Talk:CIA activities in Chile

Suggested style guide for this article

See Talk:Central Intelligence Agency/Country Article Style Rules

Merger with United States intervention in Chile

Most of the article United States intervention in Chile deals with CIA involvement in Chile so the articles are mainly about the same subject. The diplomatic and economic measures taken by the US against Chile were only a minor aspect of these interventions and can also be described here as additional measures supporting CIA activities. Usually, the newer and smaller article is merged into the older and larger one but CIA activities in Chile belongs to a series of articles about CIA activities in the Americas so that in this case, it would make sense to do it the other way round.--79.199.22.186 (talk) 12:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that the opposite is true, if the US intervention is the big picture and CIA is one of the operators, The CIA article needs to be merged here, but the genral topics is US internvetion, of it, CIA is only a part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.98.128.161 (talk) 07:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's obvious that the two should be merged, since one is a subset of the other, and they're both integral to the general subject. Which actual article survives and which is merged into which doesn't seem as important as the merge itself. I'd be open to either way.  Xihr  09:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of this article is to collect information about CIA activity in Chile which includes intelligence analysis, intelligence gathering and covert operations, over the life of the CIA. US intervention in Chile excludes intelligence analysis and gathering and is larger than the CIA in the sense that the US could intervene with other facilities other than the CIA. Also this article is part of an article structured about the CIA.

A better idea is simply to put a particular body of facts in one or the other article, and then have a wikilink from one article to the other regarding those details.

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 18:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what a merge means.  Xihr  07:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, most merges I've seen result in deleting one or the other article. If you just want to consolidate some facts in US Intervention in Chile and then wikilink to them from this article, then go ahead, you don't really need to discuss that too much.

Note that this article is pretty sketchy and not up-to-date, please feel free to add more recent info within it's scope.

Thanks,

Erxnmedia (talk) 12:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to merge the two, rather than have two articles on the same topic. I would nominate this article to be merged into the other - as the anon says, it shouldn't just be about the CIA. John Smith's (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with merging both articles. The general idea here seems to be that US intervention in Chile was just a fluke designed to keep Allende out of power (before 1970), to oust him from power (between 1970-1973) and to support Pinochet (after 1973). That's an over-simplification of complex processes, and a total misrepresentation of reality... I have been dissatisfied with this article for a long time and I have started to incorporate (albeit slowly) further information on other periods of US intervention, specially about those which almost led to war between both countries (1884 and 1892). --Mel Romero (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don’t agree with merging United States intervention into this one. If we’re to merge both articles, then, CIA activities in Chile should be merged into U.S. intervention in Chile. After all, the CIA is just one of many agencies within the U.S. government. And the extent that the American Government as a whole, intervened in Chilean affairs especially during Allende’s government is not limited to just one agency.

The office of the secretary of state was involved, the U.S. embassy in Chile was involved, and even president (Nixon) himself was involved to a certain degree.

Limiting the article to just one agency and not the government as a whole would just give a wrong and inaccurate account of the facts.

Likeminas (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)