Talk:Salvador Allende

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Salvador Allende as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Spanish language Wikipedia.
This article is part of the "20th Century post-colonial leaders" set of articles nominated for Version 0.7. Discuss this nomination, or see the set nominations page for more details.
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Contents

[edit] Archive

[edit] October 1972, the full history

I want to add some information about the worker support to Allende and the revolutionary process lived during part of 1972 and 1973 (until coup d'état), which is not very documented by official media, but there's direct audiovisual documents registering it and historical evidence about it. They are not letting me do so because they find my sources are dubious or believe I'm trying to propagandize (I'm just trying to neutralize and be objective, skipping institutional prejudices). I find some ideological prejudices, actually. What could I do in order to demonstrate the information about all this is real, instead invented or made up? They talk very much about opposition's strike, but nobody almost talk about how it was answered by workers, nor the social situation being lived among population, among workers, in factories, through popular councils, through demonstrations, social changes, etc., which was a main reason for the strike, for the right, church, employers and bussinesmen opposition, and for the coup d'état, actually, and for CIA's support to opposition and to coup d'état. How could I demonstrate about all this historically documented revolutonary process (that they like to skip, ignore or forget about) so nobody erases my additions beleiving they are simply propaganda, invention, or lie? Why is it so difficult to add something into English wikipedia? Spanish article does talk about these things (though it sort of makes them look like collective histeria, haha, and not a social and revolutionary process, what is some unloyal to historical facts, and biased, by being a bit more loyal to officialist institutional position; typical institutional dogma, where current institutions are "sacred"... "upper", unquestionable, or something like that; that's unneutrality, from an objective unbiased view). DeepQuasar 04:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


I've noticed how the paragraph refering to the October 1972's trucks strike, in the part about the Presidency, makes no mention about reaction from a very wide sector of workers from main cities, and other social movements, as the kind of social and revolutionary process it started. I've tried to make some additions refering to this relevant and often missed or 'forgotten' episode, that was one of the mainest reasons why the strike didn't achieve its purpose of crashing Allende's government or make it regret its policies at economical matter; this information also reflects, excessively briefly, for my opinion, at what degree Allende's popularity had grown up among masses, because nothing is mentioned about all that! And when I did the addition, it was refused by someone as biased, unprooven, and no source! Okay, I do have primary sources in audio-visual media, through a documentary recorded during 1972 that takes comments from many workers and records the situation that was lived those days around the country, the main cities' streets, and the factories, how they got re-opened by workers when the employers decided to stop and close them to support the private transporters and bussinessmen's strike. That documentary is named "Chile's Battle: the struggle of some people with no weapons", and is very known among certain left wing circles. How could I quote it, and with it, other written source, as a way to support my additions and demonstrate they're not biased, nor invented, nor unprooven, but based on facts? I copy and paste here the addition itself, in italics. I also add some extra background, by being more specific about other social sectors that did join the strike. If you keep thinking it's biased, please, tell me what specific parts, and how they could be modified to be actually objective, since the information keep being based on facts, that can be checked on several kind of sources I'll take a while to compile if necessary:

October 1972 saw the first of what were to be a wave of confrontational strikes. One by one, owners of trucks were joined by small bussinessmen, some (mostly professional) unions and some student groups related to these sectors, in a strategy to either press government for giving in its economic policies, or forcing its fall, by stopping most of product transport throughout the country, and thus causing a subsequent collapse of the economy - many employers from industrial and urban transport sectors also joined this strike, by stopping main bus lines and closing their factories. This, on the other hand, was responsed by a large number of workers, who organised alternative forms of urban transport, by van or estate cars, and thus reached their jobs, going on factory production in a collective, self-organised way. This was a way to reaffirm support to Allende's government and the many social achievements they had obtained from it, by supplying themselves everything that was required by the economy or population - they eventually received additional support from organised peasants and miners along countriside, as they went on occupying and collectivising unproductive lands and resources, and so making them produce. These popular initiatives often suffered from occassional direct attacks of some medium class student groups and far right sectors, as well as from attemps of sabotage to factories. Other than some inevitable damage to the economy, highly reduced by this popular support, the chief effect of the 24-day strike was to induce Allende to bring the head of the army, general Carlos Prats, into the government as Interior Minister.[1]

Here is another source ^_^: "Durante el Paro de Octubre de 1972 se desarrolló un gran movimiento de participación y poder popular, fue una respuesta espectacular, los trabajadores en muchos casos se tomaron las fábricas y las echaron a andar, y lo que parecía imposible, que una fabrica anduviera sin ejecutivos y sin gerentes y sin empresarios, se hizo realidad. Ante la paralización del transporte, la distribución se hace con camiones voluntarios; entonces el producto se produce y llega; y allí donde se cierran los pocos supermercados que existían o los grandes almacenes, se abren los pequeños almacenes y la JAP toma el control de la distribución directa en ese momento. Es decir la respuesta popular, por cierto con el concurso del aparato del gobierno, es extraordinariamente rápida, efectiva y eficiente." http://www.nodo50.org/americalibre/eventos/azocar21.htm "El proceso chileno con Salvador Allende y el contexto histórico", Oscar Azócar, Director ICAL, ENCUENTRO SOBRE EXPERIENCIAS DE PODER POPULAR EN AMERICA LATINA, Sao Paulo BRASIL, 26 AL 30 DE OCTUBRE

DeepQuasar 10:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source other than America libre? You claim there is a video, where can we find it? My Spanish is rusty but I can read it reasonably well so Spanish language sources are fine. I have access to a major university library so there is a good chance I can find even Spanish language sources.JoeCarson 11:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Is "Chile's Battle: the struggle of some people with no weapons" a translation of a Spanish title? If so, what is the Spanish name? If this is a leftist propaganda film as you claim, it cannot serve as a reputable source about the magnitude of the "counter-strike" but it can serve as proof that there was one.JoeCarson 11:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's an improvised translation, original is: "La Batalla de Chile: La lucha de un pueblo sin armas", it's divided in 3 chapters. 3rd one referes to worker movements, to popular scenario, support for Allende, and somehow daily situation lived in factories, streets, unions, "industrial belts" (cordones industriales), collectivized lands or mines, in popular councils, etc., specially after October's transportist strike. It's a documentary, it's not propagandistic. It gives audio-visual information about facts. Sometimes the commentarist gives his own interpretation of things, obviously, but constantly contrasted and illustrated by taking spontaneous testimonies and opinions, of many kinds, from workers and people who were taking part into these "popular actions", so people can freely extract their own interpretations, after watching facts.
This has to be further docummented in many other deep sources or serious investigations, but definitely you won't read about this in official or institutionalized mass media, because that would mean questionning current economic system, based on unproportional and hierarchic distribution of richness, work, and PIB. This documentary demonstrates, by registering historical memory, alternative systems are possible, where production is a need, and not a benefit. That would question the basis of capitalism, current Estate and representative democracy's legitimacy, by opposing to it alternative models that can be felt as revolutionary, but would threat current echonomic order. Someone who helds an international bank will never admit another classless society, where richness be equally distributed, is possible, because that would mean renouncing to his lifestyle and privileges. It's very difficult, thus, you encounter direct reference to a revolutionary process (even though shattered) from New York Times, or from any other mainstream media or politicians, because their lifestyle , their bussiness, are based and assured by this economically hierarchic system. It's a question of common sense. Social revolutions (or worker struggles) are not very institutionalized, but G8, IMF and European Constitution are. And wikipedia, rather a propagandistic medium, it's a chance for people to access to a really non-biased, non-limited, complete and objective information, and letting people extract their own interpretations and conclussions, but after knowing the whole part. DeepQuasar 05:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry to be the one to puncture this version. The text reads: One by one, owners of trucks were joined by small bussinessmen, some (mostly professional) unions and some student groups related to these sectors, in a strategy to either press government for giving in its economic policies, or forcing its fall, by stopping most of product transport throughout the country, and thus causing a subsequent collapse of the economy. Let's clarify some facts. Yes, the truck-owners were the ones that started the strike. The primary reason was the announcement by the government that they had decided to centralize all domestic transport in the state-owned corporation, the ENT (Empresa Nacional de Transportes - National Transport Company), in fact putting them out of business. The truck-owners' (most of which only owned the truck they themselves drove) were already being squeezed out by the refusal of the government to spend foreign exchange in the import of spare parts for their vehicles (which truck-owners were not allowed to import directly), causing many to be unable to work. They were also effectively joined by the small-business association, again because the government was centralizing all product distribution in just one state-owned corporation, and also because the government had "frozen" all price rises, while inflation was spiraling out of control, in fact forcing them to sell their products at a loss. From there onwards, one by one, all the professional "unions" (meaning, doctor's, lawyer's, architect's, etc) started to join the strike in defense of their independence. Allende himself was expelled from the Doctor's association. The economy (as can be seen from all statistics available) had already collapsed by that point. The strike, while making the situation worse, was not the cause but rather the result of the failed economic central planning. The writer is also arguing that many employers from industrial and urban transport sectors also joined this strike, by stopping main bus lines and closing their factories. Again, this is misleading. Let's take the easier part first. There were NO urban transport sectors at this time (if you exclude taxi-drivers, which most workers could not afford anyway). All public transport in the city of Santiago was in the hands of the state-owned ETC (Empresa de Transportes del Estado - State Transport Company). Public transport was not privatized until 1976, by the Pinochet regime. In other words, the drivers who went on strike were "public employees". Now, as for the "industrial sector", we again can refer to the government statistics. By this time (1972) the government had transferred to state ownership more than half of all "industrial sector" companies (and certainly most of the largest corporations). The remaining ones went on strike mostly on SUPPORT of the Allende policies, so as to help the government transfer them to state control (the strategy worked as following: the company's worker's would strike, the government would then decree an order to "restart production due to public needs", the worker's would refuse, the government would then be authorized by law to decree the removal of management "for reasons of public needs" and name a "provisory" manager, who would then take over the company and transfer it to state control). During this strike, more than 400 companies were thus transferred to state control, and even though in the agreement that ended the strike there was a government's promise to return them to their owner's control, none was ever done so. What we must not forget is that Allende never got more than 43% of popular support in the country (the highest percent of vote he got in the March 1973 elections). In other words 57% of the population was against his policies. Mel Romero 02:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Where are those percentages from? They look very dubious, specially the fact that remaining 57% had to be directly against, and not partly supportive, or neutral. But I insist, it was a majority of worker class and social sectors who supported, otherwise, it would have been very difficult for him to be able go ahead his plans, and militar strike wouldn't have been needed as elites and bourgeoisie's last attempt to save their interests and politic/economic model. Economic upper classes would have found much easier to unstabilize goveirnment and make it fall. I see it as a matter of common sense, dunno... DeepQuasar 13:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
You can find "the dubious percents" in Chilean parliamentary election, 1973. If you add the results of the Christian Democrat Party and the National Party (which were allied in the CODE - Democratic Confederation) you get 58% plus... those CODE results were considered a failure by both the CODE and the UP, since the stated objective of the CODE to obtain 2/3 (67%) of Congress, in order to impeach Allende. Maybe Allende's support was on the worker classes, no discussion there (I have no idea what social sectors are - rich and poors are both part of society), but anyway, the 42% of the UP in 1973 was as much vote as Allende ever got, clearly indicating that he had not a majority support for carrying his policies. Hence, the coup. Mel Romero 01:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
You are confusing "votes" with "sympathies" or "deeper analyse". You are not talking about people who agrees or disagrees, who like or don't like Allende, you are talking about electoral results. You can't take number of votes and say "who didn't vote Allende radically opposed his policy", that's not correct. Left wing votes were divided among several left wing forces, that formed Allende's coalition, and voters would have many reasons to rather prefere this party than this other, don't forget left wings are not monolytic, nor parties or programs into it. Besides, the documentary I talked about shows how many pro-Christian-Democrat workers and employees also joined the counter-strike, by keeping working, thus supporting their companions and goveirnment's administration; they could not 100% agree Allende's party, or even prefere Christian-Democracy, because they were more in the middle, or self-identified more with it, but they did eventually join the struggle process that started being generated below, and ended up criticising Christian-Democrat when it turned right, by starting to support right wing forces, because many of them interpreted it as serving interests against workers; many Christian-Democrat supporters or ex supporters (or just voters) eventually condemned this party to have joined right wing parties and purposes, and in words of some of them, "to have betrayed Allende's policy", what was regarded by some as hypocrite.
Some most conscious workers even talked about "paternalism" phenomenon, that many traditional right wing forces, that serves elitist or burgeoise's interests, had created with many non-politized or conservative workers. That's a typical procedure of right wing forces, worldwide, which is hard to negade, but many workers started to notice it, in a situation like this, breaking up with these traditional forces, by differencing their speech from their strategy, and identifying this lack of "politization" as a reason of many of their neighbours still voting parties that actually supported interests and politics that just favoured the elite and disfavoured workers. This is an exemple of complexity of situation, and that's the reason why I do not think an quick conclussion from electoral results is a good way to solve it out. That's why I say "they're dubious". Numbers can be objective, yes, but the way they are "interpreted", as a mono-lythic thing, for me, isn't, since a vote doesn't tell you who you like or you don't, but, from all the options they offer you, which is your final decission, and people can have these decisions for many reasons, as this situation I've brievely pictured should give us an idea. Only a deeper demographic study or a full social-politic analyse should be concluding, from my view. Honestly, DeepQuasar 12:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that you have some fundamental flaws in your reasoning: a) If you cannot consider electoral results as a accurate statistical measure of agreement or disagreement with a political postulate, then you're per se denying democracy, because in a democracy is the voting majority's opinion who rules. Also, as any statistician would tell you, in a voting universe as big (in percentage terms) as the one of the Allende years, you can confidently extrapolate the results to get a very accurate picture of the opinion of the whole society, which should have about the same distribution. That's how polls are conducted. You take a representative sample of your universe, poll them and then extrapolate the results. b) You speak of the division of the leftist votes. Again this is a radical misunderstanding of the political system as it existed then. The division of the votes didn't help or hurt Allende's coalition. If anything, it helped them because the more "targeted" the parties were, the more possibilities of getting votes they had. Also, under no stretch of electoral imagination would an Allende supporter vote for a CODE party. c) In the election I refer to (march 1973), if you read a bit about it, the electoral "theme" was very clear: for the CODE (Christian Democrats, National Party and a portion of the Radical Party) it was to get 67% of Congress, so as to be able to impeach Allende. For the UP (all the rest of the parties) it was to prevent the former (they never expected to increase their vote, even though that's what they did.) Even though the CODE got 58 plus percent, both the CODE and the UP claimed defeat of the intent to get rid of Allende via constitutional means. Only then the pressure for a coup started really to build up (as you can see from the published memoirs of most everyone who participated pro or against). d) Last, not to bore you, let me tackle the point of your "documentary". How long it was? 2 hours? 3 hours? That should be an acceptable working length average. So, that should be about 180 minutes. Let's say they spent half the time interviewing people on the streets (that's a stretch), that's 90 minutes of interviews. An average interview lasts what? 2 minutes? So, in fact they interviewed 45 people. Ok, let's compromise... 90 people (1 per minute). You expect to draw conclusions from the opinions of 90 people "selected" by the interviewers, and use those opinions to challenge the results of a vote where about 1.2 MILLION people voted? I don't agree with that... given the resources, I could also produce a "documentary" proving the exact opposite position with even more interviews... Mel Romero 02:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm denying the fact "figurative" or "nominal democracy" actually be real democracy, since democracy means "popular power" (from greek "demos", people, and "kratos", power), and under this system, people doesn't have power, since it's excluded from taking or participating in any relevant political decission or control of echonomy. Political power is took by an elected elite, but an elite, in a hierarchic way, which takes every relevant decission on politics or echonomy, that affects majority of people, and uses police or army according to their own criteria. Laws are or were made by a minoritary, elitist group, as well. And economic planification is decided by competing among upper echonomic classes around big enterprises and markets, which is also elitistic and can' be democratically controlled by majority, so there's no guarantee majority will be benefited, since current echonomic system, "capitalism", is based on competition of accumulative capitals, owned by some, for benefit of some, not for solving needs of mosts. Population can manifest if they doesn't agree current path of politics or echonomy, and if they are not heard (something very usual) they can revolt, but laws (made by some few, a political elite) says there are police and even army (if situation is extreme) in order to neutralize any revolts that can threat current political system and (big) private propriety order (private enterprises, induestries, petrol, private capitls, etc), in order to restablish previous (elitistic) order, based on such hierarchy, that excludes majority from participating in any relevant purpose.
People are called once per several years to choose their POLITICAL elites (parties, parliament, goveirnment), not ECONOMICAL elites (bussinesmen, bankers, traders, etc.), but there keep being elites, and these elites keep having political & economical power. So this is not democracy, it is oligarchy, elective oligarchy, because people posseses some chance to switch politic oligarchy's member, at some rate (not at all, into a multi-partisan system), but must depend from those elites, and can't decide not to do so; they need to revolt in order to change that, and if they do they are counter-backed; and they can't switch echonomic oligarchy. Workers from a factory can't choose their bussinessmen, nor democratically control factory's echonomy or distribute welfare. Soldiers can't democratically choose their officials, nor can decide militar code, if there's equality in relations with officials, if you must greet and how, if not obbeying a suicidal or irrational order can be punished, if such orders can be questions, etc. Students can't choose University's directors, most of times, nor can take decissions about University's direction, or teachers can choose a switch in studies planification (which are chosen by politicians, then again). And population can't decide if they want to modify current system, or current constitution, and of course they don't have power to redesign current system and make a more democratic one. Nor they have the chance to acclaim for direct democratic control of factories, universities, banks, latifunds, roads, mines, petrol sources and other resources, echonomy, exportations, trading, foreign political relations, whether we make or don't make a war, and whether we stop. Summing up: what is producted, how it is producted, in what amount it is producted, for what it is producted; what is made, when, how, for what... That'd be democracy.
Then I now ask you? Do you think current "democracy" is actually "democracy". Did you ask me if I negade it? Yes, I do. Not every party have same chances to access to power, since the more powerful a party be, the more chances it has to make propaganda, to pay more propaganda, to be more referred by mass media, and be more known, and voted. Parties don't represent people who vote them, because there are millions voting, for many reasons, like "I like less this one than this other", and they are not deciding if we we'll make war or not, and when, or the path of echonomy or politics, which is very hard to predict from a party, when you're voting for it. People can't predict everything their party will do in power. Parties normally uses many ideologic and propaganda methods to influence in voting decission. And that's not democratic. That's oligocratic. Party don't represent people's interests, but their interests.
That's why I untrust your interpretation of those statistics. Because people vote for many reasons, they are not homogeneous, they are heterogeneous, you haven't asked every of them to know what they were thinking about to vote this one, and stop voting this other. But you are grouping a lot of them into one attitude or other, you are guessing up their reasons to vote, according to a simplicist reasoning. Is that your democracy?
So I negade your democracy, I negade this democracy. And I negade "everyone" who didn't vote Allende should oppose "everything" made by Allende and should agree "everything" made by opposition, and which part of opposition?
Would you think most of people would agree CIA for supporting a militar coup and installing fascist totalitarian regime, for erasing from Chilean map everyone related to "popular power", social struggles, activism, syndicalism, revolts, democratic conquests, right conquests, workers' conquests, dis-oligarchization, etc.? I bet they wouldn't if they had really known and understood the whole part of truth.
Yes, I negade such FAKE of democracy. And argue many people who were repressed by Pinochet and Opposition's fascism supported more (real) democracy, but couldn't do other thing than revolting, and support a socialist goveirnment that supported them, the same way most people nowadays are doing in Venezuela, supporting (agreeing not everything from) Chávez, and being (more or less) supported by Chávez. And were about to suffer a similar episode in 2002, but thanks goodness they revolted against it.
That's the other part of the truth this article doesn't talk about, and this article won't be neutral until this other objective reality, about class struggle, is shown. Until there is some paragraph devoted to analyze "popular power"'s acclaims' episode, historically and audio-visually registered, and proven. DeepQuasar 04:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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.—Preceding unsigned 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 recently 88.111.184.64 (talk · contribs). Vints 08:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The current version of this article has several problems. Firstly, 40,000 votes is an uncertain figure [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 unsigned comment 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.) —Preceding unsigned 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 by 88.111.77.109 (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 by 88.111.109.156 (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 the attempt 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 unsigned comment 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)

[edit] Marxist Apologists

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

  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 to Wikipedia: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 by 88.109.120.74 (talk)
  3. (I repeat if my comments are going to be deleted what the point of the comments section?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.120.74 (talk)
  4. (With a fictional cybername?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.120.74 (talk)
  5. (Call me old fashioned but I view deleting my remarks as uncivil behaviour) —Preceding unsigned comment 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 by 88.110.58.103 (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.—Preceding unsigned 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...--Caranorn 13:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I haven't taken a look at your new changes yet, I can only dread the results.--Caranorn 13:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The claim that his economic policies alone led to the economical disorder is not consistent with a NPOV. There were several other factors, for example falling copper prices and cut off of aid. Our lead still says "decline (at an annual rate of 5.6% between 1971-1973) in average Real GDP." It wasn't deleted. I think we should also mention that the GDP increased with 8.6% in 1970 or delete all GDP figures from the introduction. The article also still mentions the torture claim, but what you wrote about it was not verified by the Economist article, thats why it was rewritten. Vints 14:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I restored my comment above as well as 88.110.58.103's comment above as these were modified by 88.110.58.103 (talk · contribs) [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)

[edit] Reference problems

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

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

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

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] The Allende Debray interview

The article makes the following claim in the intro:

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

In fact this is not correct. There are several versions running around of what lies in thos interviews (aside from the interview itself, which I will refer to shortly). One version of Allende's comments comes from [4] José Piñeras of the Cato Institute (certainly no left-wing ideologue). His account goes as follows (emphasis mine)

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

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

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

Allende responds

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

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

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


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

You assert that the weekly La Portada (Santiago) (November 1970) does not exist. An interesting suggestion. Although you are content to include a laughably bad article by KGB "agent of influence" Richard Gott, you seek [in good Leftist freedom of information mode] to excise the memory [and no doubt given the chance the existence] of any article written at the time which accused his regime of using torture.

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

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

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


Well I am pleased to note that you can read and so have registered that the date November 1970 is November 1970 - I admit that producing such a newspaper article after he was in power for only one month did strike me as a bit on the early side [it is hard not to have contempt for people who instead of making that obvious point simply delete information that does not serve their Leftist myth making] but credit where credit is due you eventually did spot that [and even went to the trouble of reading the Allende - Debray interview unlike your Leftist chums who sought to delete any reference to it] but a change of political masters sometimes leads to rapid changes and so it is not on those grounds implausible. As for denying the existence of La Portada [clearly the sort of newspaper Marxists close down given half a chance] I do not regard the matter as settled until somebody from Chile does a bit of research for me. It is possible an error has been made in the date (these slips happen) or even in the spelling of the newspaper (which may indeed no longer exist) but it is interesting to me that even in a section devoted to his critics a reference to an article which attacked the use which the Allende government was making of torture is deleted. If somebody does some research and discovers that the reference is made up (highly unlikely ) I will of course delete it. I am interested in the truth. The fact that you have not heard of that newspaper means precisely nothing.

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

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

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

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

[edit] Edit wars

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

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


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


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

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

Okay, after two warnings I've now requested intervention for repeated violation of the NPA policy[[5]].--Caranorn 23:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Another note, the annon seems to just have broken the triple revert rule on the article. He's also once again broken that reference... I'm just too tired to track down the correct channels to report this latest violation. I only re-added the POV tag which he also removed every time.--Caranorn 23:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


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

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

In addition to reinserting several erroneous and unsourced claims, the anonymous user has added an incorrect amount ($350 000) for the US election campaing funding in the lead section (and this amount is not even mentioned in the article he cites). Figures of the US funding are available in the Church report [6]. The CIA spent about $1M, ITT $350 000, other US companies about $350 000. The figure of Soviet spending seems to be underestimated. This article [7] says: "actual and proposed payments to Chile's Salvador Allende totaling $420,000 both before and after his election as president in 1970." In the cited Times article $90,000 are just the figures of October and December 1971, and $60,000 of those were proposed, ie it's uncertain how much was actually spent.
I will request that this article be semi-protected at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, also because of the continuous personal attacks. Vints 10:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


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

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

[edit] trimming of lead/intro section

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

[edit] Innacuracies

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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


Indeed.

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

[edit] Accusations of Racism

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

  • Surviving personal friends of Allende have completely rejected Farías accusations of racism and anti-semitism for two main reasons: Allende’s mother Laura Gossens Uribe was of Jewish-descent (though converted to Catholicism) and Allende himself considered himself a socialist Internationalist for most of his adult life. Or somewhere along those lines. - Чисто Золото 14:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it was altered by the anonymous user here [8]. Vints 14:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Salvador Allende was an anti-Semite who held fascist ideas in his youth, says a controversial new [2005] book.

The disclosures come from Allende's 1933 doctoral dissertation which had been kept secret. In it he asserts that Jews have a disposition to crime, and calls for compulsory sterilisation of the mentally ill and alcoholics.

Victor Farias, the book's Chilean-born author, quotes Allende approving of a "cure" for homosexuality, which was then a crime: "It could be corrected with surgery - small holes would be made in the stomach, into which small pieces of testicle would be inserted. This would make the person heterosexual."

Farias, who teaches at the Latin American Institute of Berlin's Free University, says that it was only opposition from medical associations in Chile prevented Allende, a medical doctor, from introducing a compulsory sterilisation program when he was health minister from 1939 to 1941.

The Allende family accused Farias of "manipulating documents". His supporters note that such views were common in the 1930s, and assert that he should be judged on his political record, not on his early writings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.229.10 (talk) 01:06, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Communist?

The PBS documentary about Milton Friedman just had a section on Allende. It said that when he was elected he installed a communist government. Is that correct? I thought he was a socialist. Badagnani 04:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

He was a socialist, and while he was allied to various more radical groups his policy was neverless socialist. Sad to hear that a public channel makes such errors.--Caranorn 13:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Allende's political coalition was formed by the Socialist, Communist and Radical parties and other political parties and movements. Allende was member of the Socialist Party, which had a marxist-leninist orientation and supported violence as a political method (see spanish language article es:Partido_Socialista_de_Chile. baloo_rch 01:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
There's something wrong there. They did not support violence as a political method, that's a calumnia, it doesn't appear anywhere in their program, in their manifestoes, nor during their goveirnment. If you call "supporting violence as political method" as using burgeoise State's forces, as police and army, to repress social initiatives that threatens the stability or foundations of the burgeoise State itself, that's done by nearly every institutional government at some rate, in any time and any country, and any party, not only Allende's, being him pretty modest at that part, compared to others. I mean, "democracy" founations, itself, legitimates usage of police and army against certain kind of demonstrations, even when they're not necessarily a "social danger or threaten", nor they're necessarily violent. Otherwise ask the ones who where on Seattle on 97, or on Genova, or next years, to protest about G8. DeepQuasar 10:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I guess I must disagree with DeepQuasar. The topic of the use of violence as one of the means to acquire "the totality of power" does appear on their program. You should review the Socialist Party's manifesto of 1968. Maybe Allende personally did not agree (though he did prepare himself for the eventuality as can be seen from the affair of the Cuban packages) but his supporters did (see Miguel Enríquez, Andrés Pascal Allende, or Carlos Altamirano). The real irony of the situation is that within the UP alliance, the only ones who actually and actively OPPOSED the use of violence were the members of the Communist Party of Chile. Mel Romero 01:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Full name

In this very pro-Allende article, someone gave Allende's full name as "Salvador Isabelino del Sagrado Corazón de Jesús Allende Gossens". I, for one, would be very interested in knowing where did that unknown historian get that name from. I haven't seen Allende's original birth certificate, but I know for certain that he NEVER used or acknowledged the "Isabelino del Sagrado Corazón de Jesús" part. The only instance where such a name is used is in a 1967 satyrical book called "The cave of the Senate and the 45 senators" by journalist Eugenio Lira Massi, where he, in jest, reports hearing such name used as demeaning rumor against Allende. Could anyone provide hard data to back this bit of historical information? Mel Romero 03:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The Spanish article es:Salvador Allendes says in note 1: "Su nombre completo, según algunas fuentes 1 parece ser Salvador Isabelino del Sagrado Corazón de Jesús Allende Gossens, aunque muchos discrepan." which babelfish translates to: "Its complete name, according to some sources seems to be Salvador Isabelino del Sagrado Corazón de Jesús Allende Gossens, although many differ" :Vints 08:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Sure... that's what I mean... the "some sources" are the book I already mentioned, but in that book is clearly stated (I own a copy, by the way) that such name is a "rumor spread out by his political enemies...". The book was published in 1967, when he was President of the Senate, and 3 years before he was elected President of the Republic. As for the link you include, they are not even sure of what name to include, they even quote a different name (Salvador Guillermo Allende). Hence, it's definitely not clear, and less likely that it's true that his name is as quoted in the article. Mel Romero 12:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
It's a well known fact that THAT was his full name. He changed it later to "Salvador Guillermo" as he was an atheist and marxist and didn't like to have such a christian name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.117.137.69 (talk) 12:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
I don't know why you say that such a change is a well known fact, when in fact nobody has ever indicated that such was the case. If that were the reason he would have gotten rid of the Salvador also. Please indicate your sources. Mel Romero 12:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Quote from article:

Allende was born in 1908 in Valparaíso.[2]

<references/>

How is this guy Lagos' former affiliation relevant here? Is this meant to suggest that Lagos' claims regarding Allende's date and place of birth should be taken with caution because of his potential bias? If Allende date and place of birth are somehow controversial (LOL), then that should be stated clearly. Otherwise, this sounds kinda funny. --91.148.159.4 21:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Why do you consider the article "very pro-Allende". Would you mind listing those points you find biased? And are you from Chile - which city and if Santiago which suburb? just curious...

I assume you're referring to my commentary. I find the article "very pro-Allende", because it only focuses on defending his actions while president. The man was in politics for 40 years BEFORE his presidency, for God's sake! Nonetheless, there's very little about his life before that time. This is supposed to be a BIOGRAPHY not an APOLOGY. I don't see what importance it has where I come from and specially what suburb, but yes, I originally come from Chile (you can see my personal page) and grew up in San Miguel (do you even know where is that?) Mel Romero 02:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I also knew about "Salvador Isabelino del Sagrado Corazón" (I'm not the same 64.117.137.69 who wrote above). However, since he changed his name to "Salvador Guillermo" I think Wikipedia shouldn't have his former name in the first paragraph. 64.117.137.69 14:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There are no sources who, officially or unofficially, have ever claimed that a change of name ever took place. The only place where the "Salvador Guillermo" ever appears is in a footnote to an article in the "La Tercera" newspaper about XX Century Chilean people, that for all we know could very well be a typo (even they do not cite any sources.) Mel Romero 03:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have been watching this section carefully for some days now, to see if anybody had noticed a very relevant information recently published in La Estrella de Valparaíso, a local newspaper. It shows a copy of Allende's birth certificate, and it clearly shows two things: 1. His name was Salvador Guillermo, and 2. He was born in Santiago. Look for www.estrellavalpo.cl, the 3 April 2008 issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.29.179.34 (talk) 19:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Relationships

Author Isabel Allende's own website claims that she is the cousin of President Salvador Allende,[9] not his niece, but the same site has her referring to him as her "uncle" in answer to an interview question.[10] The exact familial relationship should be verified and corrected on both this page and Isabel Allende's own Wikipedia page. Aramink 16:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

No need. Given the context BOTH relationships are correct, at least in Spanish. Isabel Allende's father and Salvador Allende were first cousins (in other words they shared common grandparents). In genealogy, that would make Isabel Allende and Salvador Allende "cousins in second degree" (in other words, cousins). Nonetheless, in Spanish, when you have a younger child and an older relative who are not in a direct line, the younger will always refer to the older as "tío" ("uncle"), even when that's not really accurate. The term "cousin" is only used when the relationship is a direct one (first cousins) or when there's a very minor age-difference. Mel Romero 02:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What a Mess!

This page is so full of contradictions, irrelevant information, POV and basic grammatical errors that it's next to worthless. I don't know enough about Allende to be competent to edit the page but I wish someone who knows what they are talking about would have a go. It seems to illustrate a trend across Wikipedia where articles on relatively recent events are mutilated by too many people with an axe to grind.NBeddoe 12:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The Cold War is still being fought.--Mike18xx 21:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Salvador Allende template.jpg

Image:Salvador Allende template.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Ref www.nodo50.org/americalibre/eventos/azocar21.htm

I am not sure if this can be taken as a reputable source. I do not doubt that some Chileans did work around the strike, but this reference cannot be relied upon to give accurate information about the magnitude of that strike. The article itself is largly a fluff piece and does not cite any references. Americalibre is a netzine geared for Latin American Marxists. There is no problem including information about UP supporters working around the strike, but we need a better ref.JoeCarson 15:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Distortions regarding Soviet relations

Please see my comments] regarding the distortions regarding the alleged support that Allende received from the Soviet Union from the Mitrokhin Archive. I will try to fix them on this page when I get a chance, but I have linked to the appropriate pages in the original source book if others want to correct the errors. Notmyrealname 03:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible non-Picture Perfect POV?

Why is it that the articles' main picture seems so unflattering. Just to point it out, Augusto Pinochet's picture on his article clearly shows him grinning like a fool, so why should the Good Doctor's be any different? It seems to me that some right-winger is trying to make Allende look as condascending and sinister as possible. Any thoughts? 172.206.72.250 18:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, it was changed briefly to a rather nice one, and now it's back to another one which just wants to make him out as "evil" again. It should be changed. 172.213.210.144 (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:EL

  • ? I don't delete but the links are not good and should be reviewed by someone else
  • Y ok, don't see any problems
  • N no way, I'll delete it

explanation for each link.

-- Stan talk 20:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] THIS QUOTE NEEDS A SOURCE

Allende had a long affair with his private secretary, Miria Contreras Bell (known as "La Payita"). Contreras moved to Cuba after the coup and returned to Chile in 1990. She died in 2002. That's from the section "legacy and debate." No matter how long this alleged "affair" supposedly lasted, this claim needs a source. It could just be a political attack from a rightist POV Pusher who wants to degrade Salvador Allende. In fact, there is no source even specifying this woman even existed, let alone had an affair with a respected Chilean ex-president. If you cannot get a valid source (Pinochet propoganda doesn't count), then it should be removed. 172.159.73.22 (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Apart from the several books and articles of memories that have been published in the last 5 months by members of his entourage (including some of his bodyguards and his former son-in-law), you can find at least 5 major newspaper articles on his womanizing in all the major Chilean newspapers, that have been published in the last year alone. I agree that the quote should be referenced clearly, but beyond that the point has been clearly proven time and again. --Mel Romero (talk) 01:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, just for the record, I'm not specifically trying to say he never had an affair (the article clearly defines a source to prove that another allegation is true), however, I have removed this quote and will continue to remove it until a source can be cited for it. Why not? It had been hanging around for too long with an ugly "Citation needed", and if a source can not be cited to prove it true, then I doubt it will be allowed back. 172.215.89.181 22:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

Is his name pronounced, literally, as "Allende" or is it pronounced "a-YEN-day?" Because I've heard both ways being used by various people. If there is a distinction, the article should mention that to non-Spanish speaking editors (as it does at Hugo Chavez). Thanks, Sporker (talk) 11:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious Allegations

Mel Romero, as you constantly revert any attempt to remove the dubious statements inserted by the anonymous User:71.110.27.188, I'd like to know where you imagine the sources to be. I have checked the footnotes nearest to the disputed passages as well as the external links and found nothing.--Fan of Freedom (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Where I imagined the sources to be? You surely jest... anyway, if I must justify the truth, go to the page Death of Salvador Allende (which is properly listed in the text of this article), and there you will find a list of the witnesses to the suicide, and a long list of other sources from where you can follow the events. Also you can check declarations from his widow and daughters acknowledging the suicide. The list is endless, so please, stop trying to rewrite history to suit your own personal agenda. Mel Romero (talk) 01:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The suicide issue was only one point. The disputed edits contain a whole bunch of accusations. Where is the source for the alleged presence of the Stasi and the Cuban intelligence? In such a disputed article you can't just redirect others to search in other articles. Insert the references yourself if they are that easy to find.
And by the way, I would be happy to solve this dispute without personal attacks.--Fan of Freedom (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I only intended to incorporate the information about the suicide of Allende. If by mistake I had let in another extemporaneous information, I sincerely apologize. I also expect this exchange of opinions not to be a matter of personal attacks. Mel Romero (talk) 09:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign involvement in Chile during Allende's Term

What about Cuban involvement and other Soviet ones different than individual contacts with Allende? The paragraph is biased.Xx236 (talk) 08:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)