Talk:1973 Chilean coup d'état

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Cold War (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Chile (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chile, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chile on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject United States / Government (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (marked as Low-importance).
 

Spin Spin Spin should be removed[edit]

According to the Political Background section, "President Allende's Popular Unity coalition increased its vote to 43.2% in the March 1973 parliamentary elections..."
- First, I've read that the number was 43.9%. Does anyone know where the discrepancy comes from? My source is Arturo Valenzuela. Breakdown of Democratic Regimes: Chile. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ Press, 1978. p 85.
- Second, it isn't clear. What was it an increase FROM? An increase from the 1970 presidential election? Seems like apples and oranges.
- Third, Chile has a congress, not a parliament.
- Fourth, and most importantly, it is important to note that while the UP attracted 43% of the vote in the 1973 parliamentary elections, The Opposition Party attracted 54% of the vote. The UP consisted of the following parties: Socialists, Communists, Christian Left (IC), Popular Independent Action (API), Unitarian Popular Action Movement (MAPU), Radical, among others. The Opposition consisted of the following parties: Christian Democrats, National, Radical Left (PIR), Radical Democracy (DR), and Democratic Confederation (CODE). Source is same as above. --179.218.140.239 (talk) 12:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Chilean Coup infobox[edit]

Hi Vanamonde93,

Thanks for your attention regarding my delete of the military conflict infobox. You and I consider that there wasn't a military conflict. The next question we have is: is there a better infobox?. Apparently no. And the third question is: must an article has an infobox?. Most of the articles have no infobox.

While an infobox can help to show the most important data of the object, it exists always the danger to give a wrong interpretation of the facts. In this case, MIR, Cuba and the USA as "belligerents" in a military conflict is, IMHO, pure science fiction.

An agreement could be:

1973 Chilean coup d'état
Part of the Cold War
Golpe de Estado 1973.jpg
The Bombing of La Moneda on 11 September 1973 by the Junta's Armed Forces.
Date 11 September 1973
Location Chile
Result Unidad Popular government overthrown, Salvador Allende Died, Military Junta Government assumed power
Opponents
Chilean Government Chilean Armed Forces
Commanders and leaders
Chile Salvador Allende Chile Augusto Pinochet
Chile José Toribio Merino
Chile Gustavo Leigh
Chile César Mendoza
Strength
Military:
no support
(pres. Guard was released)
Political:
Left parties support
Military:
Chilean Armed Forces
Political:
Right parties support
The extent of the US intervention is controversial. Approximately 3,000 deaths in 17 years of following dictature.

We can't give more information because the infobox isn't for that cases.

What about a new infobox for Putsches?. --Keysanger (talk) 12:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I feel like in the long run, an infobox for coups/putschs would be an excellent idea, and I would be happy to collaborate in creating that, although I am not the most technically well versed of editors. Short of that, I feel like your modified version is generally good. I would suggest adding US support as being crucial to the coup, and removing the strengths of the two sides as being highly variably estimates. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I made some changes to the infobox data. belligerents->Opponents; Notes: ... . I think that is all what we can do with that infobox. --Keysanger (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I guess what I was trying to say was, the extent of US support is controversial, but the fact that some support existed is not; so it would be accurate to list it under the support category, rather than putting a note at the bottom. I could provide a source, if need be; recent academic consensus seems to agree that support for the coup was important. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
A good source would be great. --Keysanger (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Winn, Peter (2010). "Furies of the Andes". In Grandin & Joseph, Greg & Gilbert. A Century of Revolution. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. pp. 239–275. 
Unfortunately I am travelling and am not carrying the book right now; but I've read it multiple times, and the gist of it was that US support was crucial to the prep for the coup, and Pinochet's consolidation of power afterwards. Moreover, although this is technically one author, this book is one of that kind peculiar to the social sciences, where the two "editors" use many other authors to flesh out their own argument; so as such, Peter Winn's view is backed by both Grandin and Joseph, and they are all amongst the most respected of LA historians. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It's hard (probably impossible) to quantify "how much" CIA (and others US Agencies) Work was responsible for the 1973 putsch. It certainly played a role, but hard facts aren't known. The US gov says "we didn't know about it" and Kissinger said "we didn't do it". They recognize that several million US$ went to the "opposition" (legal and illegal orgs). And that is all what we know. The Church committee states: There is no hard evidence of direct U.S. assistance to the coup, despite frequent allegations of such aid. (http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/chile/doc/covert.html#E. Covert Action During the Allende Years, 1970-1973). All I have read are suggestions, deductions, analogies, or diffuse words like "was crucial", "was important", "it is believed", "were involved", "was responsible", etc. There is no "Smoking gun" in the issue. Furthermore, the result of CIA attempts to impede Allende's presidency were catastrophic (killing Gen. Schneider), in part because the CIA had no control of the Armed Forces in Chile. For sure, three years later they could do a little bit more, but how much?. I think that they knew and did more than they recognize now, but as long as they mustn't release it they will hide it. If we write "CIA support was crucial", every newbie editor will add "but there is no hard evidence of direct U.S. assistance to the coup, despite frequent allegations of such aid." and add the reference to the Church committee.

We have two options. We write "The extent of the US intervention is controversial." OR "It is belived that ...(ref=Winn) but there is no hard evidence that ...(ref=Church)". --Keysanger (talk) 13:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Keysanger, I'm aware of the Church Committee report; but that report itself cannot be given as much weight as an academic source, given that it comes from the government (even if from the opposition party). Second, it is outdated; Winn and company writing in the previous decade have had access to a number of declassified documents that the Church committee did not have. Finally, older analyses of the coup (including the Church committee report) have tended to define the coup in very narrow terms; they define it as merely the military action on 11 September. This was overt military action, and so it is rather unsurprising that Church concluded what they did. A more logical definition would include the preparation before and the consolidation immediately after, both of which the agency certainly had a hand in. If you are worried about newbies, then we can simply add a note saying that changes should use an up-to-date source, because the committee report is most certainly outdated. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
For sure there was an intervention of at least US$7,000,000 , my problem is how to mention it without playing with old clichés. I think that the Church Committee report is (still) important, as well as the later released documents because Winn must base his allegations on somewhat. An "I guess that ..." isn't very convincing, even if it comes from Winn. He must offer some fundament for his conclusion. Unfortunately I haven't access to Winn's text. Would you be so kind to transcript the concerning passage in Winn's text or better, which is your proposal?. --Keysanger (talk) 14:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Winn did indeed have a rationale, and if memory serves it was based on declassified documents. I have used Winn's piece as a source before; unfortunately, like I said earlier, I am currently travelling and do not have it with me. I will make the effort, however. At worst, we can insert the rest of the infobox, and sort this issue out when I get hold of my book again, in a few weeks time. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
No hurry, we have time. --Keysanger (talk) 10:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Keysanger, apologies for the delay, but I have my books back with me at last, so here is the quote. I think it would be definitely accurate to list the US under political support. "Recently declassified documents have confirmed the involvement or complicity of the US government in the events leading up to the coup and its violent aftermath. [] The 1973 coupd was set up by a three year covert US intervention, which included deliberate efforts to destabilize the Allende government and to promote a military coup." There's more, including the economic blockade meant to destabilize the government, and assurances to Pinochet, but I think this is sufficient to note the fact of political (it's almost more than political; I would call it logistical, but that is getting into nitty-gritty) support in the infobox. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Under political support any way!. It is well known that they were looking for a putsch, they invested several millions, etc. --Keysanger (talk) 22:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
If you have no objections, I'll go ahead and add it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)