Talk:Augusto Pinochet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Politics and Government (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (marked as High-importance).
 
WikiProject Cold War (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance 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 Basque
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Basque, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Basque people, Basque Country, Basque language, history and culture 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.
 
WikiProject Latin America (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Latin America 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Politics / Fascism (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Fascism task force.
 

Alternatives to Pinochet and his regime in 1973[edit]

Amongst all the moral indignation - much of it false and facile (including the automatic knee-jerk use of the word 'fascist', which cannot be applied to Pinochet's regime) - I have never heard any constructive views put forward on how the Chilean state should have proceeded given the disastrous state of affairs obtaining at the end of Allende's rule.

Should the parliament simply have let Allende carry on with 1000% inflation? With its East German and Soviet advisers, expropriations, nationalisations without compensation, and so on?

Pinochet's rule was not perfect, but he did restore stability to the country, much as Franco did to Spain and - to be honest - Soviet dictatorship did after the Russian civil war. No society tolerates the prospect of its own breakdown for long and the survival of the community is the overriding social and biological principle in human behaviour. It is to be regretted that Pinochet's restoration of order involved the murder and torture of so many, but, in the long run, the alternative would have been far worse.

Pinochet compared[edit]

1. Henry VIII makes Pinochet look like a social worker. Discuss. 2. Put the following in order of nastiness (equal positions are allowed): Lenin / Hitler / Cromwell / Caligula / Pinochet / Stalin / Castro / Franco / Suleiman the Magnificent / Saddam Husein / Mussolini / Napoleon. Does the context become clearer?

False and misleading information in the intro[edit]

The statement Several academics have stated that the support of the United States was crucial to the coup and the consolidation of power afterward. is utterly inappropriate to be in the lead section. What "several academics" happen to think about any given matter does not merit their inclusion in the introduction of an article. And for good reason, considering that their opinion is disputed by others and their case is so weak that literally no evidence is provided anywhere else in the article. So it should either be removed, or information should be presented indicating that their opinion is disputed.

CJK (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The "several academics" phrase was inserted because some editors felt that not all academics support that view. Having surveyed the literature, though, there is literally no source denying the fact of support. If you would rather start the sentence "The support of the United States was crucial...." I would be comfortable with that. As for the rest of the article, there are three academic sources provided, I would suggest you start by reading those. The Church report also acknowledges post-coup support. I might also suggest reading the sources in the main articles linked here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Um, the Church report that I read denies the "fact" of support. There is no evidence that any support was provided, let alone that it was "crucial". If there is evidence it ought to be presented.

The CIA report states:

The CIA continued to collect intelligence on Chilean military officers actively opposed to the Allende government, but no effort was made to assist them in any way. Some CIA assets and contacts were in direct contact with coup plotters; CIA guidance was that the purpose of these contacts was only to collect intelligence. As coup rumors and planning escalated by the end of 1972, CIA exercised extreme care in all dealings with Chilean military officers and continued to monitor their activities but under no circumstances attempted to influence them. By October 1972 the consensus within the US government was that the military intended to launch a coup at some point, that it did not need US support for a successful coup, and that US intervention or assistance in a coup should be avoided.
On 21 August 1973 the 40 Committee approved a $1 million supplemental budget to increase support for opposition political parties, bringing the total amount of covert funding spent during the Allende period to approximately $6.5 million. In late August the Station requested authorization to provide maximum support for the opposition’s efforts to encourage the entrance of the Chilean military into the Allende cabinet. The resignation of Army Commander General Carlos Prats (whose actions were strongly constitutionalist) and his replacement by General Augusto Pinochet (not a coup plotter, but apparently willing to concede to a coup) appeared to further unify the Armed Forces and strengthened the institution as a political pressure group. The UP Government appeared to fear a possible military coup and was unsure how to react to such a development.
The Station realized that the opposition’s objectives had evolved to a point inconsistent with current US policy and sought authorization from Washington to support such an aggressive approach. Although the US Ambassador in Chile agreed with the need for Washington to evaluate its current policy, he did not concur in the Station’s proposal, fearing that it could lead to a de facto US commitment to a coup. In response, CIA Headquarters reaffirmed to the Station that there was to be no involvement with the military in any covert action initiative; there was no support for instigating a military coup.
On 10 September 1973—the day before the coup that ended the Allende Government—a Chilean military officer reported to a CIA officer that a coup was being planned and asked for US Government assistance. He was told that the US Government would not provide any assistance because this was strictly an internal Chilean matter. The Station officer also told him that his request would be forwarded to Washington. CIA learned of the exact date of the coup shortly before it took place. During the attack on the Presidential Palace and its immediate aftermath, the Station’s activities were limited to providing intelligence and situation reports. [1]

CJK (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Please do not mis-represent what I said. To repeat, the Church committee report acknowledges support to Pinochet after the coup. There is no serious academic source that denies the fact of support to the military through the period. The extent of this support is debated, hence the phrase "some academics." (As per Wikipedia policy on sourcing (I will not patronize you by linking to it) academic sources are the gold standard here. I mention the Church report merely to show that even that report acknowledges support to Pinochet after the coup. Also, you may want to glance at WP:INDENT. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I would also note that you added a sentence to the lead about a comparison with the Argentinian dirty war, that was purely original research. You did not provide a source, and such a comparison is not made anywhere in the article. The content you removed, on the other hand, is sourced, although you do not seem to be interested in reading those sources. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

How did I misrepresent what you said? You said there is literally no source denying the "fact" of support. Clearly there is. The post-coup support mentioned in the Church report was described as propaganda and economic advice, not anything related to the consolidation of power afterward. as you put it.

There is no serious academic source that denies the fact of support to the military through the period.

What does that mean? Your point is about supporting the coup, not the military. The U.S. routinely sold supplies to the Chilean military, with the consent of the Allende government, but that is a completely different matter than supporting the coup.

CJK (talk) 00:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

You are being obtuse, and also not following WP:INDENT as I asked you to. Let me try one last time. Scholarly sources are much more reliable than the Church committee report, per Wikipedia's policy on sourcing. There are three such sources provided in the article text, one of which is also in the lead, all of which explicitly support the statement in the lead; ie, all of which say that the United States government provided crucial support to the military coup. Therefore, if you wish to contest that, you should begin by reading the sources provided. A failure to do so would be a prime example of WP:IDHT. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

How on earth do you get to elevate these three "scholarly" sources over actual detailed investigations of the matter? Your three sources (which I cannot read because there is no internet link) do not get to dictate history to the rest of us. Why don't you present the evidence they have, if it is so solid? Besides, there are other scholars who concur with the Church report and say that there is no evidence. You must be aware of this. There is no academic consensus that the coup was supported in any way by the U.S.

CJK (talk) 01:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I am "elevating" nothing. Scholarly sources, ie those published by an academic publisher, are Wikipedia's gold standard for sourcing, as you would know if you had actually read WP:RS. If you believe otherwise, feel free to take it up with Jimbo Wales. Short of that, the policy exists, and you follow it, or leave. There are no academic sources which deny support outright. If you do not read the sources, then you have no real objection (I cannot provide internet links, because I do not have electronic copies, but the sources are quoted or paraphrased in the article, and you should not require anything further. They have also been verified many many times; if you believe I am lying about what is in them, then you can take the issue to RSN, but source verification is not sufficient grounds for a tag. If you do not raise any real objections in your next post, then I intend to remove the tag. I repeat, a lack of an electronic copy is not my problem. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand that Wikipedia is guided through consensus. There is no academic consensus for your statement, just several people claiming that.

There are no academic sources which deny support outright

That is obviously false, unless you contort "support" as meaning any aid to the Chilean military in which case Salvador Allende is also culpable for the coup. Furthermore, if you acknowledge that there is a dispute over the importance of the so-called "support" why only include the point of view you want?

CJK (talk) 13:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I am getting absolutely sick of this. There is a statement in the article, backed by an iron clad source. Find an equally weighty source that disputes it, or leave. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I have to agree here with Vanamonde93. There are several good sources in the article which acknowledge US intervention before, during, and after the coup d'état. CJK, you are the only one who seems to state the US did not intervene at all. I suggest you, for example, watch a documentary called "El diario de Agustín", in which people from nationally-distributed newspaper (El Mercurio) acknowledge to have received US money to publish stories against Allende and develop a media strategy against him. That's just an example, but there are tons of sources to prove US intervention. Küñall (talk) 15:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Küñall, thanks for playing straight. If you would be so kind, would you explain Wikipedia sourcing policy to our friend here, as I seem to be having little success with that? Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Find an equally weighty source that disputes it, or leave.

Um I did give a source, and you ignored it.

you are the only one who seems to state the US did not intervene at all

I never said they did not "intervene at all". I said they did not support the actual coup, which is what is being charged.

By the way, the insinuation that primary sources are irrelevant here is utterly preposterous.

CJK (talk) 16:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Once more unto the breach.1) WP:RS says secondary sources are better than primary sources. 2) The primary source is a US government source, and so in this case needs to be taken with a fistful of salt; it is certainly not reliable enough for the lead. You haven't actually read WP:PRIMARY, have you? Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what your point is. Primary sources are perfectly permissible. But even ignoring the primary sources, there are certainly secondary sources that disagree with your sentence. Are you seriously trying to argue that nobody disputes that the support of the United States was crucial to the coup and the consolidation of power afterward?

And why must the primary sources be taken with a "fistful of salt"? The Church report was authored by anti-Nixon Democrats, they would have been happy to report Nixon was behind the coup if there was evidence, and they did report that he attempted a coup in 1970.

CJK (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Because of the policy governing these. I quote; "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." In this case, there is no secondary source that is not out of date, that denies US support for the coup. If there are other sources, as you claim, then find them. Without those, you have no argument. As for the authorship of the primary source; the type of conclusion you are drawing is exactly what is meant by "an original analysis of the primary-source material," which is explicitly forbidden by the policy above. Since we are on a talk page, I can explain why the Church report may be problematic; it was written by democrats, but they were still members of the US government, with a decidedly anti-Allende stance, and a stake in preserving the image of the US as a whole, even if they wished to discredit Nixon. tl;dr; Read the policy, and find a source! Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

that confirms, rather than disconfirms exactly what I said; primary sources are admissible.

John Lewis Gaddis, a Cold War scholar, writes that that "CIA complicity was never established". The Cold War: A New History (2005)

Marc Falcof,, an AEI scholar, criticizes "the myth of a CIA-inspired overthrow of the democratic forces". [2]

This Foreign Affairs article criticizes "The myth that the United States toppled President Salvador Allende of Chile in 1973." [3]

It cites The Pinochet file which argues that u.s. officials tried to destabilize chile but that they weren't involved in the coup, let alone the support of the United States was crucial to the coup and the consolidation of power afterward.

your statement about the church report is too ridiculous to merit a response.

my shift key is broken.

cjk

"sigh" I do not know how many times I have explained this to you. All of these sources dispute the extent of CIA support for the coup and the coup plotters; none of them deny the connection. The view presented in the article is that which gives due weight to all the opinions about the subject; and there is nobody in academia that denies a connection. If you had read the sources yourself, you would have seen this. The foreign affairs article you source does not deny the connection, only the extent of support; and it contains a rebuttal as well, which you conveniently ignore. Falcoff does the same thing; he trains all his guns on the idea that the US was completely responsible, without ever denying the connection between the coup plotters and the CIA. Fernandois (I know you didn't source him, but he will come up, soon enough) tears into Kornbluh, while making the disclaimer that any notion that the CIA had no responsibility is nonsense. The quote from Gaddis, which you use so gleefully, has been taken out of context, as you know very well; he also says that "Nixon and Kissinger openly welcomed and sought to cooperate with the new leader," ie helped him consolidate power; that "What the [US] did in Chile differed little from what it had done two decades ago in Iran and Guatemala," which is an explicit statement the the US fomented regime change (The coup in Guatemala in 1954 and in Iran in 59, both of which he discusses above). That the CIA had done things in Chile which "fail the daylight test." As you can see, you've taken the quote out of context; Gaddis is very much of the opinion that the Nixon administration was responsible for Regime change. Moreover, even the statement you mention is a consequence of when it was written; there was a surge in declassification in the time period 2003-04 (30 years after the coup) and these came a bit late for Gaddis who wrote through that period, but at an ideal time for Peter Winn, who published in 2010. Your sources merely confirm the statement in the article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

All of these sources dispute the extent of CIA support for the coup and the coup plotters; none of them deny the connection.

Um, yes, they do deny the CIA was involved in the actual coup. Nobody disputes that the CIA supported Allende's opponents, what is being discussed is the actual coup.

The view presented in the article is that which gives due weight to all the opinions about the subject; and there is nobody in academia that denies a connection.

The complete opposite in the intro, it presents one narrow point of view and disregards all others. What is this mysterious 'connection' you speak of?

"What the [US] did in Chile differed little from what it had done two decades ago in Iran and Guatemala," which is an explicit statement the US fomented regime change

He was primarily referencing the abortive 1970 coup plotting, not the 1973 coup. Nixon did indeed order a coup in 1970, but that isn't proof that he ordered it in 1973.

As you can see, you've taken the quote out of context; Gaddis is very much of the opinion that the Nixon administration was responsible for Regime change.

Here's what Gaddis writes: "That made questions about responsibility unavoidable. Could Allende have remained in power if there had been no American campaign against him? .... There are, even today, no clear answers: Washington's role in Chile's horrors remains a hotly contested issue among both historians of these events and participants in them."

Moreover, even the statement you mention is a consequence of when it was written; there was a surge in declassification in the time period 2003-04 (30 years after the coup) and these came a bit late for Gaddis who wrote through that period, but at an ideal time for Peter Winn, who published in 2010.

Really? What do these new documents say if they are so damning?

Your sources merely confirm the statement in the article.

The statement the support of the United States was crucial to the coup and the consolidation of power afterward is supported by "CIA complicity was never established", "the myth of a CIA-inspired overthrow of the democratic forces", and "The myth that the United States toppled President Salvador Allende of Chile in 1973."?

CJK (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I have no need to explain what these new documents say; Peter Winn does explain, in one of the best sources you can get on the topic, and he is sourced in the article. If you insist on exhibiting WP:IDHT, then there is little I can do. You should also read WP:CIR; being able to read, parse, and paraphrase scholarly historiography is a skill that you evidently do not possess. You are also cherry-picking quotes once again. When they say the "myth of a CIA inspired overthrow," all they are actually talking about is the myth of a coup entirely run by the CIA; which is not what this article, or any serious article, claims. I have already explained what Gaddis says. It is Washington's role that is debated, ie the extent of its involvement, not the fact of its involvement. Yes, of course he was "primarily" talking about 1970; he also mention 1973, as you yourself acknowledge, and also draws links between the two; they are hardly disconnected events. Also, any denial of US involvement in the coup is based on defining the coup as precisely the moment when the armed forces marched into the palace, which is not the definition used by most historians, or by this article. The common definition, as you should know by now, is the entire sequence of events that began with the plotting of the coup and ended with the death of Allende. Winn says that the "coup was made possible by a three year long US intervention." None of your sources contradict that. That is what the statement in the lead says; the support of the US was "crucial," ie "necessary," (in a logical sense), to the coup. It does NOT say "The United States toppled the regime of Allende" or the CIA "installed" Pinochet in power. Such language is used in the Guatemalan coup article, for instance, because it was the case there; it is not used here. You have also been told to examine the sources and the language more carefully by two different editors, so I really would suggest you do so. There is really little more to discuss here; if you raise a different issue, I will, of course, respond to it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

None of the sources remotely confirm that the support of the US was "crucial," ie "necessary," (in a logical sense), to the coup in fact the diametric opposite. The Foreign affairs article claims that there was no evidence of "U.S. support for the military coup".

The common definition, as you should know by now, is the entire sequence of events that began with the plotting of the coup and ended with the death of Allende.

Okay. Where is the evidence of their being involved in the plotting of the coup? Nobody denies that they were involved in supporting Allende's political opposition, you are alleging support for the coup which is a completely separate matter.

CJK (talk) 21:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Nope, that's not how it works. There are sources explicitly stating that the support was crucial; namely, the ones already in the article, including Peter Winn. The sources you brought in do not need to confirm this, because it is already sourced. Your sources do not contradict this; all they say is that the CIA was not solely responsible. Therefore, the statement remains, until you come up with something new. You should be content with what is there; some of the related articles, written by people with a very strong leftist POV, do in fact say stuff like "the US carried out the coup" and such. This is as neutral a portrayal as you can find. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Preposterous. They do not say the CIA was responsible at all, in fact quite the opposite. They certainly do not believe it was crucial, and in fact the Foreign Affairs article says there is no evidence for any involvement beyond political donations:

What the United States did in Chile, from Allende's inauguration in 1970 until his violent downfall at the hands of the Chilean military three years later, was a pinprick by comparison. Washington funneled $6 million in secret subsidies to the opposition press and parties (which Allende was trying to shut down). Washington tried -- and failed -- to block the restructuring of Chile's foreign debt. Washington reduced bilateral aid (although Allende found relief by unilaterally shutting down debt-service payments and opening lines of credit with other, friendlier nations). And it counseled international financial institutions to reduce their lending (although the World Bank needed no persuading: Chile was bankrupt). That was it.

You are splitting hairs in a truly ridiculous fashion. Are you seriously arguing that Gaddis, Falcof, and Rogers think that the support of the United States was crucial to the coup and the consolidation of power afterward?

CJK (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Why can you not read my comment carefully? I did NOT say Gaddis and company said that; I said Peter Winn said that, as you bloody well know. The foreign affairs article is not of the same caliber as the rest. Winn says that US support was crucial; Gaddis and company do not dispute US support, nor do they say it was not crucial. End of story.
Also, having been in this argument for way too long, I looked at your userpage, and what do I find? A significant history of battleground behaviour, and a block log with several entries. That does not invalidate your contributions in any way; but when you have been hammering away at the same point for several days despite your concerns being addressed, this history would indicate that you should take a step back and recalibrate. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Gaddis and company do not dispute US support, nor do they say it was not crucial. End of story.

So you acknowledge that not everybody believes that the alleged support was crucial. SO why do you persist in pushing that POV in the intro?

CJK (talk) 22:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Once again, you are mis-representing what I said. Read it more carefully, and then ask what you have to ask. I am not repeating the same argument ad nauseum simply because you are unable, or unwilling, to understand it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

You keep going on about this "support" which you persist in providing absolutely no evidence for. Neither Gaddis, nor Falcof, nor Rogers agrees with you that this support existed. The only "support" was to the Chilean political opposition to Allende, not the coup. Are you saying that supporting Allende's opposition should be equated into supporting the coup?

CJK (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I will not belabor the points made above. Suffice to say that there is more to the coup than a bunch of soldiers walking into the palace on the 11th of September; there were years of planning and destabilization before, and years of consolidation after. If you had read, as opposed to googled, the sources, you would understand that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

You have been asked (repeatedly) to produce evidence regarding the years of planning and destabilization but you never did, because it doesn't exist.

CJK (talk) 21:50, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The evidence is present in the three sources in the article. I even quoted one of them for you. I do not intend to reproduce pages and pages of text here simply because you do not believe me and are too lazy to find the source for yourself. If you cannot read them, it is not my problem. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand that the so-called "destabilization" you reference was political destabilization, i.e. undermine Allende's electoral appeal by channeling money to political opposition and organizations. It had nothing to do with mounting a military coup.

CJK (talk) 01:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

There are sources supporting the notion that all political de-stabilization helped Pinochet, and was in fact designed to help Pinochet. Your sources do not contradict this, even if they say helping Pinochet was not the primary motivation. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

And there are sources that disagree with that. What about that do you not understand?

CJK (talk) 14:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

No there are not. I asked you to produce such; but none of the sources you found disagrees with the fact that assistance to the Chilean opposition helped Pinochet. Nor do they deny that the US helped with the "consolidation of power" part of it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Um, none of the sources claims that they helped Pinochet. The statement in question reads: the support of the United States was crucial to the coup and the consolidation of power afterward. You are once again confusing the coup for support of the democratic opposition.

CJK (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:IDHT all over again. They don't need to support it; all your sources have to do is not contradict that statement, because there already are sources which support the statement that support to the opposition helped Pinochet. Anyhow, I have said this several times, so I am not going to respond if you keep going in the same circle. This is not a real debate; this is either a deliberate refusal to read the sources, or a lack of competence, and I'm inclined to think the latter. This is also an asymmetrical situation, because another editor already pointed out the flaws in your reasoning. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

They do contradict it. Gaddis says "CIA complicity was never established" (not just involvement but "complicity"), Falcoff criticizes the "the myth of a CIA-inspired overthrow of the democratic forces" and Foreign Affairs says:

What the United States did in Chile, from Allende's inauguration in 1970 until his violent downfall at the hands of the Chilean military three years later, was a pinprick by comparison. Washington funneled $6 million in secret subsidies to the opposition press and parties (which Allende was trying to shut down). Washington tried -- and failed -- to block the restructuring of Chile's foreign debt. Washington reduced bilateral aid (although Allende found relief by unilaterally shutting down debt-service payments and opening lines of credit with other, friendlier nations). And it counseled international financial institutions to reduce their lending (although the World Bank needed no persuading: Chile was bankrupt). That was it.

In addition to this, the Church report says there was no evidence, and the CIA report says they explicitly rejected a request for help. If you don't accept this, I can't help you.

CJK (talk) 17:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

And what utter garbage is it to claim that They don't need to support it; all your sources have to do is not contradict that statement. You know very well that they reject your POV statement, this is nothing but truly breathtaking dishonesty on your part.

CJK (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Wrong again. Find me a quote that says "US assistance to the democratic opposition did not benefit Pinochet in the slightest" or alternatively "The US recognition of Pinochet's government did not benefit his consolidation of power." If you had had such a quote, you'd have produced it long ago. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

You charged that it was "crucial" not that it slightly benefitted him.

CJK (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The sources in the article say it was crucial. In order to contradict them, you have to produce other sources saying that "US assistance to the democratic opposition did not benefit Pinochet in the slightest" or alternatively "The US recognition of Pinochet's government did not benefit his consolidation of power." Or any variant of those. What your sources do say, is that the US did not bear sole responsibility; which is fine, but the article doesn't say that. Do you see what I'm driving at? The article could say "Some academics believe the US holds sole responsibility for the coup, whereas other scholars doubt that." This is true, but it would be a useless statement. The current version, much milder than that, says "US support was crucial," and qualifies it with "some academics." Which is why it is as neutral a statement as you are going to get. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The most Gaddis says is that scholars disagree:

That made questions about responsibility unavoidable. Could Allende have remained in power if there had been no American campaign against him? .... There are, even today, no clear answers: Washington's role in Chile's horrors remains a hotly contested issue among both historians of these events and participants in them.

And we aren't discussing the support to the democratic opposition. Responsibility for the coup is what is being charged. If you use "some academics" that is an implicit acknowledgement that other academics disagree, which is what I am trying to tell you.

CJK (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

It is not an implication that some disagree; it is an implication that not every academic will discuss it. Falcoff is too busy proving that Allende made life difficult for himself, and that the Soviets gave him money; Rodgers is too busy tearing down the "the US was solely responsible" straw man. All of those things are accurate, which is why the article doesn't say "Pinochet was a US puppet." If you read the article of Castillo Armas, for instance, it does say that; in that case, because a US invasion put him into power. Rather than looking at where the academics disagree (ie what effect did Soviet intervention have? How popular were Allende's policies? etc) the lead summarizes their area of greatest agreement (albeit in some cases unstated), ie the US supported the coup, and their support was important to it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Your interpretation is, once again, extremely ridiculous.

Here is a very simple question: do you believe that Gaddis, Falcof, and Rogers believe that the support of the United States was crucial to the coup and the consolidation of power afterward? Yes or No?

CJK (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

What you fail to see is that the only position Gaddis and Falcof take is that the US was not completely responsible. The article does not say that, so there is no conflict between them and the statement in the article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

No, that is crass misrepresentation of their argument. Gaddis said the responsibility was debatable, not that it was "crucial". Falcof denies that there was a "CIA inspired overthrow".

I still want an answer: do you believe that Gaddis, Falcof, and Rogers believe that the support of the United States was crucial to the coup and the consolidation of power afterward? Yes or No?

CJK (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Gaddis says responsibility was debated, not debatable, two very different things. You're the one misrepresenting stuff here. Falcoff denies there was a "CIA inspired overthrow;" which is why this bloody article does not say there was a CIA inspired overthrow. "support was crucial" and "CIA inspired the coup" are very different statements; you have successfully disputed the latter, but the latter is not in the article. Does Falcoff deny support existed? Does he deny it was necessary? Of course not. Because Falcoff, unlike yourself, is a historian who knows what he is doing. Go bring something new. The question you ask is a useless one, because they don't have to say that for the statement to remain in the article; all they have to do is not deny it." Find me a quote which denies it. Of course, you can't do that, because such a quote does not exist. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Ludicrous. Why should anyone waste their time with this ridiculous hair splitting?

How about we write

Several academics have stated that the support of the United States was crucial to the coup and the consolidation of power afterward, while other academics have noted that a CIA inspired overthrow is a myth.

According to you, this a sensible statement.

CJK (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

This is not hair-splitting, buddy, this is history, that is how it works. No, that is not an acceptable variant, because there are sources which directly contradict it. There are no sources which state that CIA support was not crucial, therefore there are no sources directly contradicting the statement in the article. If you believe otherwise, find me a quote! Don't keep repeating stuff about "myth of a CIA inspired overthrow," because absolutely nobody is claiming a CIA inspired overthrow. Falcoff is not after Peter Winn; he is after Chomsky, and LaFeber, and other more leftist people, whom we are not citing here anyhow. Peter Winn is sourced because he is the middle ground on this debate. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:22, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

They do not have say the exact phrase "it wasn't crucial" to contradict your source and you know it.

You keep falsely imputing to my sources that their denials of responsibility are exclusively confined to "sole responsibility". Nowhere do they restrict their argument to "sole responsibility". This is something made up by you to drag out this ridiculous debate.

CJK (talk) 23:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an idiot; I'm not looking for the word crucial, I am looking for what it implies; that is, the coup would have been impossible without CIA support. Do any of them say it would have been possible? No! Since you object to the word crucial, I am open to replacing it with "indispensable, which is a little more precise. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

You know very well that "CIA complicity was never established", "the myth of a CIA-inspired overthrow of the democratic forces", "The myth that the United States toppled President Salvador Allende of Chile in 1973." by necessity implies that the support was not "crucial". No reasonable human being would interpret it otherwise.

CJK (talk) 00:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The "CIA complicity was never established" is a dated statement, as you very well know; the bulk of the relevant documents were declassified around 2003-2004, so realistically you have to find a source post 2005 making the same claim. Winn and Greg Grandin, two of the most respected historians in that field, both say that explicitly in their recent publications. The second and third statement are again attacking a straw man; nobody is saying the US toppled him, nobody is saying the CIA "inspired" the overthrow. Any interpretation you make is original research; you have to go off explicit statements, as I said. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Please stop misinterpreting the evidence. "CIA complicity was never established", "the myth of a CIA-inspired overthrow of the democratic forces", "The myth that the United States toppled President Salvador Allende of Chile in 1973." implies that the supposed support was not crucial. anything else is ridiculous hair-splitting. Your statement about classified documents in 2004 is obviously false since they aren't mentioned anywhere and you won't provide any evidence.

CJK (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

If you're unable to read my evidence, that is absolutely not my problem. I have provided the sources. And if you insist that those statements are contradicting what is in the article, you are violating not only WP:AGF but WP:OR as well. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

the words "complicity", "inspired", and "myth" imply that it was not crucial. I would consult a dictionary.

CJK (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

And I would suggest you take your own advice. "crucial" means "Vital to the resolution of a crisis; decisive" to quote one dictionary, or "Decisive or critical, especially in the success or failure of something" to quote another (Oxford English, no less), which is precisely what I have been arguing all along. There is no source claiming the coup would have succeeded without US support; ergo the current version is accurate. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm wondering if your entire purpose is simply to procrastinate the discussion until you can claim victory. Far from there being 'no source' Gaddis explicitly writes that historians are in disagreement. You refuse to acknowledge this.

That made questions about responsibility unavoidable. Could Allende have remained in power if there had been no American campaign against him? .... There are, even today, no clear answers: Washington's role in Chile's horrors remains a hotly contested issue among both historians of these events and participants in them.

CJK (talk) 23:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

How typical. Bring up some notion that you think is contestable; when proven wrong, shift to something else, and keep going in a circle. Serious historians are in disagreement as to the degree of responsibility, but none of them actually denies support was crucial; that is the lowest common denominator. Gaddis' quote is taken out of context, as you well know; more importantly, it is taken from a history of the entire cold war. Of course he cannot discuss nuance there. As for delaying tactics, I am delaying nothing; you're the one stonewalling, so as to let the POV tag remain as long as possible. Remember, we already got a third opinion, and @Küñall: agreed with me. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I've been reluctant to comment here because it's not a topic I feel strongly about, but here's my two cents, which you may take with a grain of salt. As an outside observer, I would advise CJK to take this matter to Rfc/arbitration or drop it entirely, because this long drawn-out conversation is going nowhere. Although I agree with Vanamonde that the facts are not in dispute, there may be room for interpretation, and if I were him I would be careful before accusing CJK of original research: I fail to see how one could interpret Falcoff or Gaddis as saying that US support was unquestionably indispensable. It should also be noted that the Church report had access to the declassified documents as well as to the officials involved, and is therefore not invalidated by any cherrypicked records subsequently made available for public consumption. That said, the current sentence refers to "several academics" and is reliably sourced, so I'm not sure after reading through these walls of text what precisely CJK wishes to change.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Because its unfair to represent the views of only one set of academics when others disagree with them.

CJK (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging:Hello there, old friend. The point I am trying to make, is that the disagreement among academics is along the lines of "Was the US completely responsible (The line that Chomsky, Zinn, and their ilk would take) or were there other factors involved (which is what Falcoff says). The statement currently gives a much milder view, namely that US support was indispensable, ie the coup could not have happened without it, but there were many other factors involved. This is sourced to the relatively very middle of the road Peter Winn, and represents the lowest common denominator, so to speak. I am claiming Falcoff is saying this; I am saying this is not the position he is arguing against. Gaddis is a much more complicated issue, because of the scope of his book, but broadly the same thing may be said. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

gaddis is very clear that the nature, not merely extent, of u.s. responsibility is disputed.

cjk

Pronunciation of Pinochet[edit]

According to all three Chileans who have pronounced Pinochet on Forvo, the t in Pinochet is silent. Therefore the pronunciation section in the article needs to be corrected.

Image revert[edit]

I just reverted a change in the image used in the infobox, because it seems to me that the current image, which is full color and more recent, is a more appropriate one. Rather than reverting, would the IP please discuss the change here? Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)