Talk:Salvador Allende/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Hatchet job

Someone [1] has recently been trying to turn this into a real hatchet job [2]. I've reverted some of this in the lead [3] but there is a lot more to be addressed. For example, is Cuban exile Carlos Alberto Montaner really supposed to be an evenhanded source? - Jmabel | Talk 06:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

[3] I bet you have! Long live censorship! Maybe when you demonstrate why the [undisputed by any sane person] evidence is false, instead of censoring it because it makes you uncomfortable, you might get more respect.—Precedingunsigned comment added by 88.111.77.109 (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2006

It seems to be the same person using different ip addresses, all starting with 88.109, 88.110, or 88.111, most recently88.111.184.64 (talk · contribs). Vints 08:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The current version of this article has several problems. Firstly, 40,000 votes is an uncertain figure [4], and "only" is a POV-word.[5] The figure 350,000 USD for Cuban funding is mentioned, but not the figure of US and Soviet funding.[6] Anyway, the lead section is no place to mention (repeat) all the details [7], and it's not necessary to repeat the notes found in the body of the text.[8] The Opponents' view section is poorly sourced.[9] The anonymous user also deleted the sentence about the American attempt to prevent Allende from taking office. I will revert.[10] Vints 08:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[4] Yeah mathematics is so vague.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response to [4] If you read the Chilean presidential election, 1970 article, there are different figures for the election result, from 36.61-35.27 to 36.6-34.9. This difference, with 3 million voters, is equivalent to about 10 000 votes. That's what i mean with uncertain figure.

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

Response to [5]. Why mention only the Cuban figure and why repeat the same details in the lead?

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

Response to [7] So you are saying the coup happened because of Cuban and Soviet backing of Allende. That's a new and interesting theory.

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

Response to {8}. I asked for citation for Soviet backing of Allende's election campain. The Times article does not say anything about that. Anyway this claim was in an old version ([1]). Notes 3, 4, and 5 in your version are still unnecessary as there are references for these claims in the body of the article.

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

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

As for the claim that his opponents accused his regime of torture I simply provided evidence - in the form of an article published at the time - that his opponents accused his regime of using torture.) —Precedingunsigned comment added by 88.111.106.92 (talk) 16:12, 25 December 2006

Now you are saying "I simply provided evidence". Judging from your ip address's contributions[2] your first contributions were today, unless you are constantly changing ip address.

I think we could write "about 1,5%" or "a small margin". The percentages I mentioned is equivalent to a difference of about 39,000 and 50,000 respectively. It's not accurate to mention 40,000 in the lead as if it is an exact figure.

The amount of CIA and ITT and other companies' support are available in the Church report. There are amounts for both the election campain and campains during Allende's tenure. It's simply too much details to be mentioned in the lead section! The most significant foreign intervention is the US attempt to instigate a coup in 1970, which you try to censor from the introduction.

I'm not denying the Soviet support of Allende's election campain, I'm just saying you failed to source it accurately.

The Economist article you or one of your friends with almost identical British ip addresses provided does not say "his critics assert that torture was extensively", neither does it mention the La Portada newspaper. Vints 18:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, the exact number of votes is not even necessary [11] which is why I first tried to rewrite some of the additions by that annon. But obviously he's not interested in discussing the changes.[12] And almost all of his additions are already covered by later sections of the article or by individual articles linked to.[13]--Caranorn 13:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

[13] Make up your mind - either they are a hatchet job or they are undisputed. If the first then refute them, and if the latter they are a summary of the substance of the later sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by88.111.77.109 (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2006

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

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

My response to your response.

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

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

So what do you come up with?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you not know that these are only allegations, and that Richard Gott is an honorary research fellow at the Institute for the Study of the Americas at the University of London? Yes, I find such a person a reliable source for the subject at hand.Qwertyus 16:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

(Response: Because of his support for the Khmer Rouge Richard Gott's nickname amongst his Leftist colleagues on The Guardian was Pol Pot! Unfair of course because pride of place in his Hampstead home - and so presumably his heart - was a portrait of Stalin. When a high ranking ex-KGB officer identified him as an "agent of influence" Gott denied that he took any money from the KGB (although he admitted accepting various gifts) but that is because he gave his help for free! No I do not think Gott is going to be a reliable source. It is like asking a Cardinal for his balanced opinion on the validity of the claim that Mary was a virgin!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by88.111.109.156 (talk) 18:35, 26 December 2006

Are you the same person writing here before but with a new IP again?[1] I didn't say he had overwhelming support, I even added "with a small margin".[2] I never conveyed that USA was responsible for the actual coup in 1973.[3] You confuse it with theattempt to instigate a coup in 1970; this attempt is not a controversial claim.[4] In fact in Swedish Wikipedia I have frequently reverted claims that USA was responsible for the 1973 coup.[5] How can you know what that led to the economic decline. Now your lead say "This [seizures of land and businesses] led to a decline in production, which led to shortages and rationing." This is not a neutral point of view. There was US intervention, strikes and spoiling campaigns from the right, et cetera, which could also have contributed to the economic disorder. Vints 10:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

1. (Possibly. I have no idea. Various people have made various changes.)

2. OK

3. OK

4. If you mean the pressure brought to bear by the US to stop him getting ratified by Congress you are right this is not controversial.

5. OK

6. I refer you to what happened to what became known as "War Communism" in the USSR after the Communist Coup in Russia. Now I appreciate that Communist Party line at the time blamed the sharp economic decline on foreign interventions, but no serious economist denies the direct link between "War Communism" and the catastrophic economic decline. For a more recent example see Zimbabwe.

Now you might want to argue that foreign intervention or right-wing agitation exacerbated the problems (which may be the case although wishing does not make it so) but denying that his economic policies were able by themselves to cause the resulting severe economic disruption is not controversial (at least among economists. —Preceding unsignedcomment added by 88.111.109.156 (talk) 18:35, 26 December 2006 (edited)

To the anonymous user. Please read help:Talk page and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Your present form makes debating with you impossible and it's unfair to expect of other users (like Vints) to edit your posts to make them readable.--Caranorn 19:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Marxist Apologists

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

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

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

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

1. (Well to be more specific I was talking about the person who deleted my comments about Richard Gott. But yes I can think of at least two of the people who have contributed to this forum fit that description. I withdraw it when they deny it!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.120.74(talk)
2. (You mean responding to them like this?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by88.109.120.74 (talk)
3. (I repeat if my comments are going to be deleted what the point of the comments section?) —Precedingunsigned comment added by 88.109.120.74 (talk)
4. (With a fictional cybername?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by88.109.120.74 (talk)
5. (Call me old fashioned but I view deleting my remarks as uncivil behaviour) —Preceding unsignedcomment added by 88.109.120.74 (talk)

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

Replies to User:88.109.120.74

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

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

Sock Puppets? I merely type.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.120.74(talk)

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

Many thanks for restoring the deleted comments.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.58.103(talk)

It seems that the current objections to my edit is the assertion that the Allende was pursuing an "increasingly" radical programme, that his economic policies directly led to a decline in production and therefore shortages, and it is objected that his opponents claim - a reference to a contemporary newspaper article is made - that his government used torture is inadmissible. The absolute decline in GDP is delected and replaced by a reference to an article by Richard Gott that there were racial tensions.—Preceding unsigned comment added by88.110.58.103 (talk)

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

If you can get a link to a copy of said article that should be sufficient for inclusion in the opponents' view section. Alternatively give a good reference for a book that includes quotes from that article... A complete reference for the article I expect is not good enough either as few would be able to find an archived copy today to verify the data. Concerning the economic policies that's definitely contested. If you can document that claim you might want to add it to the opponents' view as well, but not to the introduction. As it is the introduction currently seems too long and includes a lot of data that would better fit into the later sections or the separate articles about those topics. I will try to reorganize parts of the article in the coming days without deleting content (though I might move some to other articles) once I recover from my cold...--Caranorn13:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't taken a look at your new changes yet, I can only dread the results.--Caranorn 13:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The claim that his economic policies alone led to the economical disorder is not consistent with a NPOV. There were several other factors, for example falling copper prices and cut off of aid. Our lead still says "decline (at an annual rate of 5.6% between 1971-1973) in average Real GDP." It wasn't deleted. I think we should also mention that the GDP increased with 8.6% in 1970 or delete all GDP figures from the introduction. The article also still mentions the torture claim, but what you wrote about it was not verified by the Economist article, thats why it was rewritten. Vints 14:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I restored my comment above as well as 88.110.58.103's comment above as these were modified by 88.110.58.103 (talk · contribs)[3]. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable. Vints 17:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Equally laughable I am afraid to say is the suggestion - by "I am a Communist" [100 million murdered and still counting!] Caranorn - that it is controversial to assert that his economic policies (such as property confiscation and tax and spend) were directly responsible for an increase in borrowing, inflation, and shortages, or had any connection with strikes and civil disturbances. You really have to be a Marxist fantasist - which it seems you are - to deny this so I continue to include it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.58.103(talk)

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

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

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

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

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.58.103(talk)

Reference problems

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

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

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

(Well since Nove and Hoogvelt and Flores are all Marxists they are going to be pretty much valueless as sources of information about Allende - unless of course you want Marxist fairy tales) —Preceding unsigned comment added by88.111.77.109 (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2006

personal attacks

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

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

Is that clear enough?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.239.95(talk)

Speaking for a moment as an administrator…: or maybe they can distinguish their personal politics from their scholarship in Wikipedia, which is what all, including you, are expected to try to do. These people, unlike you, have taken accounts, which allows other contributors and readers to have some idea who they are. O

Operating anonymously does not exempt you from requirements of civility. It also does not, by any means, provide evidence that you are operating without a political agenda of your own; rather the contrary. - Jmabel | Talk 22:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)