Talk:United States intervention in Chile

message: I removed:
"The Chamber of Deputies of Chile's Resolution of August 22, 1973 sanctioned Allende's military removal by passage (81 to 47 votes) of its "Declaration of the Breakdown of Chile’s Democracy", and weeks later on September 11, 1973, Chile's armed forces led by Chief Commander Augusto Pinochet, ousted Allende from power. (Pinochet subsequently refrained from relenquishing martial law, and Chile became a military junta under him at that point.)
Because I Think that the Chilean Chamber of deputies political resolution was a sovereign act by such chamber, and NOT a part of the US Intervention in Chile —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuye (talk • contribs) 
::It gives it historical context, I am going to add it back.Travb 16:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chamber of Deputies of Chile

message: Please do not delete links to articles nor description of articles in the "see also" section.
Project FUBELT - secret CIA operations documents: US government spent millions of dollars to unseat Allende. Explains to the user what the program is. This is factually correct, as are the other comments.
Salvador Allende was deposed by 1973 coup and Augusto Pinochet - took power in the same 1973 coup.
Signed:Travb 10:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert

message: The Chamber of Deputies of Chile Resolution of August 22, 1973 sanctioned Allende's military removal by passage (81 to 47 votes) of its "Declaration of the Breakdown of Chile’s Democracy", and weeks later on September 11, 1973, Chile's armed forces led by Chief Commander Augusto Pinochet, ousted Allende from power. (Pinochet subsequently refrained from relenquishing martial law, and Chile became a military junta under him at that point.)
to
The Chamber of Deputies of Chile condemned Allende by passage of the Declaration of the Breakdown of Chile’s Democracy. Less than a month later on September 11, 1973, Chief Commander Augusto Pinochet, ousted Allende from power.
The Chamber of Deputies of Chile Resolution of August 22, 1973 did not "sanction Allende's military removal". Please quote from the document. Please do not add unverifiable historical interpretations of the event. Please verify all of your edits. The best edits are ones which quote the document verbatium. Travb 03:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit

message: The paragraph that begins "The Chamber of Deputies of Chile condemned Allende…": as far as I know, the resolution, while receiving the vote of the majority of the Chamber, fell short of the two-thirds that would have given it legal force. If I'm correct, the article should say this if it discusses the resolution at all. If I'm wrong, would someone please show me a citation to the contrary? This is an area in which I am moderately well-read, but not expert. - Jmabel | Talk 04:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, good point, I am not even well read on the subject, maybe you can add an  to the page.Travb 04:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: For what it may be worth the difference is that a resolution, being a public declaration without major legal consecuences, could be passed by simple majority, while the impeachment of a president needed a two thirds vote to be passed. The opposition had 55% of the vote in Congress, hence could pass any resolution or block any law, but did not have 2/3s, hence could not impeach Allende. Mel Romero 13:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chamber of Deputies and Allende 

message: Please cease this appalling vandalism which includes:
:#The misuse of a source which implies a 1964 coup when it speaks of 1970.
:#The introduction of innaccurate information.
:#The presence of information totally unrelated to U.S. involvement.
CJK 01:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't call this edit, which includes removal of Wikisource and others, for a "revert of vandalism". Maybe then we can talk about the deletion of the source, but if you mix up justified edits with deletion of massive portions of text, no wonder someone decides to reverts you. Tazmaniacs 01:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The source you are questioning is titled [http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm Chile and the United States:
Declassified Documents Relating to the Military Coup, September 11, 1973]. Tazmaniacs 01:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see in what it is misleading. Tazmaniacs 01:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: See the article i cited , pages 246-254. There are conflicting statements whether the coup plan in 1970 was aborted or not. Kissinger said he turned it off. CIA officials said the coup wasn't turned off. I think the correct address of your source should be  or . Those documents are available from the site you linked and partly on page 251 in the article i cited. See also Project FUBELT. Vints 19:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is really noteworthy is that there's never been any claim that the US was behind the Chamber of Deputies decision to ask the military to kick Allende out, leaving one with the reasonable conclusion that his ouster was a "given" in hindsight regardless of whatever fantasies of feasible orchestration the Nixon administration may or may not have indulged.--Mike18xx 23:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appalling Vandalism 

message: The following has been deleted from this page in the past couple of months:
Once Allende was in office, the US, led by Nixon, who stated his fear that Chile could become "another Cuba", initiated plans to work with insurgent elements within Chile to overthrow Allende in a coup.
The US began implementing economic sanctions against Chile to encourage Allende's resignation, his overthrow, or his defeat in the impending election of 1976.
The Chamber of Deputies of Chile condemned Allende by passage of the Declaration of the Breakdown of Chile’s Democracy, the declaration stated that "it is (the Armed and Police Forces) duty to put an immediate end to all situations...that breach the Constitution and the laws of the land with the goal of redirecting government activity toward the path of Law." Less than a month later on September 11, 1973, Chief Commander Augusto Pinochet, ousted Allende from power.
*Chamber of Deputies of Chile's Resolution of August 22, 1973 "Declaration of the Breakdown of Chile’s Democracy"; de-facto impeachment resolution, approved 81 to 47 votes, imploring the military forces of the nation to remove President Allende for myriad violations (enumerated within the resolution): "...it is their duty to put an immediate end to all situations herein referred to that breach the Constitution and the laws of the land..." (economiaysociedad.com) (In English, German, Spanish, French, Polish)
*Alternate source of the Resolution of August 22, 1973 (In English, German, Spanish, French, Polish)
*"Never Again: An essay about the breakdown of democracy in Chile" by José Piñera (examination of events leading up to, and implications regarding, the Resolution of August 22, 1973. (In English, Italian, Spanish) Mirror site
Signed: Travb (talk) 07:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, put 'em back in! (The Declaration has a newer wikisource link, btw; and I believe it's already referenced.)--Mike18xx 07:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The memory hole

message: Based in part on some recent discussion at Talk:Chilean coup of 1973#Protection: I believe that the title of this article more-or-less forces a one-sided article. I would suggest moving to one of the following:
* United States involvement in Chile
* Relations between the United States and Chile
I'd be quite open to other suggestions, but "intervention" suggests that the article will only deal with what at least borders on illicit, and will not contextualize it. - Jmabel | Talk 00:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The second one is much more preferable, IMO, since it will enable a historically open-ended article.--Mike18xx 04:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Right now, we don't have a broader article on U.S.-Chile relations. The current title encourages a focus on about 15 years in the middle of the Cold War, because that was when the U.S. was most blatantly intervening in Chile. I cannot see how we can possibly get a better, more encyclopedic article out of this. I'm not ready to have a fight over this, but I think it is silly not to have a title that will encourage a broader, more informative article. - Jmabel | Talk 05:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly wouldn't be opposed to a broader article on U.S.-Chile relations, but the precedent in Wikipedia seems to be to have to broader articles, were possible, but also to have articles that focus on individual interventions. See British-Spanish Relations and the more focused articles that are linked to on that page, for one example. I think there's already enough information present on the very controversial U.S. intervention in Chile to justify it having its own article. --MarkB2 20:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am also surprised at Jmabel's proposal. Nothing impede the creation of United States-Chilean Foreign Relations as already exist many such articles (see a list at Foreign Relations of the United States), but it is clear that US intervention, legal or not, has enough historical content to make an article. I don't see why we should add to this article a section on, say, free-trade agreements between the US and Chile? Tazmaniacs 05:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV implicit in title 

message: Maybe someone could better explain the strange sounding "Chile, more than any of its South American neighbors, had an extensive democratic tradition dating back to the early 1930s, and even before. Because of this, it is difficult to gauge how successful CIA tactics were in swaying voters." I have a hard time understanding the "Because". Does this mean that the US try to pay voters to change vote, and that because of democratic tradition, this would be difficult? But, apart of asking if you really think that so many million dollars were there only to "buy votes" (to whom? workers?) and not for other propaganda operations, how do you know it was employed this way? I find it very strange, and it almost seems to me a paradoxical defense of US intervention, in the style: "yes, we did spend money, but it was no use anyway". I hope for some clear reason (which should be included in the article itself, not only debated here). Cheers! Tazmaniacs 05:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange sentence 

message: Although this article is generally good, it's permeated by sentences like this: "Regarding Pinochet's rise to power, the CIA undertook a comprehensive analysis of its records and individual memoirs as well as conducting interviews with former agents, and concluded in a report issued in 2000 that the CIA "did not assist Pinochet to assume the Presidency." [3]
Oh, well, that makes me feel better. The CIA investigated itself and concluded it did nothing wrong. Whew!
Does anyone have some reputable independent sources? MarkB2 07:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources? 

message: Will an article be created on the KGB as well? Maybe it is better to start an article foreign intervention in Chile? Intangible2.0 00:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a fabulous idea. We should get TDC and some others to contribute. MarkB2 Chat 06:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  one sided 

message: :Image:PinochetKissinger.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 02:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:PinochetKissinger.jpg

message: I think we should really state that there is a difference between the US trying to influence elections and comandeering a Chilean coup. Writers of the time, especially four Marxist writers that I will soon post all indicate that the Coup itseld was PURELY Chilean and mastered only by Pinochet and his inner circle. The only thing you can even blame the US was influencing elections which later influenced the turn of events that LED to the Coup.
Remember that Cuba and the Soviet Union were likewise funneling money into Chile and into Allende's campaign. After the US cut off aid, Sweden and other nations INCREASED their aid to Chile.
There is no mention of Allende's dismantling of the Constitution. His unconstitutinal confiscation of Chilean farms, the opposition marches to Allende (March of Pots), etc. The Church Commission Report is barely a blip on here. It seems that it doesnt fit into the bias of this article. SHAM of an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.239.203.139 (talk) 17:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Holy Toledo, this article is WAY too biased

message: "The collection of 1,100 documents dealt with the years leading up to the military coup. One of these documents establishes that U.S. military aid to the Chilean armed forces was raised dramatically between the coming to power of Allende in 1970, when it amounted to US$800,000 annually, to US$10.9 million in 1972."
I dont undertand this statement, was this money delivered to Allende`s goverment or directly to the military commanders? Was it just money or military hardware? Is there any source about what happened with that money? Agrofelipe (talk) 08:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Money to the armed forces? 

message: You deleted a lot of information and re-introduced an inaccuracy, which is unsourced. You also put in your unsourced POV, which is not allowed. You denied it last time but its apparent that you are wikistalking: following me to articles and reverting my edits. I suggest you stop.Giovanni33 (talk) 04:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did no such thing. --DHeyward (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you did. You blanked a whole section and added in a statement that "there is no evidence" of US assistance to the coup against Allende. That may be your POV, but you it's unsourced. You didn't even bother to show common curtesy to discuss any of this before making massive changes, even after you were reverted. You also didn't show up here until after I made a minor edit. Do you also deny this?Giovanni33 (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Since you have not shown a willingness to edit collaboratively, I've asked for a neutral editor via the 3rd editor option to assist.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

text: A third opinion has been given here: I hope you will abide by consensus on this.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for reference a WP:Third opinion cannot, by itself, be construed as providing consensus. -Rushyo (talk) 01:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: DHeyward deletions

message: "Track I" was a State Department initiative designed to thwart Allende by subverting Chilean elected officials within the bounds of the Chilean constitution and excluded the CIA."
How does that work? How does a foreign nation subvert an elected official from another nation within the bounds of that nation's Constitution? You gotta love the language the CIA uses to cover their own behinds. They subverted the democratic process every step of the way in Chile and somehow we're supposed to take the Agency's word that they're "securing democracy worldwide"? Laughable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.220.186 (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  How does this work"? 

message: This article doesn't even begin to scratch the surface on how the CIA made plans with the business community in Chile to make the economy scream. Th Church Committee report alone has tons of info on this subject. Also, how the CIA manipulated the media, staged phony strikes, etc. And this is just what the CIA has admitted to. C'mon people the CIA did way more than whats written in this article. They made that country ripe for a Coup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.220.186 (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: There is way more that can be said than whats in this article

message: I have substantially re-written the section about the 1973 coup. I believe that the section was misleading in parts and in others factually incorrect, after checking the footnotes attached to the article.
Many of the footnotes cited declassified documents as evidence that the CIA or other parts of the US government brought about the 1973 coup. However, these actually pertain to the 1970 botched coup attempt.
I also removed the section "Nonetheless, this is contradicted by the declassified documents involving the CIA, in which covert operatives were inserted in Chile, in order to prevent a Marxist government from arising and subsequent propagandist operations which were designed to push Chilean president Eduardo Frei to support "a military coup which would prevent Allende from taking office on 3 November."http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch18-01.htmhttp://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch01-01.htm" because this pertains entirely to the 1970 botched coup attempt, which is detailed in the main article in the section 'Allende Presidency: Track II'. If valid, it should be re-inserted in that section, and not the one about the 1973 coup.
I also deleted a series of quotes because I thought they were trivial and added nothing to the section. Most of them related to the botched 1970 coup.
I have also included new sources, including another of Henry Kissinger's transcripted phone calls and a national security decision memorandum. Hopefully people will appreciate the changes, but please before simply reverting them, discuss them here! --yoctobarryc ⁂ ☎ 02:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  1973 Coup 

message: The version of text I am modifying, says:
However, it was without doubt a major vindication for the Republican administration. Conrad Black, in his work "Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full", notes:
    After more than thirty years, no evidence has come to light in either country that the United States played a direct role in the overthrow of the Allende government, but it was certainly a geopolitical bonanza for the United States, as Allende was cavorting with Castro with a particularly irritating relish.[28]
...and...
    There is no evidence that the U.S. instigated or provided material support to Pinochet's successful coup in 1973, but the Nixon administration was undoubtedly pleased with the outcome; Nixon had spoken with disappointment about the failed coup earlier that year.
However, Kornbluh, Weiner, and Hitchens all argue the opposite and that controversy was not fairly presented here. The changes I am making present the controversy. Notice that I do not remove what Conrad Black says, although I believe he is incorrect. Regardless, we are supposed to report the controversies and not argue them amongst ourselves.
The changes I make have only added balance by showing the other authors' arguments. I removed the claim "There is no evidence..." as there is plenty of evidence that the US played a key role. A more fair claim would be that it is controversial. Currently this section is already heavily weighted to implying the US took a far more passive role than it did. What I add serves to balance this section out more towards NPOV.
Veritas Aeterna (talk) 06:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently some believe that if you destabilize a country, helping/paying opponents, assuring them of your future support, producing propaganda, economic warfare, etc., but just happen to not do anything on the day of a coup, then you have nothing to do with it. Pretty strange point of view. Aesma (talk) 17:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarifying that Prominent Authors Claim Significant US Involvement in the Period Leading up to the 1973 Coup 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on United States intervention in Chile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061205223350/http://foia.state.gov:80/Reports/HincheyReport.asp to http://foia.state.gov/Reports/HincheyReport.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on United States intervention in Chile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040807200347/http://cbsnews.cbs.com/stories/2000/09/11/world/main232452.shtml to http://cbsnews.cbs.com/stories/2000/09/11/world/main232452.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040807200347/http://cbsnews.cbs.com/stories/2000/09/11/world/main232452.shtml to http://cbsnews.cbs.com/stories/2000/09/11/world/main232452.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040807200347/http://cbsnews.cbs.com/stories/2000/09/11/world/main232452.shtml to http://cbsnews.cbs.com/stories/2000/09/11/world/main232452.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The section has this sentence: 
A subsequent September 2000 report from the CIA, using declassified documents related to the military coup, found that the CIA "probably appeared to condone" the 1973 coup, but that there was "no evidence" that the US actually participated in it.
The source on this claim is missing but is vital to this section of the article. If somebody has a source somewhere that says this you should replace this dead one that exists. Otherwise it looks like whoever put this here was just bullshitting. 
Thanks, ― TaltosKieronTalk 21:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important Reference Missing 

message: No way the lede should be this short and this vague for an article this long. natemup (talk) 02:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand the lede