Talk:1973 Chilean coup d'état/Archive 2

anti-Allende protest
The attendance figure was changed from 100,000 to 180,000 and the supposed source for both figures is behind a paywall. &mdash; rybec   15:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The article is available without a paywall here: http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/C%20Disk/CIA%20Chile/Item%20030.pdf. According to the bottom of the first column of pg 46, 100,000 women attended the rally. I'll change it back. --179.218.140.239 (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's more on Anti-Allende protests.
 * As early as 1979, "people were throwing corn in front of parading military units to suggest that they were “chicken,” that is, that the military would not interfere in politics even as the country was being devastated by the Allende regime’s policies." cited from Barany, Zoltan. The Soldier and the Changing State: Building Democratic Armies in Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Americas. Princeton University Press, 2012. Kindle Edition, location 2922.


 * I don't want to express support for the coup, but it's important that the article capture the sentiment and polarization of Chilean society. Large swaths supported Allende's removal (at least they did initially). --179.218.140.239 (talk) 00:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Changes to sourced material
Even though the cited Time and Christian Science Monitor articles refer to Allende as a "Marxist" and "Communist" respectively, Maunus has repeatedly altered the meaning of the sources by changing "Marxist" to "socialist," a common communist propaganda technique. He claims that Allende's outspoken Marxist views (and ties to Castro and the KGB) are actually irrelevant to the historical context of the Cold War, and that it would be more "informative" to protect readers from getting the wrong impression by accurately representing what the sources say. If this is not the most common way to describe Allende, as Maunus asserts, then better sources must be provided.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that Mark Falcoff's Modern Chile (the first source I checked) describes Allende as "the first freely elected Marxist chief of state anywhere in the world" (pg. ix) (suggesting this is an important distinction), refers to his "Marxist regime" (pg. 135), notes that he "openly professed his Marxism" (pg. 254), and concludes that "the price for a non-Communist (or at least non-Marxist) Chile turned out to be extraordinarily high" (pg. 307). Where are the sources that say Allende's Marxism was irrelevant, or that he wasn't really a Marxist?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all you are misrepresenting my statements and attributing me views that I have not expressed. I would like you to stop doing that. I have not said that his political views are irrelevant, and of course his views which include of course some kind of Marxism are relevant. But you are not trying to give a description of his political views, you are just trying to label him "Marxist", which is a common fascist propaganda technique (note how I use the same rhetorical strategy that you used in your personal attack against me). However, "Marxist" is quite clearly a non-neutral and non-nuanced descriptor - since it can mean a lot of different things - for example Allende was clearly not a very orthodox marxist as he was democratically elected and not a revolutionary. I suggest we find a number of different sources and see how he is most commonly described, and how he himself described his views. We could also perhaps start an RfC to find out what most people consider the most neutral and objective descriptor if one is needed.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Allende was a Marxist, but his government was Socialist, he was a member of the Partido Socialista, most of his government ministers were Socialists too. If you are to research on this topic, I recommend you read El día en que murió Allende by Ignacio González Camus, to get an impression of the other side of the story. Küñall (talk) 03:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It is of course possible to be both a socialist and a marxist. The question is which descriptor is the most accurate, informative, and neutral.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Marxist ain't no neutral descriptor. For example, anti-Allende newspaper El Mercurio (the so-called Chilean newspaper-of-record) called him and his supporters "Marxists" in a despective way. "Socialist" should be used. Küñall (talk) 17:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If that is so, then we can add El Mercurio to the list of sources that use the term "Marxist" to describe Allende, along with Time, The Christian Science Monitor, and Modern Chile.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Allende described his political program as "The Chilean way to Socialism" in his 1971 address to congress.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The word Marxist isn't necessarily bad or disrespectful. Nor is it non-neutral. In this case, it is accurate. I refer you to one of the definitive sources on the causes of the 1973 Chilean coup: Arturo Valenzuela. The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes: Chile. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978. Valenzuela calls Allende a Marxist throughout the book--see for example pg. 7.
 * More importantly, "The Chilean way to Socialism," according to Allende, used "Marxist humanism" as its compass. http://www.marxists.org/archive/allende/1970/september/20.htm --179.218.140.239 (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Jonathan Hartlyn y Arturo Valenzuela. "Democracy in Latin America since 1930" in CHLA Vol VI, "Latin America since 1930--Economy, Society, and Politics," Part 2: "Society and Politics." edited by Leslie Bethell. Cambridge University Press, 1994. The authors in one of the most widely-respected works on Latin American history call him a Marxist.
 * Alain Rouquié and Stephen Suffern. "Militaries in Latin American Politics since 1930" in the same book above call Allende's government "a marxist government."
 * Thomas Skidmore and Peter Smith. Modern Latin America. 6th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. "Allende was eventually confirmed by Congress three days later, and Chilean democracy seemed to have sur- vived its first challenge after the election of a Marxist." p 127. Also pp 131 and 423.
 * Thomas C Wright. Latin America in the Era of the Cuban Revolution. Connecticut: Praeger, 2001. Allende's victory was a "Marxist electoral triumph." p 130. Allende's party in his failed 1964 campaign was Frente de Acción Popular, which was "predominately Marxist." p. 132. --179.218.140.239 (talk) 02:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Chilean Coup infobox
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.
 * Kristallnacht
 * Coup of 18 Brumaire July Revolution
 * Beer Hall Putsch Revolución Libertadora
 * No infobox Adolf Hitler's rise to power

An agreement could be:

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Spin Spin Spin should be removed
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)
 * It's oppositions parties and there may be some missing. The increase for Unidad Popular should stem from previous elections to congress. --197.228.30.242 (talk) 23:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on 1973 Chilean coup d'état. 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:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.despiertachile.cl/2001/agosto/hojasagosto/edicion2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on 1973 Chilean coup d'état. 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/20110718092552/http://docscanner.wordpress.com/2009/12/14/prisoner-of-pinochet-at-quiriquina-island-2/ to http://docscanner.wordpress.com/2009/12/14/prisoner-of-pinochet-at-quiriquina-island-2/

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 II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Félix Rodríguez as a US commander/leader
Mr. Rodríguez is alive. Any claim that he had a leading role in the coup needs to be sourced. 24.7.14.87 (talk) 07:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Political Background
I found the section titled "Political Background" to be confusingly structured. It bounces erratically between topics such as domestic politics, CIA involvement, and Cuban influence. Subheadings here would be helpful.

Additionally, to give a balanced discussion of economic context leading up to the coup, the article should provide more information on US economic policy toward Chile. Beyond the mention of "economic warfare" in the introduction, the economic discussion focuses almost exclusively on Allende's monetary policy. To accurately depict the causes of the financial panic, more information is needed on the Nixon's administration's efforts to "make [Chile's] economy scream," such as the credit blockade. Llculp (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 1973 Chilean coup d'état. 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/20080516194106/http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1211/p00s01-woam.html to http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1211/p00s01-woam.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://es.geocities.com/omerocl/partidosoc2.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-102284469.html
 * Added tag to http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=13131
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/1687/History_Chile_1970-73/martires.html
 * Added tag to http://www.fordfound.org/publications/ff_report/view_ff_report_detail.cfm?report_index=384
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140627071325/http://opencanada.org/branch-news/chiles-1973-coup-40-years-later-observances-part-two/ to http://opencanada.org/branch-news/chiles-1973-coup-40-years-later-observances-part-two/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090802083941/http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/americas/09/20/cia.chile/index.html to http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/americas/09/20/cia.chile/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 1973 Chilean coup d'état. 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/20161009185456/http://santiagotimes.cl/2014/05/26/new-declassified-files-shed-light-us-role-ousting-allende/ to http://santiagotimes.cl/2014/05/26/new-declassified-files-shed-light-us-role-ousting-allende/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=13131
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.economist.com/countries/Chile/profile.cfm?folder=History+in+brief

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Supposed false flag
Who reverted me. The term false flag implies that someone operated under the flag of someone else. The sentence: False flag operatives contacted senior Chilean military officers and informed them that the U.S. would actively support a coup, but would revoke all military aid if such a coup did not happen. doesn't say who appeared to operate under who's flag. If the CIA depends to speak for how the US foreign policy response to an event would be that's no false flag. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 06:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's an entirely different argument from what you made before. The sentence currently suggests the CIA were pretending to be something else. If you think that's not the case, please dig up the sources which say so. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The sentence as it stands doesn't say who was pretending to be whom. If the actual claim is that the CIA was pretending to be someone else, the sentence should contain the information of who they were pretending to be.  ChristianKl  ❪✉❫ 18:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That isn't the point. I don't have the source at the moment. Do you? If you don't, on what basis are you saying the text attributed to that source should be changed? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's hard to give convincing promises of whether or not the US actively support a coup while not operating under the US flag (and the same goes for US foreign aid). It makes little sense. ChristianKl  ❪✉❫ 12:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but that sort of reasoning is questionable, per WP:OR, and the activities of the CIA are complex enough that individual snippets of them sometimes do not make sense. We need to dig up what the source actually says before modifying this. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The first 911 Chile
"The first 911 Chile" and "first 911 Chile" should redirect to the 1973 Chilean coup d'état page.

"first 911 chile" Google search example - all first page results are about the 1973 Chilean coup d'état.

AllThatJazz2012 (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Australian spies assisted the CIA in intervention in Chile during the government of Salvador Allende
It appears that new documents have been provided by the Australian authorities: "Australia carried out espionage operations in Chile in the 1970s to support the intervention of the United States during the government of Salvador Allende, overthrown 48 years ago, according to intelligence documents released on Friday." Maybe it can be of interest. --Mhorg (talk) 13:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ezfaninaz.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

It cant be argued
One part of the article says that "It can be argued that the resolution called upon the armed forces to overthrow the government if it did not comply, as follows "...To present the President of the Republic, Ministers of State, and members of the Armed and Police Forces with the grave breakdown of the legal and constitutional order ... 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 with the aim of redirecting government activity toward the path of Law."[41]". Nowhere in the resolution cited does it call on the armed and police forces to overthrow the government if it did not comply. The resolution is clearly calling OUT the military and police forces, along with the president and ministers, to end their breach of the legal and constitutional order. It clearly states in section 13: "That the creation of a new ministry, with the participation of high-level officials of the Armed and Police Forces, was characterized by the President of the Republic to be "of national security" and its mandate "the establishment of political order" and "the establishment of economic order," and that such a mandate can only be conceived within the context of full restoration and validation of the legal and constitutional norms that make up the institutional framework of the Republic." This has to refer to the new agency that was created per Decree Law 520 which established a new price and subsistence agency which could request the assistance of the armed forces to enforce its decisions. This agency was used to nationalize businesses in Chile.

Thus, the resolution makes it clear that the armed and police forces were part of the nationalization of businesses and the Chamber of Deputies were against using the armed and police forces for what they called "partisan ends". Furthermore, military members like Carlos Prats were highly loyal to Allende, and held both positions in the Ministers of State, and armed forces. For example, Carlos Prats was both a minister and Commander-in-chief in the military and was highly loyal to Allende. This further shows that the resolution was calling OUT the armed forces to stop participating in the breach and not "upon" the armed forces to overthrow the government. Overall, this resolution is calling OUT the president, the minsters AND armed and police forces to stop their breach and return the republic to the right path, which the "right path" is obviously one that does not involve nationalization of businesses among other things that were mentioned in section 5 to 12. This is why in the quote, the president, the ministers and the armed and police forces are mentioned together, and not by themselves. They will be presented the resolution so that the three institutions can remember their duty and stop the colluded breach.

Saying that the resolution called upon the armed forces to overthrow the government if it did not comply, implies that the armed and police forces were not a part of the breach which they clearly were as stated in section 13. So, why would the Chamber of Deputies call on the armed and police forces to overthrow the government if they did not comply when they were involved in the breach as well? Is the writer making a great leap in interpreting the word "duty" to imply overthrow of the government if they do not comply? It doesnt make any sense. Is the writer misinterpreting what is meant by "immediate end"? Because when they say "immediate end" it is obvious they are talking about the three institutions and not just the armed and police forces, which is why they used plural words such as "responsibilities" and "their"right after mentioning the three state institutions. And if by the phrase immediate end, they were asking the armed and police forces to overthrow the government if it didnt comply, then why did they only mention the ministers by name prior to the phrase "immediate end" and not the armed and police forces specifically? It is obvious that the resolution wanted the THREE institutions to stop the breach and act in conjunction with their responsibilities and duties, as the Chamber of Deputies felt that they were not acting in conjunction with their responsibilities and duties, and not calling on the military and police to overthrow the government. It is completely nonsensical to interpret it that way if you know the background and have read the whole resolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.172.225 (talk) 07:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Suicide Allende
It not clear in the article that Allende commit suicide. and in 2023 it’s perfectly clear he does 2604:3D09:A98A:EE00:90C3:C6D5:3FCD:ADAF (talk) 03:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

“first Socialist to be elected president in a Latin American liberal democracy”
While Allende was a socialist elected in a Latin American liberal democracy, he does not seem to be the first to have been like what happened in Guatemala in 1950. GeometryCrown (talk) 08:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Supposed American intervention???
There seems to be alot of evidence that contricts this online claim of american involvemnt "Was the United States directly involved, covertly, in the 1973 coup in Chile? The Committee has found no evidence that it was"  Kingllama100 (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There are many sources in the article that say otherwise. And they are reliable and independent, quite the opposite of the sources you are presenting here. Coltsfan (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The litteral article disagrees with you, go down to the foreign involvement and it cites a source from the same source as i did, good bye and stop stalking my edit page Kingllama100 (talk) 20:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)