in Chile.

I do not understand why all supporting statement for this has been remove. Why were the names as well and brief statements of the individuals who made these charges removed? The charge carries much less authority as well as credibility with the exclusion of this.

4. It is also claimed that Neruda, while working in Mexico, helped organize the first assassination attempt on Leon Trotsky in 1940 and arranged for false Chilean passports to be given to the Soviet assassins.

First of all, this is your claim and appears to be the source for the factual accuracy dispute of the article. No one, no where, including my version claims that Neruda helped organize the hit as it was solely organized in Moscow. The charge is that he was an active part of the conspiracy. As with most operations of this sort, Neruda was most likely on a need to know basis. His NKVD handler asked him to issue passports, and he did. I find it interesting that you continue to reinsert this, when it is the sole point of contention for your own factual accuracy dispute.

5. He was also said to have arranged for a Chilean passport for Mexican painter David Alfaro Siqueiros so he could flee the country while on bail after taking part in the attack on Trotsky's residence.

This is an indisputable fact that he arranged for Siqueiros’s passport. It is an indisputable fact that he knew unequivocally that Siqueiros had been sent “on an armed raid of Trotsky’s home”. It is also an indisputable fact that he did this after the attack on Trotsky. Neruda admits all of this (Memoirs, Pablo Neruda pg 154-155). Although he says nothing about the NKVD aspect of it all, I suspect he never thought that would be made as public as it has.

6. In his memoirs, however, Neruda dismissed the allegations he helped Trotsky's assassins as "sensationalist politico-literary harassment".

Contrast this with the last point, and even the most simple minded can see that this is an out and out lie.

I should amend this, once again, I cannot find a source that claims that Nerdua was involved with Mercader, nor do I make this point in my edit, only that he was involved with Siqueiros. The mission Mercader was on was much more sophisticated than a drive by and required a great deal more secrecy.

7. I also object to the removal of at least a small background about Comintern’s recruitment and use of artists. Without at least a brief sentence on it, there is little context to the reason why the NKVD would choose Neruda, because it was specifically because he was an artist as well as a diplomat, that made him so desirable.TDC 15:52, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

What TDC doesn't seem to realize or just doesn't care about is that this is a collaborative process, while TDC treats it as an adversarial one, self-admittedly loading articles with material he knows will be thrown out in an effort to drag the POV of articles in his direction [2] instead of actually working with other editors towards an NPOV and factually accurate article. Citing your sources is not doing my "legwork" for me, it is the bare minimum required of you by Wikipedia policies and standards. Sources are not cards to be held close to your vest in an adversarial process and only cajoled out of you after much effort, they are resources we should be sharing.

In any case, now I have a copy of Pablo Neruda: A Passion for Life by Adam Feinstein, which you so reluctantly cited as a source, and it turns out your own source doesn't even back you up! It says outright "There is no evidence whatsoever to link Neruda with Trotsky's murder". (p. 155) Additionally, it also mentions a NKVD memo Feinstein read. While your link only mentions Neruda in passing, which tells us nothing, Feinstein notes that the memo only says the NKVD were interested in Neruda, and in fact this memo is dated after Neruda's departure from Mexico. As far as Siquieros, yes Neruda did aid Siquieros of course, but there's no reason or evidence to assume he did this because he was a Soviet operative (if so, why not aid the other eight would be assassins too?). In fact, Feinstein notes that Neruda did this upon the direct request of Mexican president Camacho. Gamaliel 22:57, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Well that’s a start for you, isn't it? Admitting that Neruda had nothing to do with the murder of Trotsky, now how about confirming that he did play a part in the ATTEMPTED murder of Trotsky. Go back to my point #4 above, and re-read it as many times as it is necessary for you to comprehend it, oakaley dokaley?
Feinstein's book was obviously not the source of the NKVD info, and I never claimed it was, so please do your blood pressure a favor and simmer down some. Feinstein is fairly sympathetic to Neruda as well as his politics, and the fact that he had a copy of only one decrypt mentioning Neruda only proves that he did not dig too deep. But apologists for Stalinist assholes comes in all flavors I suppose.
As for the Neruda being an NKVD agent,

Or for those people either unwilling or unable to obtain a copy, allow me to provide a more detailed online source

Ahem ...... drum role please
* Other Mexico City messages discuss or mention a remarkably varied group of KGB personalities;, including General Leonid Eitington (covername TOM), who had organized the murder of Trotsky; Dolores lbarruri, the Spanish Communist leader known as "La Pasionara"; the later Nobel Prize winner Pablo Neruda; and Communist Party member and KGB agent Kitty Harris (covername ADA), sometime lover of KGB agent and American Communist Party leader Earl Browder. [3]
If you want every single Mexico City decrypt mentioning the relationship with Neruda, I am sure that I can dig them up for you, copy them and place them in the article. That’s the extent I am willing to go to collaborate with you and make this a great article! TDC 23:55, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
Is that the best you can do? A link that says some memos "mention or discuss" Neruda? Maybe you can find a smoking gun for the JFK assassination next. Gamaliel 23:59, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Can you read? It is quite large and quite bold (much like myself I must admit). and obviosly he studies the 10,000's of cyphers more than either of us.
I also have to question the fact that you have devolved into POV pushing of your own, describing Pinochet as a military ruler, which as a highly respected Admin you know breaks the tradition usage of leader, is quite puzzling. Care to explain your recent action?TDC 00:04, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
Ask whoever made that change originally. I reverted to the version prior to yours and did not notice that particular change. I have no particular opinion on that detail at this point. Gamaliel 00:14, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I see, so in effect it does not matter whose version you RV to, just so long as I have had no input. TDC 00:20, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
I'm more concerned about the inaccuracy of the material you continue to insert into articles than about which adjectives are used to describe Pinochet. Gamaliel 00:27, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Then what havent you adressed even one bullet point I have placed above?TDC 02:11, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
Can you read? I already have? Gamaliel 06:03, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
On a side note, I am still waiting for clarification: do yo beleive that I am using sockpupets? TDC 02:55, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Examples of his work

So, TDC wants Neruda's crappy Ode to Stalin. Without commenting on that, let me say that if we are going to include examples of his work, why don't we include some romantic stuff, which he is better known for. Also, it seems unlikely to me that Neruda wrote that Ode. It's in English. I assume he wrote something in Spanish and that is the work of some poor uncredited translator. If anyone wants to add one of his sonnets, I give my permission to use one of these translations. — Helpful Dave 20:34, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So are you saying that Neruda never even penned the ode? The original is not in English, obviously and for that matter is never included in any of Neruda's poetry collections that are published in English. TDC 21:07, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
He didn't pen that English ode, as you agree. He wrote an ode in Spanish that was translated by someone to what we have in the article. The translation (and poetic translation is a tricky matter that involves reading the original and then writing your own poem that reads as well as the original and conveys all its meaning) needs to be credited, and the original ode needs to be included, even if it is commented out, so that we can see what the guy really wrote.
Alternatively, we could just not have the ode at all, as Viajero suggests. — Helpful Dave 23:07, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
First of all, enough people cite the ode as an excelent example of Neruda's slavish many-boy love fest with Stalin, so just in thoise grounds alone it is quite notable. Secondly, I have found one (of many) primary sources for the ode:
Here is the reference from the Library of Congress:
LC Control Number:76218040 Type of Material:Text (Book, Microform, Electronic, etc.)Brief Description:Neruda, Pablo, 1904-1973.
Obras completas. 3. ed. aumentada. Cronología de Pablo Neruda por Margarita Aguirre.
Guías bibliográficas por Alfonso M. Escudero y Hernán Loyola. Buenos Aires, Editorial Losada [1968, c1957] 2 v. illus., ports. 21 cm.
CALL NUMBER:PQ8097 .N4 1968
Copy 1-- Request in:Jefferson or Adams Bldg General or Area Studies
Reading
Rms-- Status:Not Charged
Now, I would ask you to read it and provide us with your own translation of it, if you doubt the veracity of the translation I have provided. TDC 15:12, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Awards

TDC, Please explain your revert. Anonip 15:55, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not much to explain I suppose. I have listed all of my issues in numerical order above. I have also cited them as much as I believe to be reasonable, but Gamaliel's demands seem wholly unreasonable to me. Therefore until this gets hashed out in talk, I feel I have little recourse other than to revert. TDC 15:59, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
What was I thinking? It was totally unreasonable for me to demand that you back up your assertions with sources and facts. Gamaliel 17:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What in God's name do you think Ihave doing?
All right then, please cite the items (be very specific here OK) that you want sources for and specify the level of datail you would like for them. TDC 17:52, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
Nothing of the sort. Your sources have been checked and do not assert what you claim they assert, and in one case you repudiated one of your own sources as soon as you learned I got my hands on it. It does not seem like you are acting in good faith with regards to your sources.
I dispute the accuracy of three of your claims in particular:
  • 1) That Neruda was an NKVD operative at all
  • 2) That he provided any assistance whatsoever or had any involvement in either Trotsky assassination attempt
  • 3) That he assisted Siquieros after the fact at the behest of Stalin or the NKVD or anyone else and other than for the reasons he stated in his memoirs and in interviews referenced in his biography. Gamaliel 18:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


TDC, You reverted my edit listing Neruda's awards. Please explain why you removed this information. Anonip 16:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Must not have noticed, will correct. TDC 16:19, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Gamaliel, You reverted my edit listing Neruda's awards. Please explain why you did this. Anonip 18:11, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gamaliel, You reverted my edit listing Neruda's awards AGAIN. Please explain why you did this. Anonip 18:11, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Viajero, The wording I used is from the Academy of American Poets [4]. But since you object, I have removed the adjective "prestigious". Anonip 14:46, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neruda and Stalinism

It seems appropriate to include a discussion of Neruda's commitment to Stalinism, but I agree with Gamaliel that the evidence for allegations of his involvement with Soviet intelligence and the Trotsky assassination attmept may be overstated. Anonip


[edit] Neruda the NKVD man

Other Mexico City messages discuss or mention a remarkably varied group of KGB personalities, including General Leonid Eitington (covername TOM), who had organized the murder of Trotsky; Dolores lbarruri, the Spanish Communist leader known as “La Pasionara”; the later Nobel Prize winner Pablo Neruda; and Communist Party member and KGB agent Kitty Harris (covername ADA), [5]

- Robert Benson

This index originated when Harvey Klehr and I were preparing our Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America. When in 1995 the National Security Agency began releasing the nearly 3,000 deciphered Venona messages no systematic index was supplied. Neruda is mentioned in a long list of KGB agents

- John Earl Haynes

I have also contacted Prof, Harvey Klehr, and he told me that although he could not cite the specific documents, he did remember reading of Neruda’s involvement with the NKVD in Mexico city in at least 10 decrypts that he had read. Klehr’s main area of focus was on operations in the United States and not the KGB field office in Mexico City accounting for his haziness on the specifics.

So here is what we have, John Earl Haynes, Harvey Klehr, and NSA archivist/historian Robert Benson The three have both spent the better part of 10 years analyzing the Venona documents. All three have also finger Neruda specifically by name as a NKVD agent

I realize that you will cite Adam Feinstein’s book as a defense for Neruda. Feinstein states in his book that Neruda did have contacts with the NKVD and that the NKVD was “keen to recruit him into their ranks”. He also does not comment as to the outcome of this recruitment effort, not speculating into the aftermath of the documents he cites and not commenting on whether Neruda was or was not working for the NKVD. Benson’s contribution is critical here, because he has spent 10 years researching the 25,000 Venona documents. Feinstein only looked over one he felt was relavent.

It does not take a genius to see that Neruda’s love of Stalin, combined with the NKVD’s interest in him would make a winning combination. unsigned comments from TDC

Now let's look at what these sources actually say. As noted above the Benson link merely says that "messages discuss or mention" Neruda and gives us no specifics beyond that. The Haynes link includes Neruda in a list of perhaps thousands of names. These are not names of "KGB agents" as TDC asserts. This is merely "an index of the cover names, real names, agency and institutional names, and proper titles that occurred in the Venona messages", and no one denies that Neruda was mentioned in a memo or two. The list also contains names like Harry Truman. Is TDC asserting that President truman was a KGB agent? Gamaliel 21:29, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • and now for what you left out As noted above the Benson link merely says that "messages discuss or mention"
WOW! That has got to be the most creative usage of selective quoting I have ever seen inmy entire life! You must read alot of Chomsky huh?
How about you quote the rest of it?
messages discuss or mention a remarkably varied group of KGB personalities
TDC 22:01, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
So what does a remarkably varied group of KGB personalities mean exactly? Benson doesn't tell us. You assume it means card-carring assassination operative. I do not. Gamaliel 22:03, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
How very Clintonesqe, you know, depends on what the definition of KGB personality is and what'n. Tell you what, If were to email Benson, or another archivist at the NSA (and fortunately for us I know several) him and CC you with the response, asking him for a clarification would that be proof enough, or are you going to raise the bar even higher this time? TDC 23:52, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
Lame attempts at insulting me won't disguise the fact that your sources don't say what you claim they do. And you have dodged my question: are you claiming that President Truman was a KGB agent? Gamaliel 00:24, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I am not insulting you, just your argument. I am most certainly not claiming that Truman was a KGB agent, but prof Klehr does identify Neruda as a KGB agent. Why are you avoiding that, as well as the fact that I am willing to "clear this up" to your satisfaction by clarifying Benson's statement by contacting him or another NSA archivist. TDC 00:58, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
I do not know if, under the rules of verifiability and no original research, personal correspondence would be a usable resource for a Wikipedia article. Perhaps others have an opinion on this matter. Gamaliel 01:08, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What rules? Is this just another hurdle? As far as original research goes, this would not fall into that category, because as I have previously stated, it would be a clarification of these individuals work. TDC 02:51, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. They are not "hurdles" but fundamental pieces of Wikipedia policy. Gamaliel 03:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
And on a side note, others, referring to the work of Benson, Klehr and Haynes have written at some length about Neruda's work for the KGB trying to tie in the attempt on Trotsky and acts of poetic propaganda to his KGB work. Of they also misinterpreted or misrepresented the information, certainly the primary sources would have taken them to task for it, but they have not. TDC 01:02, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
Feel free to provide information about those writings. I look forward to yet more inaccurate citations of sources from you. Gamaliel 01:08, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have contacted NSA archivbist and historian David Hatch who managed to clarify the matter,

  • Mr XXXXX
  • This is in response to your question about VENONA sent to the Center for Cryptologic History via the WWW.
  • Although unfamiliar with the specifics of Pablo Neruda’s involvement with the Mexico City KGB branch, after consulting with Meredith Gardner, the principal crypto-linguist of the VENONA documents, I do believe that Pablo Neruda had been recruited and was an active KGB agent until the mid 1950’s.
  • I hope that answers your question.
  • David Hatch
  • NSA Historian

TDC 17:54, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Gamaliel, does this resolve your concerns? Anonip 16:21, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Hardly. A legitimate encyclopedia does not rely on third-hand emails for its sources. Gamaliel 18:56, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

The email simply confirms that your claim that Neruda had not been identified as a KGB agent in the VENONA intercepts was false. The source for the information is the published work by Benson, Klehr and Haynes cited previously by TDC. Anonip 19:31, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Gamaliel, you original bone of contention with the Benson citation was that there was some ambiguity as to the phrase "varied group of KGB personalities". From your statement above:
  • So what does a remarkably varied group of KGB personalities mean exactly? Benson doesn't tell us. You assume it means card-carring assassination operative. I do not.
Well, now no one has to assume anything because it has been verified by an archivist and a historian at the NSA. TDC 21:34, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Your standard of proof is appallingly low. We're not going to rewrite history in this article based on a few vague assertions on webpages and thirdhand emails. I've looked at Klher and Haynes' book Venona : Decoding Soviet Espionage in America and it does not claim Neruda was an agent, nor do any of these vague assertions linked to here put forth any sort of substantive case, or even anything besides a passing reference. The only act Nerdua is alleged to have committed on behalf of the NKVD was in Mexico, and the only NKVD dispatch anyone has specifically referred to is one in Feinstein's book which notes that the NKVD wanted to recruit him. This memo is dated May 1944, eight months after Nerdua had left his post in Mexico. Gamaliel 22:09, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

So, Robert Benson's analysis of the Venona documents, an analysis that was published on the NSA's website is some sort of "vague assertion" on a "webpage"? Curious. the "third hand" email you dismiss was clarification, clarification that you deemed necessary to settle the dispute. Is it my fault for going to the horse's mouth to obtain it? I could give you David Hatch's email if you would like to contact him as well. I also never mentioned Klher and Haynes' book Venona : Decoding Soviet Espionage in America as a source, so it is puzzling why you bring it up now, unless it is another attempt by to derail my argument.
So, I guess it comes down to this, either you accept my source, or you do not, it is really that simple. If you don’t, I think there is little room left for discussion as you have proven yourself to be, yet again, a no faith editor. TDC 23:46, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
I also find it interesting that Neruda helped a member of a KGB hit team escape prosecution in Mexico. Anecdotal, really, but very telling of the kind of person he is.
Ahh yes, exposing the shameful pasts of Stalinist like Neruda is quite rewarding. You should join in, the truth might set you free.TDC 23:50, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

I am aware you have not mentioned Klher and Haynes' book, probably because it doesn't back up your shoddy case, but since you keep invoking the two of them I thought it would be constructive to note that they don't make any claims about Neruda in their book on the subject of Venona. I'm also not disputing the whole of Robert Benson's analysis of the Venona documents, I am pointing out that a passing reference to "KGB personalities" (curious that he did not use the word agents or operatives, no?) is not enough basis to rewrite an encyclopedia article.

Interesting timing that you should call me a "no faith editor" now, since I've just returned from the library with a copy of The Sword and the Shield by Vasili Mitrokhin and I can't find any of the claims that you say the book makes within its pages. Unless you can pony up with the page numbers I can only conclude you are once again lying about sources. And you call me a "no faith editor"!? At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if you fabricated that email from David Hatch. Gamaliel 00:43, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Klher and Haynes' book does not mention Neruda, because the primary target of the book (as is mentioned right on its cover) is Soviet espionage and Soviet agents in the United States, not Mexico City.
Mitrokins book references Salazar's account Murder in Mexico when describing Siqueiros role in the assignation attempt on Trotsky and Neruda’s role in aiding Siqueiros. It’s a good book, by the way, may be you will become a shade more enlightened by reading it. Just a thought though.
If you would like to contact Hatch, I would be more than happy to porvide you with his email. TDC 17:10, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
On another note, I also find it curious that [6] identified Neruda as a "KGB Agent", I don’t know how relevant this is, but it is most certainly interesting.

The title of the book is Venona : Decoding Soviet Espionage in America. Mexico is in North America last time I checked.

No one is discussing if The Sword and the Shield references Murder in Mexico, which it does. We're discussing whether or not it makes the claims you say it does, an issue you're dodging. Gamaliel 21:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Are you being a stubborn idiot just to prove a point, and if so what would that point be exactly? America in the title is meant to refer to the United States of America, all of Klehr and Hayne’s work revolves around the United States of America.
Would you like Hatch’s email, so you may verify the above clarification of Benson’s writings? Or are you afraid that I will be proven right, again?
Murder in Mexico is the definitive book on the subject, and delves deeply into Neruda’s actions regarding the first attempt on Trotsky’s life. TDC 15:02, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
If my point was to provoke yet another bout of juvenile namecalling from you, I obviously succeeded.
I will of course be finding a copy of Murder in Mexico very soon, but that still doesn't address the point about The Sword and the Shield, an issue you can run away from fast enough. Gamaliel 16:56, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
I had a chance to take a look at Murder in Mexico this afternoon. I couldn't find anything remotely resembling an allegation by Sanchez Salazar that Neruda was an NKVD operative or acted on behalf of the NKVD or anything like that. The only reference I could find to Neruda was a reference to the facts we already know and which are not in dispute, and his information is just retelling of a conversation between a Mexican ambassador and a Chilean ambassador at a banquet. I couldn't care less what you say Hatch says Gardner says about what Benson says, I'm not going to waste any more of my time on this farce. Unless someone can come up with a serious firsthand reference, including quotes and page numbers, I'm going to consider this matter closed and return to working on actual history in this article instead of conspiracy theories. Gamaliel 21:07, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
First of all I doubt that you looked at Murder in Mexico . This is perhaps due to the fact that truth scared you too much to do so. I also find it interesting that you continue to refuse to accept the NSA's information on the subject. But I too consider this matter close and will write a new addition to the article containing the information that I have cited here in talk. I realize that the information that Hatch and Benson provided does not interest you, after all why would it? It destroys your entire arguement. Toodles. TDC 03:52, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
You could easily prove me wrong by providing a page number and a quote, but instead you lash out. How juvenile and sad. Gamaliel 04:53, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Juvenile and sad? I am not the one running to the comment page every time something "icky" is said. TDC 05:05, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
So provide a page number and a quote, and this can move forward. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:03, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
Aside from the information from NSA archivist Robert Benson[7], that Gamaliel continues to reject, even after I took the time to contact another NSA archivist to "clarify" matters, there is the work of Stephen Schwartz Intellectuals and Assassins. Information in the book specifically relating to Neruda and his "relationship" with the NKVD/KGB can be found on pg 10, 17 and 44. TDC 22:17, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
Gamaliel, may I presume you will follow up that citation? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:51, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
I have requested the book via interlibrary loan, but judging from my past requests, it may take as long as several weeks to arrive. Perhaps other editors could check for it in their libraries as well. Gamaliel 08:02, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neruda the accomplice in Trotsky’s murder

Vasili Mitrokhin notes that 24 Individuals were involved in the attack on Trotsky, and six of them were on Chilean passports (The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB). Mitrokhin also comments that Neruda was contacted by the KGB field office in Mexico City after his return and asked him to look into providing Siquieros with a passport.

Now, I am not saying that we put into the article "Neruda was definitely involved in an assignation attempt on Trotsky", but the subject has been brought up enough, (most notably in Annals of Stalin’s Killerati, Persona Non Grata, Commentary Magazine June 1978, originally released in the New York Book Review earlier that same year) that Neruda felt it necessary to respond to the charges. Now you may want to argue about the wording, but enough people have accused Neruda of being involved in the conspiracy (the passports for the six as noted by former KGB man Mitrokhin, as well as the passport for Siquieros while he was out on bail) that it should go into the article. Perhaps a paragraph may be too much, but a few sentences on the subject is in order. (unsigned, I'm guessing this is TDC, if not, please correct me -- Jmabel)

  • Right now the article says "It has been claimed that Neruda, while working in Mexico, played a part in the first, failed assassination attempt on Leon Trotsky in 1940." "It has been claimed…" is weaselly. From what you are writing here, you seem to have citations, but you keep being vague. Can you please give your citation(s) (author, work, page) and I will gladly put them into the article in the style of Wikipedia:Cite sources. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:52, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Reportedly "The New York Times Book Review (Jan 24,'88) offered a feature article, "Intellectuals and Assassins - annals of Stalin's Killerati," with Neruda's picture, and that of the Mexican muralist Siqueiros, among others, while citing Defence Intelligence Agency research to intimate links between both and a KGB death squad." [8] I haven't seen it, but it might be worth a look. Anonip 19:09, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've read this article thanks to Lexis/Nexis and it says little that hasn't already been discussed here. Despite the prominent picture, the article was not about Neruda and only mentions him three times, twice in passing. The only mention of substance is one sentence. It mentions his giving a visa to Siqueiros, which we already knew and no one disputes. It claims he did this to aid Leonid Eitingon, who apparently was one of the organizers of the assassination plot, but offers no evidence or proof of Neruda's involvement in any way. The NYT also printed corrections and other articles disputing more central points in the article and Adam Feinstein notes that a number of academics wrote to the NYT disputing the claim about Nerdua but their letters were not printed. Gamaliel 19:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also perhaps we should take a look at:

  • Intellectuals and Assassins (Anthem Slavic and Russian Studies) by Stephen Schwartz
"As documented in the memoirs of Gen. L. A. Sanchez Salazar, the chief Mexican police officer responsible for investigating the Trotsky case, the poet Pablo Neruda was suspended from his position in the Chilean diplomatic service for aiding the Eitingon network by providing Siqueiros with a visa that allowed him to escape from the Mexican authorities." (p. 10) - Anonip 20:01, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Note that Schwartz was the author of the disputed NYT article and that this quote is almost word for word the same sentence that appeared in that article. Gamaliel 20:55, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Was the Salazar citation disputed? Anonip 21:01, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Chekisty: A History of the KGB by John H. Dziak

Anonip 19:38, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Neither Neruda nor Siquieros appear in the index to this book. Gamaliel 01:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

How would something this be:

It is alleged that Neruda, while working in Mexico, assisted the escape of one of the perpetrators of the first, failed assassination attempt on Leon Trotsky in 1940. According to Intellectuals and Assassins (Anthem Slavic and Russian Studies) by Stephen Schwartz, Gen. L. A. Sanchez Salazar, the chief Mexican police officer responsible for investigating the Trotsky case, said in his memoirs that Neruda was suspended from his position in the Chilean diplomatic service for aiding the NKVD by providing Mexican painter David Alfaro Siqueiros, the leader of the assassination squad, with a Chilean visa that allowed him to escape from Mexican authorities. In his own memoirs, Neruda dismissed the allegations he helped Trotsky's assassins as "sensationalist politico-literary harassment", stating that he provided the visa at the request of Mexican President Manuel Ávila Camacho. In exchange for Neruda's assistance, Siqueiros spent over a year painting a mural in a school in Chillán, Chile.

Please comment. - Anonip 22:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First, I don't think we should be inserting material from Salazar's memoirs until someone here actually reads them. Second, the fact that he aided Siquerios is not in dispute. Why he did so is. The arrangement of this paragraph makes it seem like the events are in dispute. Also, you have puzzlingly removed Neruda's own explaination of his motives. Gamaliel 01:34, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've modified the proposed wording above to cite the source (Schwartz) and include the reference to the presidential request. (I omitted the latter because in the existing wording the source wasn't clear. Thanks for the clarification.) - Anonip 05:49, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your paragraph still freely mixes together allegations and facts and doesn't distinguish for the reader which are which. Gamaliel 07:47, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the paragraph describes the allegations, clearly identified as such, including specific attribution. It also includes the rebuttal. What is your objection? Anonip 16:17, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you understand which elements are undisputed facts and which ones are allegations, and the paragraph reflects your confusion. Gamaliel 19:32, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel, Do you have any problem with the paragraph above? Anonip 19:57, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I do, the same one expressed by Gamaliel. One could read your paragraph as saying that it is only "alleged" that Neruda was involved in arranging Siquieros' visa (which I believe is uncontroversial, but I'm ready to stand corrected). Conversely, one could equally easily read it as saying without qualification that Siquieros was the leader of the assassination attempt (which I believe is controversial). Also, if we are citing a work, I suggest following the style of Wikipedia:Cite sources: put it in the references section with clear information about publisher and edition, write the specific citation inline in a manner that includes the page number. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:47, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
Why do you think it's controversial whether Siqueiros was the leader of the assassination attempt? Can you provide a source? Anonip 05:21, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Pending resolution of the issue re Siqueiros, here's an attempt to address the other concerns. Anonip 05:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

While working in Mexico, Neruda assisted the escape of one of the perpetrators of the first, failed assassination attempt on Leon Trotsky in 1940. According to Schwartz (2001, p.10), Gen. L. A. Sanchez Salazar, the chief Mexican police officer responsible for investigating the Trotsky case, said in his memoirs that Neruda was suspended from his position in the Chilean diplomatic service for aiding the NKVD by providing Mexican painter David Alfaro Siqueiros, the leader of the assassination squad, with a Chilean visa that allowed him to escape from Mexican authorities. In his own memoirs, Neruda dismissed the allegations he helped Trotsky's assassins as "sensationalist politico-literary harassment", stating that he provided the visa at the request of Mexican President Manuel Ávila Camacho. In exchange for Neruda's assistance, Siqueiros spent over a year painting a mural in a school in Chillán, Chile.
  • Schwartz, Stephen (2001). Intellectuals and Assassins (Anthem Slavic and Russian Studies). Anthem Press. ISBN 1898855552. 

Leaving alone the question of Siquieros' role (I don't have a citation for this being controversial, that's just how I've heard the story; Gamaliel, do you have anything on this?) I'd reword this slightly, but I think we are getting closer:

While working in Mexico, Neruda granted a Chilean visa to one of the perpetrators of the first, failed assassination attempt on Leon Trotsky in 1940. Gen. L. A. Sanchez Salazar—the chief Mexican police officer responsible for investigating the Trotsky case—wrote in his memoirs that Neruda was suspended from his position in the Chilean diplomatic service for aiding the NKVD by providing Mexican painter David Alfaro Siqueiros, the leader of the assassination squad, with a Chilean visa that allowed him to escape from Mexican authorities. (Schwartz, 2001, 10) In his own memoirs, Neruda dismissed the allegations that he helped Trotsky's assassins as "sensationalist politico-literary harassment", stating that he provided the visa at the request of Mexican President Manuel Ávila Camacho. In exchange for Neruda's assistance, Siqueiros spent over a year painting a mural in a school in Chillán, Chile.

The only major change here is that I have substituted the factual "…granted a Chilean visa to…for the rather loaded "…assisted the escape of…"; you can take or leave my other small edits. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:28, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

How about this:

While working in Mexico, Neruda granted a Chilean visa to Mexican painter David Alfaro Siqueiros, the leader of the first, failed assassination attempt on Leon Trotsky in 1940. Gen. L. A. Sanchez Salazar—the chief Mexican police officer responsible for investigating the Trotsky case—wrote in his memoirs that Neruda was suspended from his position in the Chilean diplomatic service for aiding the NKVD by providing Siqueiros with the Chilean visa that allowed him to escape from Mexican authorities. (Schwartz, 2001, 10) In his own memoirs, Neruda dismissed the allegations that he helped Trotsky's assassins as "sensationalist politico-literary harassment", stating that he provided the visa at the request of Mexican President Manuel Ávila Camacho. In exchange for Neruda's assistance, Siqueiros spent over a year painting a mural in a school in Chillán, Chile.

Gamaliel, can you provide the citation for Neruda's memoirs? Also, should it read "would-be assassins", or is it possible Neruda was referring to the later, successful assassination attempt? Anonip 07:00, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Everyone seems to be missing the key problem, which is that every version of this paragraph reports indisputable facts as Salazar's allegations, which is confusing and inaccurate, especially when it's mixed in with Salazar's allegation that Neruda was acting on behalf of the NKVD. That is, assuming that is actually what Salazar's allegation was, considering that no one here has even seen Salazar's memoirs. I'm wondering why the paragraph that's in the article now is inadequate - at least it's accurate - and what specific facts or allegations people think are missing. Gamaliel 07:06, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't think either of these last two versions reads that way, but let me alter the last in a way that would make that crystal-clear:
While working in Mexico, Neruda granted a Chilean visa to Mexican painter David Alfaro Siqueiros, the leader of the first, failed assassination attempt on Leon Trotsky in 1940. Gen. L. A. Sanchez Salazar—the chief Mexican police officer responsible for investigating the Trotsky case—wrote in his memoirs that Neruda had issued the visa on behalf of the NKVD and that Neruda was suspended from his position in the Chilean diplomatic service for providing a visa that allowed Siqueiros to escape from Mexican authorities. (Schwartz, 2001, 10) In his own memoirs, Neruda dismissed the allegations that he helped Trotsky's assassins as "sensationalist politico-literary harassment", stating that he provided the visa at the request of Mexican President Manuel Ávila Camacho. In exchange for Neruda's assistance, Siqueiros spent over a year painting a mural in a school in Chillán, Chile.
-- Jmabel | Talk 17:33, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing the point here, but I don't see why everyone is hellbent on inserting Salazar into this paragraph. The only allegation that Salazar provides via Schwartz that differs from the actual facts of the event is Salazar's claim that Nerdua was acting for the NKVD. That is assuming Salazar actually claimed Neruda was acting for the NKVD and this isn't careless or creative sentence construction on the part of Schwartz. If this is what Salazar actually alleged, then we can just stick something like "Neruda has been charged with working with/assisting/whatever the NKVD by some, including Salazar, the chief Mexican police officer responsible for investigating the Trotsky case, but Nerdua stated that he acted at the request of Mexican President Manuel Ávila Camacho" in the paragraph and be done with it. Gamaliel 20:58, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I think we're including Salazar because Jmabel thought "It has been claimed…" was weaselly. I agree that we should be more specific. The allegations from Salazar are (as represented by Schwartz) that Neruda acted on behalf of the NKVD to allow Siqueiros to escape from Mexican authorities, and that he was suspended from his position in the Chilean diplomatic service as a result. Neruda doesn't necessarily contradict this; my impression is that under pressure from the Soviets and Mexican Communists, Camacho agreed to allow Siqueiros to avoid prosecution (a potential embarrassment for them) provided he left the country. Neruda made this possible, evidently without consulting his own government. Anonip 23:01, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
He was suspended and he did not consult his government, no one disputes this. There is nothing relevant about the Schwartz/Salazar sentence except the allegation that Neruda was working for the NKVD, an allegation that may simply arise from creative sentence structure on the part of Schwartz since all you've given us is a secondhand citation out of context and no direct quote from Salazar. Neruda does dispute that he was an NKVD agent. Granted, I haven't seen the words "I was not an NKVD agent", but that doesn't mean he didn't say that, and it certainly doesn't mean he was. I think his accounts of what actually happened are all the contradiction that is required, and I'd think the phrase "sensationalist politico-literary harassment" is strenuous enough of a denial, no? Do you have any sources or proof for your suspicions regarding Neruda and Avila Camacho? Gamaliel 00:52, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
If you cannot provide the citation that Neruda denied being in the KGB or NKVD, then how relevant to the article is it? Secondly, what is important to keep in mind here, is that out of all the conspirators who had been captured by the Mexican police, only Siqueiros was released on bail. Moscow, according to Mitorikin, did quite a bit of arm twisting to make this possible because aside from bieng an “artist” Siqueiros was the most senior KGB agent sent on the assignation mission. The relevant information from Salazar can be found in “Murder in Mexico”, pp. 211-14 TDC

[edit] Neruda on the Republican Refugees

Edit speaks for itself. A number of anti-Stalinists, many of whom were also involve in the Spanish Civil War, had accused Neruda of screening refugee convoys and removing those not aligned worth Stalin. Each specific allegation is sourced to the individual who made it, and worth noting in the article.

Perhaps I have not been as clear as I need to have been with my sources, and did not specifically spell out who made these allegations but if you think I am going to drop this just because of your bulling tactics with a questionable 3RR temp ban, you are mistaken. (unsigned, I'm guessing this is TDC, if not, please correct me -- Jmabel)

[edit] Communist party activist

Viajero, Please explain why you think the fact that Neruda was a Communist party activist is "best dealt with in body of article" and should be excluded from the introduction. Anonip 14:57, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Viajero, Since you've haven't responded, I've restored this information to the introduction pending your response. Please explain here before reverting again. Thanks. Anonip 17:07, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is "activist" the proper term to describe someone who held national office? Would we describe American senators as "democratic activists" or "republican activists"? Gamaliel 18:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The description is from Brian Loveman, Professor of Political Science at San Diego State University, in his book Chile: The Legacy of Hispanic Capitalism (OUP,2001). Anonip 18:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's nice, but it doesn't address my point. Gamaliel 18:41, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Which was? Anonip 18:43, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is "activist" the proper term to describe someone who held national office? Would we describe American senators as "democratic activists" or "republican activists"? Gamaliel 19:17, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The description is applied to Neruda in what the Oxford University Press calls "the preeminent book on Chilean history". I'm willing to trust that source for the accuracy of the term in this historical context. Anonip 19:49, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A nice illustration of the argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy in which you are dodging the central point. I could come up with plenty of references with academic credentials calling Tom Delay or Barney Frank or whoever an "activist", but the introductions to their articles of course refer to them by their proper titles. You have not presented an argument why we should not do so in this case. Gamaliel 19:56, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The elective office Neruda briefly held was of course a part of his Communist activism. The details are in the body of the article, but if you want to include a specific reference in the introduction I would not object. Anonip 20:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree that the terms "activist" and "politician" are synonymous. Anonip 20:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I changed it. Gamaliel 20:38, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have cited my source that Neruda was an activist. However, I'm willing to add "politician" as you wish. Anonip 16:23, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's quite gracious of you, considering he actually was a politician. You're still dodging the central point with your argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy. Gamaliel 19:33, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You appear to be confusing the argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy with legitimate reliance on an authoritative source. If you claim that Neruda was not a Communist party activist, as described by Loveman, please provide your source. Anonip 20:04, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Obviously, in the broadest sense of "activist" he was, but the term is misleading here. "Activist" tends to suggest a grassroots organizer or agitator, which is not what he was. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:00, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
Brian Loveman, Professor of Political Science at San Diego State University, in a book called "the preeminent book on Chilean history", describes Neruda to his readers as "Chilean Nobel prize-winning poet and Communist party activist Pablo Neruda". The term "activist" has the same meaning there as here. Are you disputing Loveman? Anonip 05:07, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Adam Feinstein is. Using amazon.com's search inside the book feature, I discovered that no where within 400+ pages is Neruda described as an "activist". I think Neruda's most important biography in the English language is a more authoritative source than a general history of Chile. Gamaliel 00:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
The fact that Feinstein does not use the term does not, of course, mean that it does not apply. Anonip 03:53, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
(1) Why are you so hellbent on getting this particular term into the article? (2) Do you disagree with my statement above that "activist" tends to suggest a grassroots organizer or agitator? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:05, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Joe and Gamaliel that the term "activitist" isn't appropriate in this context. -- Viajero 11:07, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Viajero, As you've already demonstrated your intent to keep any reference to Neruda's Communist activism out of the introduction, your objection here was taken for granted. If you have anything of substance to add to the discussion, of course that would be welcome. Anonip 20:49, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel, I'd agree that "activist" would describe one who promotes militant direct action, such as mass demonstrations and strikes, as a means of achieving a political or social goal. Interestingly, Feinstein does relate an incident in which Neruda is identified as an "agitator" (p. 280). The term "politician" commonly refers to someone who seeks or holds elective office. Neruda was indeed a Communist politician in 1945-48. But his Communist activism extended over a much longer period, and influenced his life more broadly—including, of course, what he called his "revolutionary poety". So why are you and others so "hellbent" on keeping "Communist activist" out of the introduction? Anonip 19:08, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Because it simply doesn't strike me as the right word. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:25, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
You're disputing Loveman? Anonip 06:08, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel, The wording "internationally reknowned Communist" is from Feinstein's authoritative biography. What is your reason for adding "political figure"? Anonip 06:08, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I presume it was because he was a politician. Gamaliel 06:47, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Gamaliel. You can't speak for Jmabel, of course. But as I've explained previously, while Neruda was indeed a Communist politician, his Communist activism extended over a much longer period, and influenced his life and work more broadly than this indicates. Limiting the scope of the reference to his role as a politician is misleading. I originally proposed wording from Loveman's work, the preeminent book on Chilean history in English. This was resisted by questioning Loveman's use of the term "activist". I have now propose wording from Feinstein's work, which you yourself said to be Neruda's most important biography in the English language and a more authoritative source. Feinstein uses the term Communist as a noun rather than an adjective. His phrase is indisputably accurate and avoids the squabble over the term "activist". I had hoped you would accept this. Yet you insist on substituting the restrictive noun "politician". You seem intent on minimizing Neruda's ardent devotion to Communism, despite its obvious significance to his life and work. Your reason for doing this is unclear to me. Anonip 16:17, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Any Wikipedia article about an American person who served as a senator and presidental candidate would describe him as a politician. I merely insist that the same standard apply here. Why should the same standard not apply to communist politicians as to republicans and democrats? Why should not the same standard not apply to Chilean politicians as to American politicians? Gamaliel 18:51, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Internationally Reknowned Communist

DJ_Silverfish, You deleted the following:

internationally renowned Communist at the height of the Cold War

saying it was "gilding the lily". Please explain. Anonip 23:11, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I meant: Since Neruda was a Communist from the 1930's until his death, introducing the height of the Cold War is ahistorically specific in the first sentence. You might as well say internationally renowned communist from in the 1950's until his death at the onset of detente. But that seems redundant. I'm wary of shoving too much of the controversy into the first sentence, but I'm not knocking your idea. Someone could easily develop a separate sentence or paragraph on how Neruda was Cold War-era celebrity. No offense intended. DJ Silverfish 23:47, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

No offense taken. How about:
internationally renowned Communist during the Cold War
Would that be acceptable to you? Anonip 00:00, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Right now the introductory sentence is

  • Pablo Neruda (July 12, 1904–September 23, 1973) was the pen name of the Chilean poet, diplomat and Communist party politician Ricardo Eliecer Neftalí Reyes Basualto, considered one of the most important Latin American poets of the 20th century.

That seems to cover it for me. I wouldn't want to replace "Chilean", "poet", "diplomat", or "Communist". Somebody will surely stick those words back in and the sentence will get confused or reverted. It becomes clear that he was "internationally renowned" in the second sentence when the Nobel Prize is mentioned. The Cold War mention in the introductory sentence still seems odd to me since the vast majority of the article concerns the 20s' - early 50's. The period after the death of Stalin is the weakest part of the article. In my opinion it needs expanding to anchor a mention in the first sentence. That said, the 50's - 70's were obviously an important period in his life. His reputation grew internationally and he eventually won the Nobel Lit prize. Its not clear from the article why that happened. So I guess I'm arguing that the introductory sentence stay the way it is for now. DJ Silverfish 16:15, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:12, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Intellectuals and Assassins"

I finally got this book and it is a singularly unimpressive volume dripping with arrogant condescension. Not a footnote or reference to be found. This is just a collection of op-ed hatchet jobs from mostly conservative newspapers and magazines. When he discusses literary figures he judges their artistic work by their ideological purity: conservative writers are worthy, left-wing ones are overrated. And then there’s the utterly priceless sentence: "As a friend of Albania and Albanians, I will never forgive [Christopher Hitchens] his assault on the outstanding Albanian personality of our time, Mother Teresa."

Regarding the three citations from TDC

p. 10 "As documented in the memoirs of Gen. L. A. Sanchez Salazar, the chief Mexican police officer responsible for investigating the Trotsky case, the poet Pablo Neruda was suspended from his position in the Chilean diplomatic service for aiding the Eitingon network by providing Siqueiros with a visa that allowed him to escape from the Mexican authorities." This quotation was previously provided by Anonip and has already been discussed.

p. 17 "Siqueiros and Neruda, on whose services Naum Eitingon drew in the murder of Trotsky in Mexico, were, respectively, a painter and a poet." When and where did Eitingon meet Neruda? Where is the proof that Neruda was working on behalf of Eitingon? Schwartz does not elaborate on this point here or anywhere else in the book. (Note that the Siqueiros assassination attempt failed and the successful murder was committed by someone else.)

p. 44 "Siqueiros had been the leader of the first, unsuccessful attempt on Trotsky’s life, in May 1940, and then escaped to Chile with help from the Chilean diplomat and poet Pablo Neruda, who was posted to Mexico City." Nothing here we didn't already know.

I do not feel like re-reading the talk page to see if anyone claimed this previously, but I thought it was worth noting that Schwartz does not mention Venona in conjunction with Neruda.

What I think is going on here is that we have people making a leap of logic from "Neruda helped a would-be murderer escape" to "Neruda was working for the murder plot". The latter conclusion requires proof that has not been provided, and I have seen nothing to disprove the motive that Neruda himself provided: he wished to help an artist he admired upon the request of the president of Mexico.

Incidentally, tonight I photocopied an interview with Neruda from a Uraguayan magazine in which he discusses this stuff and perhaps I can translate a relevant quote if he says something we don’t already know. Gamaliel 02:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TDC's version

TDC, I now have a copy of Feinstein's biography, which you have also cited, and I have some comments on the version you keep reverting to:

The Soviet Union through its control of the International Comintern used many sympathetic artists and cultural organizations under its control to spread Stalinist ideology around the world. Leon Trotsky and Andre Breton described this campaign and those involved "a twilight of filth and blood in which, disguised as intellectuals and artists, those men steep themselves who have made servility a career, of lying for pay a custom, and of excuses for crime a source of pleasure".

This questionable text does not belong in the article on Pablo Neruda.

According to NSA archivist Robert Benson, Neruda was a part of the NKVD while serving as a diplomat in Mexico City. [9].

As has been pointed out above, this citation does not support your contention that Neruda beonged to the NKVD. Feinstein makes no mention of this either.

Although Neruda is often praised for his work in securing the transportation of the refugees, many saw his actions as hollow and further evidence of his servitude to Stalin. Louis Stein states in Beyond Death and Exile that anarchists and anti-Communists were given a disproportionately small share of the available places. Federico Solano Palacio, a Spanish anti-Communist leftist, said that 86 percent of the applications for transportation by anarchists were thrown out and specifically cited the example of the Winnipeg. Catalan historian Josep Peirats wrote in 1993 that "Before World War II stopped all departures, three ships sailed to Veracruz, Mexico. Later on, the Winnipeg sailed to Chile. These trips were administered by the Communists and granted or denied passports, strictly screened passengers at points of embarkation. The same procedure applied to transport to Chile, where Pablo Neruda, the Chilean poet did the screening."

On page 145 of Feinstein, it says that an agency established by the Spanish Republican government in exile to handle refugees, SERE, selected most of the passengers; Neruda picked "only a few hundred" and that the "vast majority" of the refugees let on board were not communists.

Neruda never hid his great enthusiasm for Stalin, whom he commemorated in a poem the upon the death of the Soviet dictator in 1952 in which he called on Stalinists to bear the title with pride. That year, Neruda was also awarded the Stalin Peace Prize.

Your version is clearly more POV than the one you are reverting:

Like many left-leaning intellectuals of his generation, Neruda came to admire the Soviet Union and Josef Stalin. On Stalin's death in 1953, Neruda wrote an ode to him, which is now considered one of his least effective works and is the only one of Neruda's many poems that is about the Soviet leader. That year, Neruda was also awarded the Stalin Peace Prize.

In short, the Feinstein biography doesn't offer any support for your version. Of course, if you think that there are any scholarly resources that weren't available to him when the book was published (2004), do let us know. -- Viajero | Talk 16:11, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Not that I love TDC's version, but why are people removing the statement that he won the Stalin Peace Prize? Certainly significant, certainly true. -- Jmabel | Talk July 2, 2005 05:04 (UTC)
  • Similarly, why is Mao Tsetung being delinked? This is feeling to me like blind reversion rather than people looking at what they are reverting. -- Jmabel | Talk July 3, 2005 17:29 (UTC)

(cur) (last) 16:40, July 4, 2005 TDC (Gamaliel, its the 4th, why dont you take one day off of hating America and live a little.)

This is so out of line. Besides being a personal attack, I see nothing in Gamaliel's edits that could sanely be characterized as "hating America" (presuming that, given the reference to "the 4th", "America" means the United States. But I can't really imagine TDC using it any other way). The dispute here is over whether certain content inserted by TDC that is severely critical Neruda—and whose provenance has been questioned by several contributors—belongs in the article or not. As far as I can tell, the content in question has nothing to do with the U.S., unless TDC is saying that we should support his mission to sully the reputation of all who oppose or opposed the U.S., and that not to do so is hateful. Perhaps he is saying something that silly: perhaps I have overestimated him in the past by giving him the benefit of the doubt. -- Jmabel | Talk July 5, 2005 15:51 (UTC)

[edit] "Communists"

Currently in the article: "…sometimes charged with strongly favoring Communists for emigration …" This should probably be "pro-Soviet Communists", "Moscow-line Communists", or some such, since the Trotskyites were also Communists. -- Jmabel | Talk July 8, 2005 22:10 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly interesting article by Greg Dawes

I just ran across this interesting-looking article Realism, Surrealism, Socialist Realism and Neruda's "Guided Spontaneity" by Greg Dawes, while looking for something else entirely. It's apparently a chapter from a reputably published book, hence citable, and seems to take up aspects of Neruda both politically and as a poet that might enrich the article. I don't have time to take this on right now, but someone else might want to look through it, or track down the book of which it forms part, or see what reviewers thought of the book, etc. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:58, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] That Ode to Stalin, again

I haven't really found much quotable/citable on line about the "Ode to Stalin"; one thing possibly of interest is on Slate: The Captive Mind Now, in which Christopher Hitchens wrote (Monday, Aug. 30, 2004, which is to say well after his own political turn to the right), "Neruda was to return the compliment [the Stalin Prize] by writing an ode on Stalin's death in 1953 so fawning and disgusting and clumsy that it is usually not reprinted." I suspect one can find similar comments from someone on the left: Hitchens is correct about it not usually being reprinted, except (I might add) in contexts where it is reprinted as a rebuke to the poet. Anyone up for some library research? -- Jmabel | Talk 23:13, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] the cause of death

everyone knows he was deeply depressed because of september 11, and yet it is not stated that he lay down to die his last days. That he lost his will to live and that it was this was ultimately caused his decease.

(anon 1 Aug 2003)

[edit] NPOV?

The following phrase was recently added: "… although the extent to which Chile was democratic under Allende is a matter of much dispute." The person who added it claims that it was added to advance NPOV. It seems to me to do quite the opposite. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] insulting to both Allende and Neruda

this travesty i found on the page, wich could only come from a biased rightist: "although the extent to which Chile was democratic under Allende is a matter of much dispute". Anyone who knows a little bit of history would know that he was a democraticly elected president, because:

a)he got mayority of the votes b)if there had been a second round, Allende would had still won, as the other parties were also left-wing parties c)back then the senate had to aprove all elections, the fact that this was the first socialist president to ever be elected made it a big issue, but all presidents from the presidential period of Chile went through the same thing (today theres second round of election in case no one has reached the 51% of the votes). d)in that time, track 1 was implemented by the united states, wich was a plan to not get allende to the presidency by using a political strategy to keep president Frei Montalva in power, yet Frei did not played their game and procedeed as it was democratic. e)the goverment of the united states was the number 1 enemy of Allende, by implementing track 2 later on, giving the sum of 10 million dollars for the oposition, to support numerous strikes across the country and with the assasinations of general Pratts and Orlando Letelier by the CIA. f)Even though biased chauvinists adore saying that Allende supported left wing terrorist organizations, this couldnt be further from the truth, as Allende wanted a democratic goverment, as oposed to the trotskian beliefs of such groups like VOP and MIR. g)by 1975, all of Latin America was in right-wing dictatorships, all of them suported by the united states, Latin America was literally the backyard of America.

i will erase this chauvinist travesty as it has no basis here or anywhere else, it is a undisputed fact for the rest of the world that Allende was a democraticly elected president. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kessingler (talk • contribs) 7 Nov 2005

Please do (though calling this chauvinist is an insult even to Chauvin). As you can see from the comment I mad immediately above yours, you are not the first to object to this addition. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
oh, i just reverted it to the last version, thats all... still, i cant think of a serious historian questionning the election of 1970, i dont know why he placed that there, its not really something ambiguous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kessingler (talk • contribs) 7 Nov 2005

Allende did not get a majority of the vote he got a plurality (aprox 39%). As to all of Latin America being under right-wing dictatorships in 1975 I think some exaggerate or have such an extreme view that they perceive Castro, and the Mexico's PRI as being "rightwing." Aside from that there were some countries such as Costa Rica remained democratic..... xe xe El Jigüe 1-11-06

[edit] Re: recent additions

The cited source on Neruda having written in praise of Fulgencio Batista is Alberto Acereda, Mitos Socialistas: Textos escondidos de Pablo Neruda on a web site called LibertadDigital.com. The piece is openly critical of Neruda's politics, though not nearly as hostile as this one fact gleaned from it would suggest. It's probably a decent source if used with intellectual honesty. Neruda's words in praise of Batista were published 27 November de 1944, when Cuba was one of the Allies fighting the Axis. Many people during World War II said things in praise of allies during that war that they might have found regrettable later; I'm sure there would be quite a trove of rather conservative U.S. politicians saying things about Stalin that they would come to regret (I even have in my music collection an African-American gospel song in praise of Stalin, "Stalin Wasn't Stallin'" by the Golden Gate Quartet). So if this is to be mentioned, the WWII context should be mentioned as well. I will add that context.

Another recent addition also has at least minor problems: "He also became a friend of the notorious stalinist assassin Vittorio Vidali [10]." For starters, "notorious" is sheer rhetorical overkill: "notorious Stalinist assassin" as against "well-liked solid citizen Stalinist assassin"? I will remove that word.

The citation in this second case is a mess. It is a link to a Google cache of a deleted page. The page was http://trovamex.com/n/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4 as retrieved on Jan 26, 2005 22:48:10 GMT. It is entitled "Neruda sintió hasta el tuétano el influjo magnético del México florido y espinud", dated 13 July (it doesn't say what year). It is signed simply "maryel"; it's not clear that it is anything more than a blog, since Trovamex is, itself, apparently a search engine and Maryel Mendiola its webmaster. It has been cherry-picked for the one damning fact in an article that consists mostly of praise. Mention of his support for the young Luis Echeverría Alvarez and José López Portillo apparently doesn't intrigue our contributor, nor his friendships with León Felipe, Wenceslao Roces (the Spanish translator of Marx), Carlos Pellicer, Octavio Paz, Luis Cardoza y Aragón, Alfonso Reyes, Enrique González Martínez, José Mancisidor or General Heriberto Jara does not interest our contributor. Which is to say, he was moving in the circles of leftist Mexico City; the fact that Vidali was one of the many people who was also moving in those same circles is what is singled out.

In short, on this last, I imagine a better citation could be found, but I also think that it belongs in the context that this was a man who, during his time in Mexico City would have known a virtual Who's Who of the left, and while that did, indeed include assassins (probably more than just this one), it also included many of the countries (or in the case of Cardoza y Aragón, Guatemala's) leading intellectuals. This piece is supposed to give a rounded picture of Neruda, not to be a mere listing of his sins. I leave it to someone else to follow up on this front. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

Why on earth does a passing reference on The Simpsons merit mention in the article? -- Jmabel | Talk 20:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Sad to say, it's one of the only things a lot of people know about Neruda. I support inclusion. Gamaliel 21:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what kind of citation is being looked for claiming that Neruda was Che Guevarra's favorite poet, but he did deal with many issues central to Che's beliefs and I have read in a number of places that when Che was caught in Bolivia that one of the few things in his possession was a book of Neruda's poetry. --Pkmilitia 04:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the Simpson's reference and the Isabel Allende reference could be folded into a "Pop culture references" heading? I think there were a couple more in there... <janeric> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.193.76.148 (talk) 05:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I am a casual user who likes trivia sections and even I think that it should go. An article about Neruda should be classier than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.23.229 (talk) 04:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Support to dictators

That section is absolutely unnecesary. If you want to create sections for every poem that neruda wrote... men, you will never end. Neruda was a communist, so it's obvious he have respect for Stalin, Castro and Mao. And a poet writing about something he cares and likes it's not a flash news. Also, the ode to Fulgencio Batista it's and old lie. Do you people really think that he wrote that, and months after one to Castro?. If you read the link to support that afirmation (also it's in spanish, not indicated in an english enciclpedy) you will see inmediately that it's an article with no impartiality and obviously destinated to put some louds on the Neruda legacy. I think that section has to be removed. The other option is to create sections about all the "Neruda's themes" like America libertarians, Southern Chile places, climatic events, fruits, materials, etc. It don't take too long to see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bauta (talk • contribs) 27 Jan 2006

The thing it, he wasn't just a poet, he was a diplomat and a senator, so this is more relevant than it might otherwise be. If the Batista thing is wrong it should go, but I'd guess that during WWII (the date in question) when most of Batista's crimes were still ahead of him and he was an ally against Hitler this seems likely enough. "Months later" is wrong: Castro was a child at that time. - Jmabel | Talk 00:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

maru (talk) contribs 04:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I substituted the link from the Internet Archive, but this was a rather image heavy site (including for navigation) and lacked "alt" texts for the images, few of which seem to be archived; I'm not sure how useful it is. - Jmabel | Talk 06:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I just noticed that an older version was more fully archived, I'll use that. - Jmabel | Talk 06:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Funeral

Hi! i'm a spanish user, and I think you must add some information about the burial of Neruda. When he die in 1973 he was buried in a little and horrible tomb in the Santiago "Cementerio General". For 18 years his tumb was visited by hundred of persons, who leave messages. When Patricio Aylwin start in office, he order two state funerals, the first one of presidente Salvador Allende (sep. 4th, 1990) and Neruda's in the same year. Rakela 17:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

That sounds correct; can you offer a citation on this? - Jmabel | Talk 06:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gamaliel's Revert

Gamaliel, could you explain the reason for your revert? 71.212.31.95 19:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cause of death

The article used to say he died of leukemia. Now it says both "heart failure" and "cancer" (in two different places). Is someone interested in sorting this out? - Jmabel | Talk 03:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This might help, from "Pablo Neruda, Nobel Poet, Dies in a Chilean Hospital", The New York Times, September 24, 1973:
"...Mr. Neruda had undergone major surgery in another Santiago clinic two months ago for cancer of the prostate. He died of heart collapse, his doctors said."
Also, from Neruda and Vallejo: Selected Poems, p. xii, ed. Robert Bly, Beacon Press, Boston, 1993:
"He had been hospitalized with prostate cancer and his condition was stable when the news of Pinochet's victory arrived. The Chilean doctors were afraid, not sure how to respond; they suspended treatment, and Neruda died a short while later."
And, from Earth-Shattering Poems, p. 105, ed. Liz Rosenberg, Henry Holt, New York, 1998:
"The military despised Neruda but didn't know what to do about him, as he was then in a hospital, being treated for cancer. Not daring to harm him directly, they ordered all medical treatment stopped. Within a few days Neruda died, and his home and study were vandalized by military thugs." Biruitorul 03:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Great work, as nearly always. - Jmabel | Talk 01:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to have been of assistance. Biruitorul 03:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Onion!

Neruda has now penetrated my life permanently. Never again (and nor have I for the past 2 years) looked at an onion in the same light. For me, now, the onion represents so much more. As Neruda says: "matas el hambre".

The celestial description Neruda gives the onion in the opening of Oda a la Cebolla, serves to remove this everyday object out of the ordinary and turn it into something unrecognisable, powerful and awe inspiring. This technique of defamiliarisation works wonderfully along with the use of the apostrophe to cause the reader/hearer to readdress their own definition of what an onion is. Neruda lifts the status of the onion to the heights of the "Birth of Venus" by Boticelli and certainly impacts upon the reader the important role such an ordinary foodstuff can hold. The relief it provides to the hardworking "jornalero" and its magical appearance next to "los hemisferios de un tomate" make me reminisce each and every time that I find myself chopping the cheap, humble and delicious onion.82.41.66.5 10:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the article at hand? Biruitorul 17:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] "communist politicians"

Its not necessary to mention the term "communist politican" in the first paragraph to the article about this Poet - known in many parts of the world as the Poet of Love. In chile from whence neruda came, the term communist and politician are never used together. Communists themselves don't consider themselves politicians; they are revolutionaries. Was Danton Rousseau a politician? Before turning to Marxism Neruda had been an Anarchist, and he also admired Jan Neruda who was very nationalistic and anti-semitic. I don't know if the anti-semitism of Jan Neruda was known at the time Neruda adopted his name. Suffices to say that Neruda politically was very inconsistent. Neruda is best understood as a great poet, it is only in poetry where his brilliance was consistent and constant. Another thing, Like Picasso in Spain, Neruda was never really active in the Communist Party of Chile, great figures like Neruda never were, they subscribed to the ideology of the party at a given point in time. In the main it was the red army's defeat of Nazi Germany that appealed to intellectuals like Neruda, and the subsequent support the USSR gave to poor countries struggling for National Liberation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.221.31.142 (talk • contribs) December 10, 2006.

  • Given that the most of the last few years of Neruda's life were lived in a time when a Marxist (Allende) was president (and had several times before been a serious candidate), "communist politician" is hardly an oxymoron.
  • Who the heck is "Danton Rousseau"? A weird amalgam of Georges Danton and Jean-Jacques Rousseau? The former was both a revolutionary and a politician; the latter was neither, though he inspired many people to be revolutionaries.
  • For what it is worth, I am sure that when Pablo Neruda took the name "Neruda", he was either unaware of or oblivious to Jan Neruda's antisemitism. There is, as far as I know, not a shred of evidence that Pablo Neruda was an antisemite.
  • You write "In the main it was the red army's defeat of Nazi Germany that appealed to intellectuals like Neruda, and the subsequent support the USSR gave to poor countries struggling for National Liberation." This is anachronistic: he became a Communist during the Spanish Civil War (also the time of Picasso's strongest association with the party, by the way). But Picasso never held political positions. Neruda by this time was nearly a decade into a diplomatic career. And can you really imagine Picasso on the floor of the Chlean Senate speaking out against González Videla?
  • Pablo Neruda is certainly, deservedly, most famous as a poet, but he was also an ambassador and a senator. Admittedly, he initially backed into his diplomatic career, but taken all in all, diplomacy and politics occupied enough of his life that he would be a notable political figure even if he had not been a poet. We certainly often place less significant facts about someone in the lead paragraph (e.g. that Céline was a physician). - Jmabel | Talk 00:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Examples of Political Verses

Does that section Examples of Political Verses (one verse, in Spanish) really belong in this article? - Jmabel | Talk 01:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Canto general Jespinos 03:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I've added an English translation and a better citation — the given link was to what looked like just a giant concatenation of all of Neruda's work, unorganized, so I changed it to a PDF of Canto General. (I'm not sure whether that work is in the public domain, but a number of Spanish-langage book archive sites, such as the one Jespinos links to above, seem to imply that it is.) Pmdboi 21:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Only the Neruda's Parliamentary speeches are in the public domain, all the rest is copyrighted. The Neruda's work published on the Miguel de Cervantes Virtual Library is authorized by the Pablo Neruda Foundation. Jespinos 01:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neruda's Occupation: Translator and Political Activist

Anyone who has a basic biographical knowledge of Neruda's occupation will know that apart from poetry Neruda's more formal occupation was his work as a diplomat. He was a diplomat for most of his adult life. Neruda translated some books - some very poorly that were never published. He translated Bakunin, tried to translate shakespeare, but "translator" was not his occupation. Pablo Neruda was also a political figure not a political activist. A political activist is someone who attends a political manifestation informally. Neruda was a political figure for most of his adult life, during the 30s in Spain and Europe he was one of the most famous political figures who organized safe passage to the Americas for thousands of Spanish refugees. Then he was a famous member of the Chilean Communist Party, a close friend of Allende. Moshe-paz 10:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

he was one of the most famous political figures who organized safe passage to the Americas for thousands of Spanish refugees - indeed, he organised. He picked up Communist Party members or people he liked, though.Constanz - Talk 10:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
"He picked up Communist Party members or people he liked, though."

What an insipid comment. "In 1939, a more sympathetic Chilean Government sent Neruda to Paris as consul for Spanish Emigration, with the mission of aiding refugees from the beaten Spanish Republic by finding countries that would take them. It was a bitter time, darkened by the gloom of defeat and by the impending European war. Fascism, victorious in Spain, was also on the march in italy and Germany. Hundreds of European artists and intellectual emigrated to the New World." - Jack Schmitt Moshe-paz 18:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

correction (my apologies): previous cited paragraph is not by Schmitt but by Roberto Echevarria. Moshe-paz 18:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Birth name?

Wikipedia currently lists Neruda's birth name as Ricardo Eliecer Neftalí Reyes Basoalto. The Nobel Prize Foundation lists his name as Neftalí Ricardo Reyes Basoalto. Any sources on which one's right? JordeeBec 22:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The birth name was taken from Feinstein's biography. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 22:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I've confirmed with many sources, from Neruda's half-brother's grandson Bernardo Reyes and the librarian at the Neruda Foundation that Neruda's birthname is Ricardo Eliecer Neftali Reyes Basolato. Eizmarcos (talk) 08:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)--Eizmarcos (talk) 08:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New External Link

I'd like to put this blog entry up for consideration for the Neruda page as it highlights a critically acclaimed film about Neruda in the process of post production, as well as an interesting discussion about Neruda's place in Chile's artistic scene.

http://c.hileno.com/2007/08/pablo-neruda-documentary-film-chile.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.161.145.53 (talk) 01:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'communist poltician'

Is branding Neruda as a Communist Politician ok? Timothy Garton Ash writes somewhere that those who never liked communism cant think. And Allande was no 'communist'. Appropriate people may please edit that part in the first line! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.160.101 (talk) 02:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neruda's pseudonym

There seems to be considerable doubt that Neruda's pen name derived from Czech writer and poet Jan Neruda. Apparently Neruda never agreed to reveal the origin of his pseudonym and it seems that a journalist forced that theory. There is an interesting hypothesis published on the web by a Spanish physician. According to that the name derives from the violinist Wilma Neruda which he admired a lot. Unfortunately the following article by Enrique Robertson is only written in Spanish.

Article by Enrique Robertson --Moroderen (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)