Talk:Augusto Pinochet/Archive 2

Proposed compromise footnote

 * Well, then expand the footnote, if you want. But your hypothetical example isn't good enough to change my mind. Please edit this this footnote accordingly.172 17:34, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
 * What hypothetical example? VV and I both actually find "US-backed" ambiguous and potentially misleading, as I've explained before. The big long post I made explaining how a reader might interpret "US-backed" was just a way of justifying a point that's obvious to almost everyone except you &mdash; that "US-backed" is ambiguous and potentially misleading &mdash; in order to counter your insulting allegations that I'm lying about my intuitions in this regard. Apparently you want to have it both ways: if I use a hypothetical example, you object because it's hypothetical; if I explain my own intuitions or cite VV's, you refuse to believe me. The footnote is silly because it would make more sense just to write an unambiguous intro in the first place, as I've explained before. Cadr
 * Once again, I'm fine with you further contextualizing things as you see fit in the footnote. 172 18:53, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not fine with that, though. I've explained why I don't like the footnote. Do you have a response? Cadr
 * Yes, take it or leave it. 172 20:51, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty stupid response on Wikipedia. I'm not going to take it, and I'm not going to leave it. Cadr
 * That's right, the page will continue to be protected until you decide to compromise. So far, I've tried to meet you halfway by offering you the footnote, but you scoff on the sprit of compromise in my offer. 172 23:27, 15 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Is this lighthearted self-parody, or do you mean this seriously? - VV 05:41, 16 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't have to accept whatever compromise you deign to offer, and you certainly haven't met me half way. Given that a footnote is exactly what I don't want, you've done the opposite and gone off in your own direction. In any case, you've rejected everyone else's offers of a compromise, and have yet to respond to virtually any of my arguments against your introduction and its silly footnote. I will not compromise with someone who can't justify their position, and whose idea of compromise is "take it or leave it". Cadr
 * Well, for the record, let it be known that I have been the only one to offer a compromise. I don't particularly want the footnote either, but I made an attempt to end the edit war. 172 12:25, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * The record tells a different story. And you still haven't responded to my points and justified your intro. Cadr
 * I beg your pardon? It is clear by virtue of our ongoing conversation alone that I have been the only one to offer a compromise. We've been having an argument over the reference to U.S. backing. Although I am dismissing your "points" (which are based on an assumption that you don't back up with evidence and with which I fundamentally disagree with - namely that the word 'backing' is so widely misunderstood), I have already agreed to disagree, thus explaining my offer of the compromise footnote, in which you can contextualize things as you see fit. 172 12:59, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Sure, you offered a compromise, but you aren't the only person to have done so. I didn't like your proposed compromise, and I've explained why. I have backed up my points with a lot of evidence. If I use my own intuitions (and VV's) about what "backing" means, you don't believe me. If I use a hypothetical example and work it through in detail, you object because it's hypothetical. What other kind of "evidence" can one use to show what a word or sentence implies? Why is it that you do not have to provide any evidence in favour of your views on this matter &mdash; do you have a privaleged uderstanding of language? This isn't an issue of someone "misunderstanding" "US-backed", it's an issue of someone coming to a perfectly reasonable interpretation of it which is contrary to fact. Your apparent desire is for you to write the intro, and everyone else to have their contributions reduced to "contextualizing" your brilliant prose in a poncey little footnote. Cadr
 * This isn't about saving face. I'm fine with mentioning U.S. backing, you're not, so a workable compromise is adding a footnote, which means that you can rest assured that readers won't read "backed" but think "installed." 172 13:38, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * That's not my position. I'm fine with mentioning the US role, so long as the wording used is unambiguous. In fact, I'm fine with having a large porition of the intro dedicated to describing the US role. You tell me that I "can rest assured that readers won't read 'backed' but think 'installed.'" Why? I've given plenty of reasons to think the contrary. Cadr
 * Although the meaning of the word backing only refers to support, aid, or encouragement, I have agreed to disagree with you on the point that readers won't read 'backed' but think 'installed.' So, this isn't about giving more hypothetical reasons to think the contrary just to save face. Instead, we can rest assured that readers won't misinterpret "U.S. backing" in the presence of the footnote. 172 13:58, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * As you said, the word refers to "support, aid, or encouragement". There is no conclusive evidence that the US (materially) aided the coup to any great extent, so by your own definition of the meaning of "US-backed" (which is anyway very conservative and does not take context into account) the term is misleading.
 * Hold on, now you are being deliberately misleading. I was referring to a one of a number of dictionary definitions (moreover I used "or" rather than "and"), not what is implied in the context of the intro. 172 14:15, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't get what your're saying here. If one of the possible meanings of "backed" is "aided", one of the possible meanings of "US-backed" is misleading. The context does nothing to filter out this misleading interpretation. Cadr

You are wrong to think that readers won't read "backed" and think "installed" &mdash; the only reason me and VV are arguing with you is because we did exactly that. The footnote clears up the issue, but it would be much better to use clear language in the main body of the text and avoid a footnote altogether. Cadr
 * It was clear enough for Encarta, and I think that it is clear enough in the context of WP's NPOV policy. But do you want to save face and argue this forever, or move on and compromise?


 * Oh, and for the last time, my reasons were not hypothetical. I only started using hypothetical examples because you refused to believe my own personal intuitions, and VV's account of his. Cadr
 * Well, your reasons were certainly backed up by hypothetical examples. Short of an empirical test and a survey analysis of readers' impressions, we aren't going to be able to bring this argument to a closure. Do you just want this back-and-forward two-way argument between us on the talk page to go on forever? 172 14:15, 16 May 2004 (UTC)


 * No, my reasons were backed up by actual examples, i.e. me and VV's reading of the intro, which you disengenuously refused to believe. There's already been an emprical test &mdash; we find the intro misleading, and would not have any argument with it if we did not. In fact, even by your own definition of what "US-backed" means it's misleading, as I pointed out above, so I'm not sure how you can still defend it. Do I want this argument to go on forever? No, but until we can find a real compromise (i.e. a compromise which appeals to me as well as to you) it presumably will. Cadr
 * Well, the poll results on this page indicated pretty damn strongly that a majority of users who responded disagreed with you and VV. Yet, you don't seem to want compromise. You seem to want to play a semantics game instead. 172 16:43, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of majority &mdash; "US-backed" is misleading to a significant number of people, so it shouldn't be used. If I am playing a semantics game, I'm playing it by your rules, since "US-backed" is misleading according to your own definition of the word. You can trivialise any meaningful discussion by terming it a "semantics game"; as far as I can see it's just a synonim for important and meaningful. Cadr
 * Also, I think many people in the polls supported inclusion of "US-backed" because they wanted the article to state that the US was directly involved in the coup. I'm certainly sympathetic to this view, but it's not NPOV
 * You keep stating your argument and assumptions over and over again, so I guess I'll repeat over and over again that I'm willing to agree to disagree on whether or not a significant number of people will read "backed" but think "installed," and thus I'll accept a footnote that you're free to rewrite and/or expand. 172 17:26, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I've repeated them because you haven't responded to them. If we have to agree to disagree, I'd at least like to know why you disagree. Cadr
 * In any case, the point of disagreement is the neutrality of the article. I can't just agree to disagreee on that. Cadr
 * Then perhaps you'll want to take a look at the footnote. 172 17:36, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * The footnote doesn't resolve the NPOV issue very effectively. By your own definition of the word, "US-backed" is misleading. Why not just remove it and add a bit of extra text with a proper explanation? Cadr
 * Don't put words in my mouth. 172 17:47, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not. Here's a quote: "Although the meaning of the word backing only refers to support, aid, or encouragement, I have agreed to disagree with you on the point that readers won't read 'backed' but think 'installed.'". Now, since "US-aided" coup would be misleading, "US-backed" coup would, according to the definition you gave, be at least potentially misleading. I know you gave that definition as a dicdef, not as the meaning of the word in the context of the intro, but there is nothing in that context which precludedes the "aided" interpretation (or if there is, you didn't explain what it is the last time I made this point). Cadr
 * I already explained that you were quoting me out of context. I am going to cease responding to you if you continue to play games with me. 172 18:02, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not quoting you out of context. I mean I included about half of your post, and the remainder of the relavent context I summarised by saying that "I know you gave that definition as a dicdef, not as the meaning of the word in the context of the intro..." The rest of your post, and even the surrounding posts, are here for anyone to read. If you really think I've quoted you out of context, you should at least explain why (I responded to your original explanation some time ago). Really I have to play games you, because you never discuss any substantive issue. Every point I make is countered only by vague accusations. Cadr
 * You are not sucking me into any more semantics games. This will be my last response to you on this page unless you start considering compromise. 172 18:21, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Semantics games? You accused me of quoting you out of context and I explained why I didn't think I was; semantics didn't enter into it. If I was interested in playing semantics games I might ask you to look up the definition of "semantics", to stop you abusing the poor word so. You apparently have nothing of interest to say, choosing instead to evaid my points and throw around unsubstantiated allegations which change from one minute to the next without explanation. It's impossible even to have an argument with you. Cadr
 * 172's characterization of himself as the only one to offer a compromise is absurd. At least five users worked through numerous drafts of the intro to find one which pleased (or at least didn't offend) everyone. This includes me; I made several edits and re-edits in hopes of accommodating all concerns raised. By contrast, 172 is not willing to alter so much as one word of his intro paragraph; his only compromise is to add a 1 to his deceptive intro, where a reader can follow a link to a (poorly worded) "footnote" at the bottom of the page. Of course, if anyone's been reading this far, they already know this to be true. - VV 22:02, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Need to note that Allende was not nearly as popular as claimed
Just my 2 cents. It is deceptive to say

citing the Chilean coup as an example of U.S. intervention that went against the wishes of the local population. Powell responded: "With respect to your earlier comments about Chile in the 1970s and what happened with Mr Allende, it is not a part of American history that we're proud of." The newspapers in Chile hailed the news as the first time the U.S. Government had conceded a role in the affair.

because the claim that the coup was against the wishes of the locals is not necessarily well substantiated. Allende won the election with 34% of vote, and the conservative party candidate got approximately the same percentage, the rest going to the centrist guy. So it is more likely that in fact the majority (as in more than 50%) of Chileans opposed, or at least had reservations about, Allende and his policies. And do not forget that there were very many supporters of Pinochet who demonstrated against Allende and for the coup, presumably all those 30% of the voters who supported the right wing candidate. So bottom line is, Pinochet has subverted freedom of election and democracy in Chile, but this was not somehow blanketly "against the wishes" of the people. It was for the wishes of some and against wishes of others, and this has to be properly reflected in an encyclopedia article. And as for the invasion of Iraq, hey, once again we subverted an elected leader, this time one with 100% electoral support... Watcher 00:30, 11 May 2004 (UTC)


 * All fair points, but it's worth noting that (at least according to the election results) Allende was more popular than any of the alternatives &mdash; he had a plurality. Pinochet was apparently less popular than Allende, and if there was not a majority in favour of any candidate, the fact that Allende didn't have a majority was a weak argument for deposing him, to say the least. Of course you have pointed out a POV/factual inaccuracy issue which should definitely be addressed, I just think we should keep it in perspective. Cadr

In terms of political parties, at least, Allende had two of the three traditional thirds of Chilean politics against him. Both the right (the National Party) and the center (the Christian Democratic Party) were allied against Allende, and the Christian Democracy, at that time the most important party, initially hailed the coup. They became part of the opposition after some time (months, or at most couple of years, not sure) after it became evident that the military were there to stay for a while. Also, talking about "supporters of Pinochet" at that time hides the fact that the coup was not a personal one, it was a widespread military intervention, and the fact that Pinochet was the commander in Chief of the Army at that moment was only because he was perceived to be by his predeccesor a "constitucionalist", that would not participate in a coup. Pinochet was the least political of those participating in the coup, and the the regime became highly personalized in Pinochet only after the coup. Probably (but I'm speculating here), had Pinochet been refused to join the coup, either he would have been replaced by some of his more activelly pro-coup subordinates, or there could have been a civil war between pro and against Allende forces. The regime was not only of Pinochet: even After Pinochet became "President of the Republic", burying the rotating presidency idea, all the "decrees law" that would be the only means of legislating until the constitution of 1980 had to be signed by all four commanders in chief (three commanders in chief and Director General of Carabineros, to be precise), meaning that each of them had veto power, and, in fact, they did use that power often.--AstroNomer 16:24, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

How to get this page unprotected
Okay, we had at least some content-related discussion interspersed with the sniping, but now the primary combatants in the revert war appear to have moved on to other projects, and I don't think the discussion moved very far toward a resolution of the dispute.

The dispute is entirely over the introduction, so in order to remove the protection, I think it would be best to have a new introduction ready to go. That's what this page is for, to hash out proposed changes to the text. Once the new introduction is ready, it will be the first edit after unprotection, and the article can go forward from there. So I suggest that we start from scratch and have everyone work together to write the introduction over again.

Use the space below to work on the introduction. Please start from a blank slate, instead of working from either of the currently competing versions. No reverting allowed; if you have problems with something, rewrite it, but don't just go back to what you wrote before, because if somebody else changed it, that means they had problems with your version. Good luck! --Michael Snow 16:19, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * That's where we were weeks ago, before I was even involved. My rewrite already reconciled the two contending versions and cut out the excess verbiage. At any rate, I am still going to keep my positions consistent. I'd rather delete sentences than use the old "some people have said" line. And will not stand for the removal of relevent, factual content because facts hurt a Wikipedia user's feelings. Moreover, perhaps everyone has forgotten that we're supposed to be writing an encyclopedia here. Compromise between users is not a virtue in and of itself; the only relevent consideration for our purposes as editors is the quality of the article. So, I would appreciate it if people would not step in looking to cook up new schemes for mediation. We need people to step in and differentiate who's right and who's wrong on matters relating to the substance of the article. 172 16:54, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I think the suggestion that 172's intro has succeeded in reconciling anything is contradicted by the evidence above, but I certainly agree with his last two sentences. That said, Michael's intentions are obviously good, and we appreciate the effort. Good luck is certainly something we're going to need ;) Cadr
 * Fine, I can't force people to participate in "mediation", if that's what you want to call my involvement. But you do need to move towards consensus on the introduction, otherwise the page will keep getting protected. The suggested content arbitration is a possibility, if people are willing to accept it, and if you can find an arbiter. --Michael Snow 19:30, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

172's statement that he "will not stand for the removal of relevent, factual content" means he will keep adding unproven but widely believed claims as if they were fact. We will not get anywhere that way...--AstroNomer 22:08, May 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * On what basis do you claim that I am "adding unproven but widely believed claims?" Where is your evidence? 172 23:31, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

172 is correct that Michael's suggestion is where we were weeks ago before his involvement, which is why things were fine and 172 is the sole problem user on this page. We did go through the named process, and did come up with an intro that satisfied the various parties (172 dismisses this consensus-building as "partisan bickering" which he could "care less" about). But 172 will have none of it. His version must stand unaltered, and (to quote from above) if you don't like it "you'll just have to bear it", "take it or leave it". 172 is simply not interested in the Wiki process. It is because of people like him completely convinced that they are right and that there is no need to adjust to anyone else's concerns that Wikipedia has so many edit wars. There is no working with someone who insists on sole authorship; that is why the edit box warns "edited mercilessly". People like that should shape up or leave. 172 knows perfectly well he is adding "unproven" claims, but he just plays semantic games with everyone who takes time out to explain it to him. That is why I regard this as trolling, he's being inflammatory and provoking response. -- VV 01:16, 14 May 2004 (UTC)


 * We really need to get an arbitrator in. This me-you-and-172 debate has just been going round in circles forever. I'll refrain from blaming anyone (though it's tempting ;). Cadr


 * VV, we have a No personal attacks policy. Taking things down to the personal level won't bring us forward on this matter. If you have problems with 172 that you don't think you can resolve, please start an arbitration request on him.


 * On the matter of the introduction, I think we are not that far from consensus at all. Maybe one of the changes that are required is to simply substitute "US-backed coup" with "US-backed government" (which is a documented fact, while the US-backed coup statement is too ambiguous).--Eloquence*


 * ??? How is anything I've said a "personal attack"? I have been summarizing 172's behavioral patterns using his own words. Curiously, no one seems interested when 172 calls me a "right-wing" "chauvinist U.S. nationalist" who acts on "emotional" whims and lives in a "fantasy world", or when he called me RickK's "little bitch" or said my edits were "bullshit" and "gibberish". I guess those aren't personal attacks, but instead the thoughtful reflections of a "professional historian". Sure, there are no double standards here. Anyway, what is there to disagree with in my analysis of 172's behavior? And, we are at consensus, not counting 172, who has essentially opted out of that process. As for your recent proposal, I don't like "US-backed government" for two reasons: (1) it implies somehow that the US was propping it up, and that it would have collapsed without it, and (2) mentioning the US, a foreign nation, however involved in the Chile issue they were, as the first and only modifier describing the government, gives it undue prominence; why mention this aspect among all of them? Anyway, we have a perfectly good intro already, which we both worked on to find an agreeable version. 172 has no substantive objection to it except for it was not written solely by his own hand. -- VV 09:32, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Intro sandbox
Please edit the Augusto Pinochet/intro article! --Uncle Ed 19:30, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Here's another sandbox: Augusto Pinochet/intro (succinct version) 172 17:40, 15 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I changed wording on admirers and critics to just say "some", reason being that it is redundant to note that people who say such things are admirers/critics, and so let's be concise. I don't think the "specifically" part re annoyance about the coup is necessarily accurate; many are more upset at the US's arguably Machiavellian decision to support Pinochet after the coup. And I removed mention of the general US support for a coup, reason being that that is not relevant to Pinochet at all, except in that it may be evidence for CIA support for the coup. But specific pieces of evidence should be discussed in the text, not the intro. -- VV 21:08, 14 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Most of the rationale for my recent edits is in the edit summaries, but I'd just like to say that I think that if we are going to mention the allegations that the CIA was involved in the coup, we should also mention that it was CIA policy for Allende to be overthrown by a coup (although I don't think this is quite what VV was getting at). Otherwise we risk making accusations of CIA involvement sound like a crackpot conspiracy theory (which they're not) unless the reader takes the time to read through the detailed discussion in the rest of the article. Cadr


 * I don't see how saying there are allegations means it is a crackpot theory. (Compare, e.g., the intro to O. J. Simpson.) There is no need to detail the reasons for this belief in the intro, just as there is no reason to rebut this assertion there. - VV 21:49, 14 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but CIA plotting to remove Allende and the subsequent US support for Pinochet not only give context to the allegations of CIA involvement in the coup, but have also been criticised in their own right. Unless we include all three objects of criticism we're telling half the story, even in an introduction summary. It gives the impression that any allegations of CIA/US plans to depose Allende are speculative, since no other allegations are mentioned. Cadr


 * I still disagree; that's what the text is for. Justifying the allegations is not only out of scope but places way too much emphasis on one aspect of Augusto Pinochet, about who so much more could be said. The CIA plotting to remove Allende in 1970 has no provable connection to Pinochet whatsoever; many other groups also had abortive plots. I could have been plotting to remove him for all it matters. -- VV 22:08, 14 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I mostly agree with you. My point is that if we mention allegations of US involvement in the coup, we should also mention other allegations (i.e. the allegations that the US/CIA supported Pinochet after the coup and had longstanding plans to overthrow Allende). It seems wrong to mention only one of these three closely connected allegations, but I'd be fine with mentioning either all or none of them. Cadr


 * Okay, I guess my issue is that if we're going to mention allegations, we should only mention those connected to Pinochet, not the CIA's abandoned efforts in 1970, or mass anti-Allende advertising in 1964. I'm also of course happy not broaching this subject in the intro, and leaving just the substantial section to discuss it. Anyway, honestly, is there really a point to this? We had a similar conversation to get the current intro; can doing it this way realistically keep 172 at bay? -- VV 03:36, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Well US support for Pinochet's government is related to Pinochet, so perhaps we could mention that. Otherwise I agree with you, really. Probably the best policy is to mention none of this in the intro, if 172 will agree to it. Cadr
 * FYI, I will continue to press for including all the information included in my intro, but I am open to discussing re-writes and expanding the intro, as I have been all along. 172 14:27, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Good. Cadr

My changes: Change "return to democracy" to "civilian rule", because how democratic the 1980 constition is (or was before the ammendements) is subject to discussion. But the fact is, that either Pinochet won or lost, there would have been a civilian government in 1990, with a congress in place, political parties (a law for them had been already passed) and the armed forces with no responsability in the government. There was a promise of Pinochet to leave his port in the Army if "elected", to emphasize more the distiction, but I don't know if he would have stood by his promise. For the Pinochet regime, the transition period was from 1980 to 1989, when the transitory articles were valid. Nobody claimed that that period was democratic: executive power was Pinochet, and the legislative power was headed by the other commanders in chief and general director or Carabineros. But for the opposition (that became the government in the 1989 elections) the transition started then, with a 4 year presidency (created by the 1989 reforms, before that reform all perios would be 8 year ones). About the immunity: all the members of congress have immunity that means they can not be processed before a higher court strip them of immunity. This also applied to Pinochet, and he was in fact, stripped from his immnunity after he was arrested abroad.--AstroNomer 22:30, May 16, 2004 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'm pretty happy with the draft intro as it is now. Cadr


 * Which one? (I'm being deliberately obtuse because there are now two intro sandboxes listed above, which tells me we haven't gotten any closer to a resolution than before.) --Michael Snow 22:48, 17 May 2004 (UTC)


 * The second sandox is just 172's personal one. This sandbox process appears to be changing nothing. We already developed a consensus version on the article itself (which is not obviously worse to me than the sandbox v.), and 172 refused to accept a word of it. Now that we're working with sandboxes, the same is taking place on those. - VV 01:32, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Michael Snow,

Veriverily is speaking about a "consensus" on the "Augusto Pinochet/intro" page among himself, Cadr, EdPoor, and AstroNomer- the users voting in the minority in the most recent round of polling. His preferred version does not have a "consensus" behind it. As usual, he is being misleading at best. This was really the winning position in the poll: "Yes, it should be asserted, in both the intro paragraph and the CIA role in coup section, and not marked as controversial." See for yourself above. 172 02:14, 18 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I know quite well that VeryVerily's "consensus" version does not have your support, as the revert wars have shown, which naturally calls into question its ability to claim a consensus. Are you arguing that the "winning" position in the poll is a binding decision that determines a consensus and forever settles the question, regardless of minority objections? If so, I suggest you review Polling guidelines. The entire history of this debate makes it abundantly clear to me that we do not have a consensus for either of the competing versions of the introduction, which was why I suggested starting over. Right now, we don't seem to be any closer to a consensus than we were when we started. --Michael Snow 06:07, 18 May 2004 (UTC)


 * By "consensus" version I mean what we, several parties collaborating, had worked out together to come up with before 172 showed up and began attacking this article. That had basically reached a consensus. 172's subsequent attacks I suppose could be taken as anti-consensus, but of course he has dismissed that process utterly as "partisan bickering", so consensus does not seem on his mind anyway. At any rate, this is and remains a straightforward neutrality issue. - VV 06:40, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Should this page be unprotected?

 * Unprotect Augusto Pinochet - See Talk:Augusto Pinochet. Veriverily isn't explaining his objections to text he keeps reverting over and over again. 172 03:59, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
 * The page is already protected. Is this a request for unprotection? --Michael Snow 14:37, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, please unprotect this page. 172 21:17, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but in spite of your efforts I don't think the discussion has reached enough of a resolution right now to avoid a resumption of the revert war as soon as the page is unprotected. --Michael Snow 21:54, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Veriverily only chooses to lodge personal attacks against me as long as he manages to censor any facts that he feels might reflect negatively on the U.S. by means of a page protection. There cannot be a discussion unless the page protection is lifted. If we have to wait for Veriverily, the page might as well be protected permanently. 172 22:51, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Refer to the large number of people who have put effort into this article - Ed Poor, Cadr, Cantus, Eloquence - while 172 seeks to sabotage our efforts at working together and impose his own agenda. The Talk pages are available, so one can see 172 is lying. Although I have aired my frustration with 172 several times there, the issues have also been much discussed by me and others (i.e., "only" yeah right). As Cadr said on this very page, "Agree with VV. A lot of constructive work was being done on the page; the problems are almost enitrely down to the user he mentions." (in ref to 172) As soon as the protection is off, 172 will continue his activities. -- VV

Unprotect Augusto Pinochet. Cadr and Veriverily refuse to back down one inch, and no one else seems to be paying any attention. Is this page just going to be protected indefinitely? 172 19:05, 16 May 2004 (UTC)


 * See brief discussion below and, for the patient, that at Talk:Augusto Pinochet. It tells a very different story. - VV 22:28, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * To summarize, it is 172 who refuses to budge and alter one word of the intro he wrote. All other parties have written several draft intros each to try to accommodate objections and concerns. 172 dismisses these efforts as "partisan bickering" and "bullshit". - VV 22:30, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Veriverily's comments are misleading at best. "All other parties," according to Veriverily, are the users (Cadr, EdPoor, AstroNomer, and himself) voting in the minority in the most recent round of polling. His preferred version does not have a "consensus" behind it. This was really the winning position in the poll: "Yes, it should be asserted, in both the intro paragraph and the CIA role in coup section, and not marked as controversial." 172 02:25, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Consensus had been reached before 172 started trolling; the poll was started afterwards and brought in random buddies of 172. The poll voters he cites consist mostly of users who had no role in editing or contributing to the page and visibly no understanding of the issues and were voting ideologically. Even so, the margin was only 8-5, far from overpowering. Furthermore, one does not vote on whether to be neutral. - VV 06:44, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't "brought in" to vote. Nor was I voting "ideologically", rather my vote was determined by my familiarity with the issues. Perhaps instead of attacking anyone who voted differently from him V V should present more compelling arguments AndyL 10:33, 18 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Who am I attacking? And saying I "should present more compelling arguments" supports my supposition that you were not aware of the talk of these issues, because if so you would have seen the thousands and thousands of words arguing these very points. - VV 23:20, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't "brought in" to vote, I wasn't voting "ideologically" and I have made (minor) contributions to the article. Ericd 12:31, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Regardless of who the poll may have "brought in", I think part of the purpose of listing this page at Requests for comment, where it has appeared quite regularly for a while, is to "bring in" opinions from members of the community. Regardless of whose "random buddies" they are. Nor do I see why the fact that people have had little or no previous role in contributing to the page disqualifies their opinions, or shows that they have no understanding of the issues.

With that in mind, I don't see anything approaching a consensus for either version.
 * There is no consensus behind Veriverily's intro? So I am not a liar when I state otherwise? Veriverily stated, "Refer to the large number of people who have put effort into this article - Ed Poor, Cadr, Cantus, Eloquence - while 172 seeks to sabotage our efforts at working together and impose his own agenda. The Talk pages are available, so one can see 172 is lying." Can you ask this user to stop slandering me and giving misleading summaries of developments on the page so as to instill prejudice among other users against my comments? 172 07:05, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Even assuming that a consensus was ever "reached" (before or after the poll), the debates and revert wars prove that the consensus was never maintained. About the poll specifically, I note that the results as currently presented are heavily refactored, because the poll itself led to a revert war on this talk page. I don't question the validity of any individual user's vote, but I can't see a disputed poll, among a small sampling of Wikipedia users, as a permanently binding determination of consensus.

I do note that AndyL and Ericd were "brought in" (that is, specifically notified by 172 of this discussion) to validate their votes. Not that anybody should object to that, but I do hope that since they are now aware the debate rages on, they might stick around with the discussion to help us move toward a consensus. --Michael Snow 16:39, 18 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Michael Snow, just to clarify the points I made which you disputed: Bringing in members is one thing, but campaigning specifically for one view does taint the results (you seem aware of this). As for the "no understanding of the issues", I was referring to the fact that some who voted in the poll gave reasons for their vote which showed they were wholly unaware of the ongoing discussion. For instance, giving the GWU link (which has already been cited and rebutted), claiming the US acknowledges that the CIA instigated the coup (which had been specifically contradicted by citing a CIA briefing), and saying that there is "no controversy" over it, when there clearly is. - VV 23:20, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Veriverily, you know very well that the intro does not refer to the coup as 'U.S.-instigated,' something about which there would really be controversy. The issue here is an intro that refers to U.S. backing, something about which there is no controversy. Your comments are addressing a non-issue. 172 07:09, 19 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Once again, 172 ignores the fact that "US-backed" is ambiguous and misleading. See the discussion above...Cadr
 * And (for those who just tuned in) "US-backed" being one of the few things said in the first sentence strongly suggests the US's role was rather significant (merely "wanting it to happen" would not warrant such placement). VV 11:14, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Another poll
Is the assertion of U.S. backing for the coup misleading or controversial in Augusto Pinochet/intro (succinct version), even in the presence of the footnote?
 * This is loaded phrasing. I do not consider it misleading, but the simple fact that this discussion is taking place is proof that it is controversial. Eclecticology 17:07, 2004 May 19 (UTC)
 * Ec, this is asking whether or not the assertion is controversial, as opposed to an undisputable fact, not whether U.S. actions were 'controversial'. 172

[IMO "even in the presence of a footnote" should not be in the question, because some of us do not want a footnote even if we think it goes some way towards clearing up the NPOV issue. Cadr ]

Yes:
 * 1) By 172's own definition (see the discussion in section 10) the possible meanings of "backed" include "aided", so the word is misleading. 172 should also note that readers of this article are unlikley to look up every word they read in a dictionary, and should take the context of the word into account (as VV points out in his previous comment). Cadr
 * My own definition to "back" (v) is American Heritage's, which is to provide support, assistance, or encouragement for (a contending force). It does not necessarily entail the provision of "aid." Cadr is putting words in my mouth; I said "or" as opposed to "and" when I has written the word "aid" once (very hastily). 172 11:49, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
 * The fact that you said "and" instead of "or" is of no significance, as I've pointed out already. If one possible meaning of "US-backed" is "US-supported" or "US-assisted" or "US-aided" (going on 172's earlier, different definition), the word is misleading. (There is no conclusive evidence that the US assisted/aided the actual 1973 coup). Cadr
 * 1) The US didn't back the coup. Am I missing something here? Why would we say they backed it if they didn't? POV perhaps? Sam [Spade] 12:21, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

No:
 * 1) I recommend that respondents look up the dictionary definition for backing (n) or to back (v). 172 11:31, 19 May 2004 (UTC) "Backing" does not mean "instigated," "initiated," "orchestrated," "engineered," etc. 172 11:31, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) This entire debate is utter nonsense. The historical record is clear: Nixon and Kissinger wanted Allende out and the CIA went about engineering it by funding the opposition, spreading FUD, and the like. The day of the coup, the American reporter Charles Horman was in Viña del Mar, near the port of Valparaíso, which was a key base for both the Chilean coup plotters and US military and intelligence personnel who were supporting them. He spoke with several US operatives and took notes documenting the role of the United States in overthrowing the Allende government. Several days later he was arrested and executed by the Chilean armed forces. His family believes this was because he (accidently) bore witnesss the US role in the affair. 'Backing'? Yep, I'd call it backing, although perhaps we could debate how active a role the CIA et al played in the coup, but nobody is claiming that the CIA itself bombed La Moneda -- Viajero 16:03, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
 * OK, so where is all the evidence for this? (I expect it's all correct, but so far no-one has linked to any hard evidence.) Cadr
 * Cadr, this is a poll, not a debate. Please allow other users to chime in. 172 18:17, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Erm yes...and this is not an argument ;) Other users are free to chime in, anyway. Cadr
 * cf: Missing by Thomas Hauser (1982) ISBN 01400.64532 (Sorry, not everything in the world is online) -- Viajero 19:57, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
 * OK, so is there any evidence in it more concrete than the beliefs of a reporter's family? (Again, I would not be at all surprised if it does contain such evidence, but no-one has yet explained what it is, even vaguely.) Cadr
 * 1) I thought that the U.S. (unofficial but institutional) support for the coup in Chile was widely known and uncontroversial. Are people disputing the facts or the choice of words? Certainly this issue must be in the article. Slrubenstein 15:27, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) *See the discussion if you want to know what the controversy is. (That is, you should have already.) VV 21:31, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) *It deals with the wording in this version of the intro, which VeryVerily and Cadr deem &quot;controversial&quot; and &quot;misleading,&quot; regardless of the footnote and the definition of 'backing'. 172 15:50, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't find it particularly misleading with the footnote, but I don't like the footnote for independent reasons (i.e. that it would be far better to replace it with a proper explanation of US involvement, rather than trying to clarify single vague adjective). Cadr
 * 1) Wik 15:33, May 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Hephaestos|&#167; 15:35, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Infrogmation 15:48, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Like Slrubenstein, I'd never thought this was controversial until I saw the argument here. john 16:06, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Ruhrjung 16:32, 19 May 2004 (UTC) No, it's the other way around. It's an issue of Wikipedia's credibility outside of the US. (Inside the US I recognize that not so few citizens, ignorant of US foreign politics, could deem this issue controversial – I know such people myself.)
 * 6) *Yes, yes, more about us dumb ignorant Puritan Americans and how we lack the sophistication and wisdom of you European intellectuals. Now, any substantive counterarguments, perchance? (P.s. You acknowledge "not so few"; see how that connects to NPOV policy?) VV 21:31, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) AndyL 16:36, 19 May 2004 (UTC) Even conservative analysts admit the US was involved in the coup. The only reason for claiming this question hasn't been settled is POV.
 * 8) Eclecticology 17:07, 2004 May 19 (UTC) Not misleading. Under protest against using polls as a way to establish facts.
 * 9) Everyking 19:11, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) –Hajor 20:18, 19 May 2004 (UTC) Not misleading; certainly not controversial in my neck of the woods. But not particularly happy about voting to establish facts, or about call-outs to footnotes in articles. Uncle Ed's suggestion below would be useful, if only we could get the right quotes (doubtful).
 * 11) Secretlondon - I had no idea people still disputed this.
 * 12) *Welcome to the outside of the box. VV 21:31, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) I wasn't going to vote on this, because I thought the poll question missed the mark. The issue isn't whether a particular wording is misleading, etc., but rather what's the best way to present the subject. I don't like the footnote. I thought the best approach was an in-text summary in the introduction, avoiding the word "backed," even though living with some nuance made for a longer intro. To that end I essayed a revision of the first-created sandbox. I tried to meet Cadr's objection to my initial version. Now, however, I find that VeryVerily has edited it so as to eviscerate any discussion of this issue in the intro. It seems, then, that each side has its own sandbox and the two sides continue to talk past each other. With regard to the intro, 172 wants a flat statement of "backed," somewhat qualified in a footnote, while VV wants a mere allusion to what "many believe," with no indication in the intro that they have any factual basis for their beliefs. As between those two extremes (CIA role stated as fact versus CIA role stated as mere unsupported opinion, albeit opinion of "many"), I prefer the former, although the specific wording of the footnote would need some work. I still think the footnote is, by its nature, an inelegant solution. It would be better for the text of the intro to state a few key evidentiary points, including the CIA's denial, rather than present the conclusion as an established fact. If other people agree with me, and say so and/or restore key data to the original intro sandbox, then perhaps we have a chance of reaching consensus on that approach. Until then, I'm going to turn my attention to editing the "succinct version" of the intro. Finally, on the issue of recruitment: 172 did urge me to vote in this poll. I ignored his urging for the reasons stated above. I have now been "recruited" to vote by VV's edit, not by 172's electioneering. JamesMLane 00:13, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) *It's your vote, but puzzling reasoning: you're not voting on the question asked in the poll. Anyway, the whole point of the sandbox is to experiment. I gave my reasons (several times) for my edits, which (perhaps ironically) largely come to succintness: the intro does not need to lay out the evidence, that's what the article for. The intro serves to summarize. Fercrissakes, look at the article, nearly half of which is now about the CIA. VV 00:36, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) **My vote is that the wording being polled is not misleading (the question asked in the poll) but that the wording also isn't good. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I agree that the intro should summarize, not present the whole discussion, but it involves striking a balance between, on the one hand, going into too much detail about the facts, and, on the other hand, simply saying "many believe" with no allusion whatsoever to the facts until later on. I don't think your edit version makes any attempt to strike that balance. Your version isn't a summary, it's a reference. My idea was that something taking up nearly half the article, as you put it, deserves a bit more space in the intro. I tried to put in a few critical points that would, for example, in response to SamSpade's inquiry, show that there are indeed references available, while also noting the CIA's denial and leaving the full elaboration for later in the article. My hope was that we could work out a consensus summary. Perhaps I was unduly optimistic. JamesMLane 02:48, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Backing
Backing suggests strong support, implying aid, financial, military, what-have-you. Anyone got any references showing anything like that? Sam [Spade] 12:24, 19 May 2004 (UTC)


 * There is evidence both ways and no consensus, which makes it hard to be both neutral and succinct. In addition, as the discussion above shows, people with different opinions can see different shades of meaning in a term like "backing." Therefore, I think we're stuck with having to go into somewhat more detail about what's known. Two specific points: (1) The heavy emphasis on the CIA could give the misleading impression that the CIA was running a rogue operation; the important issue is the role of the United States in Pinochet's accession, not the role of the CIA, so I've added the Nixon statement. (2) My response to Cadr's edit summary: The CIA has admitted advance knowledge of the coup. From CBS's report on the documents declassified during the Clinton Administration: "The CIA had prior knowledge of the plot that overthrew Allende three years later but denies any direct involvement. CIA spokeswoman Anya Guilsher said, 'We were aware of coup plotting in 1973, but we did not instigate it.'" (CBS News story and, to the same effect, CNN's story) Do we need to insert a citation into the text? That seems a little clunky given that this point, at least, is no longer seriously disputed even by the right-wingers now that the CIA has admitted it. JamesMLane 13:48, 19 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Secretary Powell evidently agrees. - Hephaestos|&#167; 16:22, 19 May 2004 (UTC)


 * That's only the nine-hundredth time (approx) Powell has been cited. He was discussed recently above. To summarize, he doesn't "admit" anything specific, and he wasn't part of the coup anyway, so his opinion is his own. VV 21:39, 19 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry, didn't see this on the talk page. How about just saying that the CIA has stated/admitted that it planned for a coup, rather than giving it as a plain fact? Cadr


 * Ah, you've added the cites. Thanks for the compromise :) If you like, I'd have no objection if you removed the actual links to the sources (if you feel these are a bit too in-depth for the intro). All I was really pushing for was an indication that the CIA had admitted to plotting a coup &mdash; this just makes the intro sound less POV, since it shows that the assertion of CIA plotting is strongly justified. Cadr

"Backing" is a very broad term. At one extreme it can be direct military involvement; at the other it can be nothing more than a speech expressing agreement with the coup. Anything in between can also be "backing". Eclecticology 17:35, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

Don't be silly
All this talk of settling the editing issues by polling and declaring "winners" is silly. As Michael pointed out (more politely!), that's not what polls are for. Well, I'm telling you that the official policy of this website is NPOV.

If a fact or value (or anything else important) is in dispute in an article, the Wikipedia is not supposed to settle the issue. Rather, it REPORTS WHAT THE VARIOUS SIDES SAY. Sorry for shouting, but some contributors on this page just don't get it.

Including a phrase like "US-backed coup" implies that Wikipedia endorses the view that the coup was backed by the US (whatever that means or entails). Since there is CLEARLY a dispute among us contributors about whether (or how much) the US "backed the coup", the Wikipedia cannot come out and say flatly that the US backed the coup.

Rather, the article must report what various historians and other observers have said. I'd be happy to see something like: (Okay, wackos is a bit extreme, but you know what I mean: we attribute every point of view (POV) to the advocated of that POV.)
 * All historians, except for a few right-wing wackos, agree that the US backed the coup.

It might be a bit more polished to say:
 * Historians and others disagree over how much support the US gave to Pinochet. Joe Schmoe says the US "backed the coup by supplying arms, intelligence, money, and assurances of friendly future relations." Sam Shady, a known CIA operative, claims that the US had no part in the coup, aside from making public statements amounting to a claim that Allende was destroying the Chilean economy and driving the country toward dictatorship. (Note that these are made-up examples of the kinds of quotations we need to find and put into the article, so that all POV is properly attributed.) --Uncle Ed 14:06, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. This exactly the way I see it. Sadly my limited English doesn't allow me to write this kind of balanced prose. Ericd 18:57, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Poll results and their significance
Is everyone in agreement that 172 has won (oops, musn't use that word...) the poll? He has been quite active in canvasing voters, but I think it's unlikely that a comparable number of people could be convinced to vote in the other direction, and this is basically a repeat of a previous poll with a similar result. I think we should now decide whether the results of this poll have any implications for the content of the intro, which is doubtful in my opinion. If some of the voters would join in the actual discussion on this page, we might really get somewhere, but so far the pattern has been that only a small number of people have participated in discussion, while a much larger number has voted (and we have no way of knowing how well informed these people are with regard to the preceding dicussion &mdash; an important issue). Surely, if Wikipedia is discussion and consensus based, the views of people who have not (yet) entered into discussion are of dubious significance. Let's finish with the poll and get some more people involved in forming a consensus.

(Obviously a lot of the sentiment here comes straight from Ed Poor's post, but my additional suggestion is that we close the poll now, with the results archived as they currently stand.)

Cadr


 * The poll is utterly meaningless, which is why I did not even take part. 172 recruited his ideological allies to vote, and they did. (With similar canvassing we could garner votes of our own, but no matter.) There are only one or two users I find it sad to see caring so little about NPOV, but the results change nothing. I already know about Wikipedia's strong political bias and don't need a poll to remind me. As has been pointed out, a similar poll on whether to include Criticisms of Mother Teresa would also probably go the wrong way. And Cadr is quite correct that most of those people have not participated in the discussion; statements such as "I didn't even know this was disputed" indicate, uh..., unawareness of what is going on here. VV 21:21, 19 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Don't get your hopes up, VV. A similar poll had a binding effect at Talk:Fascism/ archive8 This means you'll have to tone down your personal attacks against me and anyone who disagrees with you, give up your canard assertion that the wording in my intro is misleading, and give up your claims that your version has a 'consensus' behind it. 172 21:47, 19 May 2004 (UTC) this comment was deleted by VeryVerily in reverting 172's deletion of other comments, and restored by Michael Snow
 * To recap, we the then-editors of this page did reach a delicate consensus before the swarming started (first 172, then his friends). And 172 is the king of personal attacks; just look around. VV 22:53, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

I'd rather not get involved in personal disputes, but the idea that Wikipedia has a systematic left-wing bias is silly. There are lots of users who are on the left, and lots on the right. Different pages, and different disputes, might tilt one way or another, but the fact that pretty much everybody seems to feel that Wikipedia is biased against their POV suggests that we've got things about right, at least in terms of the big picture. As to this page as a whole, I'll have to read through the talk archives to see what points have been made, but I've really never seen it seriously disputed before that the US backed the coup. john 21:33, 19 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, if I may say, you seem to have a bit of a left tilt yourself, which may be why things seem "about right" :). The main complaints about systematic "right-wing bias" come from those who want to see Wikipedia look like Mao's Red Book. There are, to be sure, other strains of thought here - though outnumbered sometimes persistent - and lesser articles often reflect the bias of the last to edit them. Still, I feel conservatives "stand out" here, and the more modest even half-apologize for their views (I recall User:Ark30inf's old user page). Anyway, if any good comes of this mess it'll be that a few may learn that their dogmas about the US turn out to not be so straightforward as they thought. VV 22:51, 19 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't deny having something of a left tilt. At the same time, I think it is deeply unfair to say that those who complain of a right tilt want to see Wikipedia look like Mao's Little Red Book, just as it would be unfair to say that those who complain about systematic left-wing bias want Wikipedia to look like Fox News. Probably more unfair, since Fox News is more within the realm of acceptable political beliefs than Maoism. At any rate, I'd add that the left bias (such as it exists) on Wikipedia is a rather intellectual, academic leftism, for the most part, and not very similar to the agitprop of Soviet-style communism. john 00:26, 20 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm merely reporting my observations: people who talk of right-wing bias are often also quite interested in whitewashing Pol Pot and Josef Stalin. I don't doubt there is FOX News influence, but (as you note) FOX News is hardly extreme, and those who make specific accusations of such influence have largely ruined their credibility with me by accusing me of also being a FOX partisan (even the non-"Maoists", which also reflects poorly on them). Yes, "academic" leftism may more predominate here, but that's still a healthy tilt. VV 00:43, 20 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Sure, but there's also people here who'd like to whitewash Nixon and Pinochet. FOX news certainly is extreme, so far as I can see; I suppose anyone who saw it as mainstream would probably perceive a left-wing bias in any serious political commentary. Being pretty left-wing myself, I've always perceived a right-wing bias to Wikipedia (at least on any issue involving America). I would say that there's very little "academic Xism" on Wikipedia, and a definite majority of underinformed Yism and Zism. Anyway, given that we all perceive different biases, it's probably fair to say that Wikipedia as a whole is fairly neutral, as John points out. Cadr


 * The point is is that "backed" is a vague word. Everyone thinks the US backed the coup in some sense, but it would be easy to read the intro and get the wrong idea (e.g. that there was direct US military involvement, at one extreme). The footnote helps with this, but I don't like it because the main body of the text should be clear in the first place. Cadr

Voting on POV/NPOV issues isn't very productive in my experience. I think we should continue to work towards a solution that is acceptable to all parties. In my opinion, writing that Pinochet's government was backed by the US is far less ambiguous than the assertion that the coup itself was backed (which is likely correct in virtually all possible interpretations, but still to some extent unproven). Then we can do away with the footnote and discuss the details of the coup in the appropriate section in the article.--Eloquence* 22:09, May 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Encarta just mentions U.S.-backing in the intro with no footnote, but let's keep the footnote as a gesture of compromise . We don't want an entire sentence or two on U.S. involvement, as this is an intro to a biographical article, not the 1973 coup. Please rewrite the footnote, though, if you want. 172 00:31, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Typical. Offer nothing and call it a "gesture of compromise". Who is 172 trying to fool? Well, my gesture of compromise is the wording I wrote. VV 00:46, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't write the contents of the footnote. Cadr wrote it (I think- but uncertain) and you can rewrite it. That's pretty significant. 172 00:48, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure I didn't write the footnote (at least not originally; might have edited it sometime). Cadr
 * The footnote's pretty unpopular anyway, since it's an inelegant and not particularly effective solution. Several people who have voted no in the poll have said that they don't like it. It's certainly not the compromise to end all compromises, but you seem unwilling to consider any other compromise proposal. Cadr
 * Then, by all means, rewrite the footnote. BTW, it's a generous compromise compared to what TDC got when he was overwhelmingly defeated in this poll on Talk:Fascism (nothing). 172 11:46, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
 * You seem to have paid no attention that Cadr objected that "it's an inelegant and not particularly effective solution". The problems with the poll here have already been enumerated. VV 12:06, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Most of the people voting in the poll had no previous input to the page, and had not followed the previous discussion. The question was rather narrow, since it did not mention any alternatives to using "US-backed", so people could not object to your intro on grounds of style or clarity. I've explained inumerable times why the footnote is not a good idea, and even people who have voted no in the poll have said that they do not like it. All the poll does is verify that your intro is not especially misleading when the footnote is present; it is not a vote of confidence in your intro on any other grounds (i.e. style, clarity, etc.) If you wish to decide by poll which intro we should have, you need a new question (i.e. is this intro better than that intro?) Cadr
 * Give it up. If this goes to arbitration, you wouldn't even get the footnote. This will look like a deliberate stalling attempt to everyone else. I mean, the 14 users who voted "no" sure as hell aren't going to turn around and vote for an intro reading, "many people believe the CIA had a role in the coup." Please handle the poll results as honorably as TDC handled them on Talk:Fascism. That'll make things easier on all of us. 172 12:14, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Eloquence, I, and others have offered to drop mention of the alleged US/CIA role in the coup from the intro entirely, but you have scoffed at this generous compromise. VV 12:18, 20 May 2004 (UTC)


 * That's not necessarily the intro they'd be asked to vote for, 172. The idea that this poll is all that is required to get your intro into the article is farsical. For a start, it doesn't show that your intro is any good, all it shows is that it's not misleading. This side-steps the main issue &mdash; no-one has seriously suggested that the intro is especially misleading with the footnote, but plently have objected to the footnote as a means of avoiding ambiguity (why not just use unambiguous language is the first place?) It may well be the case that a majority of people would find VV's or mine or JamesMLane's intro not to be misleading if a poll were held to find out, and such polls would surely be necessary to give context to your poll. To decide on an intro for the article, we would have to have a poll between several competing intros. You poll is a pathetic attempt to get any kind of positive result in the hope that people will be mislead into believing it is significant. If this goes to arbitration, I expect people there will take as dim a view of your poll question and your canvasing as they have here (complaint has been quite prevalent, even amongst those who voted no). Cadr


 * as usual, Eloquence has an essential insight. Really, all I'd say we have to do is cite and verify who is saying what. Facts are facts, and opinions are opinions. Lets let them speak for themselves. Nobody is looking to censor anything, are they? Sam [Spade] 22:30, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with discussing the details in the appropriate section. At the same time, if it is "likely correct in virtually all possible interpretations" to say that the US backed the coup...well...john 00:26, 20 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Re that last part: My impression is that Eloquence seems to basically agree with 172's interpretation of the Chile events, but is also aware of 172's obnoxious, recalcitrant, and anti-Wiki behavior, and does recognize the need for NPOV. VV 12:37, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Personal attacks, revert wars and ideological bias

 * I read quite a bit about Pinochet, Allende and Chile's economy in the 60s and 70s (and not just "opinions" but economic data and scientific analysis). People who say I have "visibly no understanding" and vote "ideologically" just because I happen not to agree with them, are making a productive discussion hard.
 * VV The "no understanding" was in reference to being aware of what we had been talking about on this Talk page.
 * I am not "buddy of 172", random or otherwise, nor was I "brought in" by him. Saying so without verification or proof reflects quite negatively on VeryVerily's way of argumentation in my opinion. If I understood the principles of Wikipedia correctly, everyone knowledgeable can try to contribute to the discussion...
 * VV I did not say this. I said that some were buddies of 172, and they were. You are falling for 172 smear tricks. VV 09:24, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Reverting an article more than two times when the issue is controversial is foolish; Engaging in revert wars shows ideological bias and narrow-mindedness more than anything else. Some people apparently have too much time on their hands (that seems to be true both for VV and 172).
 * I won't return to this article in the near future - personal attacks, revert warring and name-calling are not my idea of cooperating to create an encyclopedia. Marcika 03:44, May 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with all of the above particulars, if not the conclusion. Sam [Spade] 04:23, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

More about the coup
An anti-Pinochet site says:


 * In 1973, after the Allende government moved to introduce Socialist ideals into the predominantly Roman Catholic education system, and after the leader of the Socialist party called for a barracks rebellion against senior officers, the military broke its tradition of being apolitical and staged a bloody coup, backed by Washington.

I'd like to know more about those "Socialist ideals". Does this mean indoctrination into atheist Communism, or what? I can't think of anything that would get peace-loving Catholics riled up, other than messing with their belief system. I mean try telling a gang of teenagers in South Boston that the Virgin Mary wasn't a virgin, and see what happens... --Uncle Ed 19:48, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think Allende had the project to create a national education system. Some wrote "in the East German way" but this could also be in the "French way". One thing that bother me is that Allende critics consider him as an evil Marxist-Leninist while for me it seems clear that Allende project was more similar to the French Socialist Party platform of the time. According to many sources François Mitterrand was very worried in 1981 about the risk of a "Chilean scenario" in France. Ericd 21:23, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Pinochet's coup was a joint force coup : a large plot involving navy, infantery, tanks and Air Force do you seriously think there could have been a "conccurent project" backed by the CIA ? Even if there was at time several plots it seems like they all merged in one. Ericd 00:47, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

CIA poll
Q: Should the article assert that the United States backed the coup against Allende which put Pinochet in power?

1. Yes, it should be asserted:

In both the intro paragraph and the CIA role in coup section:


 * 1) Uncle Ed (only if labelled as POV)
 * 2) BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; (POV note not necessary, but is acceptable, IMHO)
 * 3) Hanpuk (I learned about this poll due to Ed Poor's lobbying on VeryVerily's talk page.)
 * 4) AndyL (While the US denied this at the time it has since been acknowleged as having been the case. There's no dispute any longer on *whether* the 1973 coup was instigated by the CIA, the dispute is whether the CIA's actions were justifiable.)
 * 5) *Yes there is. See the intelligence report noted in the "CIA role in coup" section. -- VV 01:15, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) ugen64 01:51, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Tannin 02:03, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) AstroNomer Only if marked as POV. It is not a proven fact.
 * 9) Marcika 21:28, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) 172 09:05, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) I should've been listed here already. I wonder if someone's been removing my postings from this page.

In the CIA role in coup section only:


 * 1) Uncle Ed
 * 2) VV
 * 3) Cadr
 * 4) Cantus
 * 5) AstroNomer
 * 6) Sam [Spade]

Mark as controversial


 * 1) Uncle Ed
 * 2) VV
 * 3) Cadr
 * 4) AstroNomer
 * 5) Comrade Nick
 * 6) Sam [Spade]

Don't mark as controversial


 * 1) BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085;
 * 2) Cantus
 * 3) 172 (WTF? What a biased and misleading attempt at begging the question. I ought to reject this question on principle. Keep controversial "views" out of the article. If facts bother you, tough shit. This vote should be read only as a statement in favor of keeping the intro posted as of now.)
 * 4) AndyL (Again, stating that the CIA instigated the 1973 coup is not controversial and is pretty much universally acknowleged as fact. What is a matter of debate is not whether the US was involved but whether their involvement was correct. Saying it's "controversial" to say the CIA was involved in the overthrow of Allende is like saying it's "controversial" to say the US was involved in the Bay of Pigs. Yes, at the time the US denied any involvement and promoted a pretence that the Bay of Pigs was the act of independent anti-Castro Cubans without US backing but since then everyone, including the US, acknowledges the US role.)
 * 5) *It's completely controversial. We've discussed this like mad. I deny US involvement. It's a simple neutrality issue. -- VV 01:14, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Ericd (This isn't controversial, this is well established. Denying it, for other reasons than ignorance is as honest as Holocaust denial. For instance see or .)
 * 7) *You're not the first to refer to such links. They do not prove what you say they do, as we have already noted on this page. -- VV 01:14, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) ugen64 01:51, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Tannin - There is no controversy over the broad thrust of the actual events (bar a handful of loonie right-wingers still trying to cover up an event that became public knowledge decades ago - reminds me of Japanese school history books). The only real controvery is over whether the US backing was legal or justified.
 * 10) Marcika 21:28, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC) - The CIA admitted seeking to instigate a coup as early as 1970, and was in tight contact with the plotters of the 1973 (according to the CIA Chile report). Denying involvement would be pushing an agenda.

2. No, it should not be mentioned


 * 1) Uncle Ed
 * 2) VV
 * 3) Cadr (Assuming we're talking about that specific coup, not the idea of a coup in general.)

Current winning position


 * Yes, it should be asserted, in both the intro paragraph and the CIA role in coup section, and not marked as controversial.

Comments

The Nixon administration wanted to get rid of Allende they had contact with Chilean high rank officers, they had a plan for elimination of marxists or so-called marxists in South America and they had policies to destabilize Allende this is uncontroversial OK ? This has to be mentioned there. I'm in favor of being precise, let's devellop the role played by the CIA and the US administration in the fall of Allende instead of writing "the CIA backed the coup". Of course nobody will never find a written order of the CIA to Pinochet, they're not so stupid. I will oppose to any formulation like "some believe than the CIA backed the coup while other believe they were gently neutral". They were not neutral and made everything they could do to bring a coup, but Pinochet was probably not simply CIA puppet. Ericd 01:54, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think that there is some truth in this. The CIA did have a hand in the coup against Allende, but to what extent is uncertain. With that said, I also beleive that there would have been a coup with or without CIA involvement. The only thing the CIA did was ensure Allende's groupies would not win the coup. TDC 14:38, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is meant exactly by "endorse," but that sounds too much like taking sides to me. -- BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 14:59, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

This is an interesting idea, but NPOV policy is crystal clear. 172 is simply being abusive. That is all there is to it. -- VV 14:48, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Agree with this, also. Cadr


 * Being abusive is not my intention. I just want a concise, encyclopedic intro. If that bothers people, I can't help that. 172 17:59, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * It was already concise and encyclopedic. Your real problem with it seems to be that it didn't mention that the coup was US-backed. It's quite insulting to suggest that you are the only person who wants a concise and encyclopedic introduction, because everyone here does. The issue of what should be in the introduction has already been resolved. I'm sorry if you don't like the consensus that was reached, but it's a real consensus that required some long drawn out edit warring and talk page flaming to reach, so I do wish we could stick to it. Cadr


 * I've had nothing to do with your silly partisan flame wars over this article. Whatever had been going on before I stepped in (and I could care less), the intro required a rewrite. I scrapped the bullshit from both groupings of partisans - pro-Pinochet and anti-Pinochet - and replaced it with a concise and factual intro. If that makes you uncomfortable, you'll probably have to bear it. WP is an encyclopedia, not a toy and a soapbox. BTW, check the page history next time before you make unfounded attacks; I've also prevented attempts to reinsert anti-U.S. and anti-Pinochet rhetoric. 172 19:42, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Indeed, it is unfortunate that some unbelievers refuse to recognize you as the oracle of truth that you undoubtably are, 172. But since this is a Wiki, not a religious text, I'm afraid you must be content to let the vulgar masses trample on your tasteful and factually pure edits from time to time. The phrase "US-backed" is controversial, because although the US undoubtably supported some kind of coup to depose Allende, there is no clear evidence that they supported the actual coup that happened. It is not your rewriting of the intro that we object to (as you well know), but your insistence that the highly controversial and not-entirely-factual phrase "Us-backed" be included in it, despite the detailed discussion of the various POVs in the rest of the article. Your callous attitude to the discussion between other Wikipedians ("and I could care less") shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the Wikipeida project. Articles are revised by consensus, and your edits go against a clearly established consensus. Cadr


 * And some think that Elvis is alive and that Neil Armstrong's never been on the moon. So do you want to rewrite the intros in those entries? If not, the content in the intro is standard in brief encyclopedic entries. Here's one example from Encarta. 172 22:08, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * The kind of people who have objected to the "US-backed" phrase are not the kind of people who believe Elvis is still alive. In any case, your analogy is misleading because leaving the phrase "US-backed" out of the intro doesn't even mention the POV that the US didn't back it, so we're not wasting any space or giving unecessary prominence to minority views. If you have evidence showing that the US supported the coup that actually happened, i.e. they helped Augusto Pinochet himself, specifically, come to power, show it to me and I will drop my objections. Cadr


 * That's an issue for the main body of text in the article. I have to work on too many unfinished articles to become one of the writers here. 172 22:24, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * What do you mean? The main body of text does not conclude that Pinochet's coup was definiteley supported by the US/CIA. No-one is making that claim except you (or at least no-one else is trying to get it into the article), so the burden of proof is on you. Cadr


 * No, it's not. You're reading way too much into the sentence. Look up the definition of "backing" (n) or "to back" (v). Your arguments would be valid if the intro read, e.g., "US-engineered," "US-orchestrated," "US-planned," "US-led." We're probably on the same fact when it comes to the history. A dictionary would probably better resolve our argument. 172 22:41, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, the thing is that in order to clarify exactly what was meant by "US-backed" you'd have to basically copy and paste the big section on the coup further down in the article into the intro, or at least make the intro much longer. I accept that what you mean by "US-backed" is factually accurate, but unfortunately it is not necessarily going to be understood in the intended sense by everyone. For this reason, I think it's easiest just to keep "US-backed" out of the intro; it's no great loss really. Cadr


 * "US-backed" does not mean what 172 wants to claim, nor is it accurate even in a broad sense, nor could any sense it might claim to be accurate in justify putting a reference to the US in the intro. This has all been discussed, with the agreement to not have it, and 172 knows this. Of course, he is disrespecting process and neutrality because of personal vendettas and ideological warring. -- VV 01:07, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Translation: "I'm 172, only my opinion matters. The method of using the Talk pages to discuss an article, hash out an agreement, and reach a consensus doesn't apply to me. Neutrality is immaterial, as my opinion should be stated in the intro, no matter how many other POVs there are. Anyone who alters such edits or disagrees is a POV-pushing troll." -- VV 21:28, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * If you had a valid argument, I'd change my tune. But right now it's your usual red herring. You have no basis for disputing the neutrality of the intro. It avoids emotive language and is concise and unambiguously factual. 172 21:49, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Compromise intro
Just to say that I think the new intro is fine. What does everyone else think? Cadr.
 * This is not an article on U.S. involvement in the 1973 coup in Chile. I did not rewrite the intro for the sake of adding a note on U.S. involvement. My intent was writing a brief, focused, encyclopedic intro that got more info across while using fewer words. I'm not going to hesitate to restore the succinct version either. The poll results clearly affirmed this stance (as if the historical record weren't enough). 172 22:08, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Articles aren't created by voting. The intro is just as long as it should be to avoid misunderstandings, and to satisfy the different sides to this issue. It does not detract from the person Pinochet (and in any case, Lead section allows for two paragraphs of intro text, so we can easily add more material here). Please respect the attempts at finding a consensus solution.--Eloquence* 22:17, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

The implications of the intro that I keep restoring imply don't imply anything that isn't implied by the "compromise" version. For example, "U.S.-backed" does not imply, e.g., "U.S.-orchestrated," "U.S.-engineered," "U.S.-planned," "U.S.-plotted." In other words, it does not delineate the extent and scope of U.S. backing in and of itself. I have one question, though. Is the meaning of "U.S.-backed" is commonly misunderstood among people for whom English is not a native language? If so, I wasn't aware. If this happens to be the case, I'm willing to work around it. A footnote would be the proper course of action, not an off topic tangent in the intro. 172 22:32, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Whatever the case, it's clear that "backing" is a commonly misunderstood word on WP. So, I added a footnote. 172 22:37, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * A slightly unorthodox but acceptable solution.--Eloquence* 22:38, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's just unorthodox here. On WP footnotes often go unused when they're necessary. 172 22:44, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I think that we should go back to the special note. Perhaps the heading could be changed to "footnotes," though. By adding the first footnote, there might be the positive unintended consequence of getting users to use more footnotes to clarify things and cite references. 172 22:50, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The footnote just duplicates material which is discussed in detail in an existing section. If we move that entire section somewhere else, we should restore the note, otherwise I think it would end up confusing/annoying readers who read the article from top to bottom. Moving the "CIA role" section somewhere else may be a good idea just to centralize all the discussion about the coup somewhere.--Eloquence* 22:54, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'll accept that. That's the practical thing to do for now. (After all, avoiding duplicate material was my rationale for taking that note out of the intro.) 172 23:18, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I realise the intro before my edit was based on a tentative consensus, so I will not make any further changes (or re-revert any reverts of my edits) until we can sort out the issue on this page. Cadr
 * OK, (now 172 has reverted my edits &mdash; which is fair enough I suppose). I think that what 172 means by "US-backed" is factually accurate and NPOV, but I think the phrase, as used in the current intro, makes it sound too much like the US-supported Pinochet directly. The footnote helps with this, but the intro should be self-contained &mdash; you shouldn't have to read a big section of the main article in order to understand what it means. This is why I favour keeping any reference to the US out of the intro altogether (unless the intro is considerably expanded, as per Eloquence's edits). However,, I'm perfectly happy to accept a reference to the US in a shorter intro if some slightly less ambiguous phrasing can be found. Cadr
 * Oops, didn't quite see that there was now a footnote rather than a link to an article section. Could we perhaps put the footnote number directly after "US-backed", to make it clear that this is the controversial issue? Cadr
 * The intro is straightforward and accurate, two polls affirmed the intro, and there's even a compromise note to prevent misunderstanding. The disputes should be brought to an end now. BTW, another poll affirmed the stance that this is not a controversial assertion historically. 172 00:37, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * This 172-intro is insufficient. It doesn't even in the slightest way hint at why he was arrested by the English, it leaves out why he was internationally controversial, that the constitution put out of order was a working democratic one, and that Pinochet was the ruler of Chile for quite some time.
 * --Ruhrjung 02:02, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I know you like the intro, 172, but why didn't you give a response to my politely worded and very minor request? Not that it matters now I guess, but it can be very hard to have a discussion with you, because you don't usually respond directly to the points people are making, you just say that your intro is better because it's "straightforward and accurate". Well like it or not, a lot of people didn't think your intro was either of those things, and we've explained why not in detail. Cadr

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the intro before 172 started trolling. The "wordiness" was a red herring; an article this length can afford a few dozen words in the intro, in complete sentences (you know, with verbs). The only questionable part was that relating to the US and the coup; this already has a gigantic section, and we do not need to take sides in the intro. The footnote is particularly ridiculous, when there is an article which says the same thing. The version we'd worked out gives a clear, concise, neutral description of Pincohet's rise, rule, fall, and perceived legacy. A new version of the short note about the US has been put in; the reader can read more later about it in the extensive coverage. -- VV 02:05, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC) (This comment was added after edit conflict with Ruhrjung.)


 * Just in case anyone thinks there is a substantive dialog taking place here, this is the full extent of the changes to the intro which 172 has "accepted" during this entire affair. That's right, a single superscripted 1 at the end. Quite the compromise! -- VV
 * While not perfect (this is Wikipedia!), the VV-restored introduction is better than most other versions I've seen – with reservation for such shortlived versions, that were edited away promptly.
 * --Ruhrjung 02:43, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, the intro does need to mention the US support prominently - that is one condition on my end for a compromise. Whether this is in form of a short version with note, or a more verbose one without one, I do not care. But you cannot understand Pinochet without understanding -- and that is of course my POV -- that he was a product of United States foreign policy.--Eloquence* 04:09, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * That is very definitely your POV, which I equally definitely do not share. But this is not what about what either of us think. That's why I favor the language noting a "relationship" with the US. The details and points of view on that complex relationship can then be addressed later. As I've noted, I don't even see the need to mention the US at all so early on (this is about Chile, mostly), but if it must be there, it should not presume any one person's opinion. -- VV 04:19, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I think the term "backed" is perfectly factual -- we've been through the proven ways in which the US supported deposing Allende and supported Pinochet afterwards, and "backed", with a footnote explaining what that means in this context seems like a short way to express this. "Relationship", on the other hand, is unnecessarily ambiguous, because we know a lot more than this phrase suggests. Again, alternative suggestions are welcome, but a brief summary of what is currently mostly in the "CIA role" section needs to be in the intro; a good Lead section should summarize all key aspects of an article, and this is one of them.--Eloquence* 04:28, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

I rewrote the intro in order to keep it concise and keep the contending leftwing and rightwing mythologies out. Two poll results affirmed my stance, and I was able to reach compromises with two additional parties in the disputes just hours ago. I am going to restore the straightforward version once again. 172 04:17, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I see plenty of evidence here for discontent with your unilateral stance, which is to push the leftwing mythology with poor writing. -- VV 04:22, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, a comrpomise with two parties is not good enough. We need to try to find a compromise with all parties. VV and Ruhrjung would prefer an intro which gives more details on Pinochet's rule. I have tried to reconcile this with the desire for a short intro by abridging their additions. Please review this revision and tell me what you don't like about it. Is the first paragraph OK? I presume your main problem is the second paragraph, i.e. the NPOV characterization of views of supporters and critics. Pinochet today is, however, effectively a religious figure - Satan and Christ - for these two groups, and I think we need to at least mention this sharp split in opinion in the intro.--Eloquence* 04:23, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * We can address his rule, while staying biographical and factual and keeping the dueling mythology out. This addresses his later career: "After losing a plebiscite in 1989, Pinochet stepped down from the presidency in 1990 and was succeeded by Patricio Aylwin. He retained his post as commander of the army until 1998 and assumed a lifelong seat in the Chilean Senate, a title that brought with it immunity from prosecution." 172 04:56, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * (Re recent alterations.) What's wrong with the language I had about "support for his government"? That's neatly neutral between whether the US installed him (the far-left view) or merely offered him some support once in power? The details can wait for the (giant) section below. Mentioning the US "support for a coup against Allende" is redundant and confusing and not really about Pinochet at all. Why not just stick to "support..."? -- VV 04:44, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, if your only complaint is that it is redundant, then I think we are firmly in NPOV territory ;-). I think this belongs into the intro about an article about Pinochet because it is one of the key pieces of evidence in the history of the coup - Project FUBELT, "it is firm policy .." etc. Even if you see no connection, you have to acknowledge that this is where many people do see a connection and a continuity.--Eloquence* 04:49, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't see why pieces of evidence in the history of the coup need to be listed in the intro paragraph. Redundancy, you'll note is only one of three complaints I made, but succintness is something we both want here, no? -- VV 04:54, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Certainly. I think a length of two paragraphs is sufficiently succinct. I for one could do without the "constitution" part.--Eloquence* 05:02, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * There's a section on legacy toward the end of the article, where it belongs. The intro should stay straightforward and factual. 172 05:13, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * The constitution part seems pretty important to me, and it's only a few words. Anyway, saying that the US is criticized for allegedly supporting the coup because of Pinochet's human rights abuses is presuming far too much; general support of a coup does not connect to specific support of abuses. I still prefer the paragraph I had before, but I've worked off of your language. -- VV 05:09, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * You are forgetting that we are not reporting "the truth" (according to you or me) but what people see as the truth. The United States are widely seen to be responsible for Pinochet's rise to power, and as I said, the support for a coup against Allende is one key piece of evidence in that argument. To avoid getting too deep into the controversy, we briefly note just the key facts in the intro. How these facts are interpreted by the different sides is a matter for the main article.--Eloquence* 05:16, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * Let's keep the references to human rights abuses out of the intro. This can only be sufficiently contextualized in the main body of the text and relevant articles on Chilean history. 172 05:15, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I can live with the "many believe" approach regarding the CIA role (for the intro only). As for the human rights violations, I think they definitely belong into the intro. Again, the lead section should summarize key facts from the article proper, that is its purpose. We are not exceeding the length guidelines, so there is no need to be too brief.--Eloquence* 05:19, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, of course I'm not wholly thrilled with its current form, as I feel the flow is imperfect and that it gives too much prominence to the US. But if we can both live with it we should probably let it sit for now. :) -- VV 05:24, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Please see the poll results above. This issue was already settled. 172 05:19, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * The poll did not show a consensus but deep division. It does not trump straightforward neutrality considerations. -- VV 05:24, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * As I already said, we don't solve NPOV issues by majority vote. If we did, I'm sure all the criticisms of Mother Teresa would disappear from the article if we asked a large enough sample of people. The poll tells us how much we need to approach the minority position. We do not need to approach it to the extent that we remove the claim from the intro, or add extensive rebuttals, but I do not see the harm in adding a POV attribution to the most controversial statement - that the CIA directly supported the September 11, 1973 coup.--Eloquence* 05:27, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

New poll
Since there still doesn't seem to be any kind of consensus, I suggest starting a new poll on specifically which of the two versions of the intro should be used as a basis for further improvements. That's not very wiki-like, but it will help us come to an agreement. Any objections?--Eloquence* 12:49, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * I do think this is not very wiki-like. We should try to come up with a new introduction that everyone can agree on, rather than voting for a previous attempt. Still, I have no objection to the poll so long as it doesn't set the intro to the article in stone. Cadr


 * I don't see the point of having a new poll; it will simply turn into another ideological head count, and I for one would not accept any result that the article should push a controversial POV. The neutrality guidelines are clear on this point. 172's trolling (pushing controversial, inflammatory content) should be seen for what it is and not taken seriously. You (Eloquence) have already put much effort into trying to explain the rules to 172 above; I doubt it will bear much more fruit than my efforts, but it's all we can really do for this dispute. -- VV 21:47, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I have a strong feeling that the time lost in this kind of edit wars might be used for something else. I'm getting bored by some contributors behaviour, may I suggest them to fork. We will a A Leftist Encyclowiki and A Conservative Webopedia and work in peace on Wikipedia.
 * Ericd 22:05, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The immunity part is not completely correct. Congresspersons in Chile only enjoy a partial immunity, meaning that their prosecution must be authorized first by a higher court in order for a cause to continue. In the case of Pinochet, after he returned from Great Britain, he did lose his parlamentary protection by decision of a court. The prosecution did come to an end for medical reasons, not because of parliamentary immunity.--AstroNomer 05:08, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

Protection
I removed the protection from this page because the discussion on this talk page has not been active. --"D ICK " C HENEY 15:19, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Request to 172
Can you stop calling other contributions bullshit, please. It's not very helpful. Cadr


 * Getting 172 to be civil = getting pig to sing. -- VV 23:13, 3 May 2004 (UTC)


 * You can hardly talk, VV, given that you and 172 are involved in yet another childish revert war. Cadr


 * I have never been uncivil, and I'm not denying engaging in revert wars. I will do so with people like 172 who would otherwise stomp on anyone who doesn't. I do not consider it childish to defend the encyclopedia against personally abusive, anti-consensus, uncivil pushers of misinformation. -- VV 00:08, 4 May 2004 (UTC)


 * You've both been uncivil (calling each other's edits "trolling", for example). You're cleary both intelligent and articulate. Reverting each other's edits is not defending the encyclopedia, it's just defending your egos. I really can't believe we're having a third revert war. For God's sake both of you grow up and take it to the talk page (again). Cadr


 * Surely you've seen the weeks' worth of discussion, and how little fruit it's brought with 172, who dismisses all criticisms and says it's "too bad" if you don't like his version. I and several other users have worked out consensus versions of the intro, but 172 will only tolerate his own. I do consider this trolling; he is deliberately adding inflammatory misinformation over several users' wishes, knowing it will provoke a response; that is virtually the definition. -- VV 00:16, 4 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I am sympathetic, and I'm not saying that this situation is your fault. But the simple truth is that when we've got to the point where we've had three near-identical revert wars, it's clear that there's going to have to be more discussion. I agree your intro was based on a consensus, but it was by no means supported by everyone except 172. We could at least try to hash out something that everyone except 172 thought was acceptable, although obviously a true consensus would be preferable. A few more points...
 * 172 may or may not be trolling. Either way, saying that he is isn't going to help.
 * Your two intros are (if you stand back a bit) virtually identical. It's completely crazy that the difference between them could cause this much animosity. I'm not sure that anyone even disagrees on the basic facts (i.e. we all accept that there's no inconteastible proof of US support for Pinochet's actual coup, even though there definitely was support for a coup.)
 * Cadr

Page protected
VeryVerily and 172, I've protected the page and added a protection note after, since I kept getting edit conflicts. I don't even know which version I protected since the reversions were coming so quickly, so I hope no one accuses me of protecting The Wrong Version. I didn't even notice the edit war at first because I just happened to get the same editor and edit summary three times in a row. Please get some community input and figure this out as 30 reverts in 30 minutes is completely unacceptable. BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 00:30, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

Intro
My edit to the intro was only supposed to be temporary, in case anyone got the wrong idea. I just thought it might stop the edit wars long enough for a consensus to be reached on the talk page. The alternative was (apparently) for the page to be protected again. Cadr


 * I had, you'll note, accepted this stop-gap measure, but 172 continued to revert to his version anyway, in fact reverted once just to revert. Thus, alas, I concluded this idea was DOA. -- VV 23:09, 7 May 2004 (UTC)


 * And now we're back to that alternative again. It would be nice if there was some actual discussion on the talk page this time, so that unprotection doesn't simply lead to a resumption of the same revert war again. --Michael Snow 23:02, 7 May 2004 (UTC)


 * See how much discussion there's been? See what it's gotten us? -- VV 23:09, 7 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Let me assure you, whatever the discussion may or may not have "gotten us", the discussion is not causing the revert wars or the page protection. You and 172 are the ones responsible for that. Kindly start discussing the content of the article, both of you. I am very close to asking you to discuss your conduct before the arbitration committee. --Michael Snow 23:17, 7 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Surely you've noticed the asymmetry between our handling of the situation, impartial though you may wish to be? All partisans worked out an intro that was mutually tolerable. The reverting started when 172 refused to accept any other than his own. You must be aware by now of 172's tactics; recall this is someone who told you to "fuck off" not a few weeks ago. If I thought there was any credible Wikipedia apparatus for ending the madness on this page, I would take it. But I have tried them all - consensus building, third-party admins, RfC pages, quickpolls - without avail. (Okay, except mediation, which I have, as I promised, been reading up on, but remain doubtful of.) It seems when dealing with the likes of 172 one must use equal force if one's edits are to not be consigned to the dustbin of page history as soon as they are submitted. (I should also note I generally do back off a bit if even modest signs of possible good faith compromise appear, as I did earlier today on the Soviet history page.) -- VV 23:38, 7 May 2004 (UTC)


 * As I said, please discuss the content of the article. To the extent that I discuss how you two handle the situation, I will continue to remain impartial and apply my statements to both of you, because not all the evidence is present here. If you end up in arbitration, the evidence can be gathered and we can let the arbitration committee decide if one of you behaved less badly than the other. I don't care what 172 told me to do; that's no reason for me to treat him differently from you. --Michael Snow 23:51, 7 May 2004 (UTC)


 * It was evidence of the same sort of incivility we've all suffered. Impartiality is a tricky notion here, when it was "impartiality" in the form of consensus and POV-balancing that produced the consensus intro I now defend. (Can you be impartial between your notion of impartiality and mine? Okay, that was mostly a joke.) I am a bit at a loss as to what to say about the content that I and others have not said already, mostly unanswered. Indeed, if you'll note, the discussion above is lopsided in this respect. -- VV 23:57, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Protection
At last they protected the right version! --Cantus 23:32, 7 May 2004 (UTC)


 * No, articles are always protected on The Wrong Version, as a matter of policy. --Michael Snow 23:33, 7 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Ho-ho ;-) --Cantus 23:40, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Re: "As I said, please discuss the content of the article. To the extent that I discuss how you two handle the situation, I will continue to remain impartial and apply my statements to both of you, because not all the evidence is present here. If you end up in arbitration, the evidence can be gathered and we can let the arbitration committee decide if one of you behaved less badly than the other. I don't care what 172 told me to do; that's no reason for me to treat him differently from you." --Michael Snow 23:51, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

What's there to discuss? VeryVerily and I share absolutely no common ground, so I doubt that he'll ever be able to stop snipping at me. We simply hold fundamentally incompatible conceptions of NPOV. He demands that the text pay lip service to his narrow, knee jerk, rightwing Americentric worldview, irrespective of whether or not it bears any relationship with realit, whereas I could care less. This has been patently obvious on this page, where he has been demanding for months that the introduction not contextualize the 1973 coup, regardless of my attempts to enumerate a reality with which he is uncomfortable, and again regardless of my efforts to promote a footnote to check the possibilities of readers' misconstruing the scope of U.S. involvement. In contrast, my view of NPOV is more epistemological than emotional. I favor linking the actions and motives of historical actors to the social/economic/political context in which action occurred, and a narrative voice inclined to reserve moral judgments. Hence, in this particular context, I favor a concise and factual intro, consigning the partisan rhetoric to history, in other words to a matter of agency, which was bound together in struggle historically in which this ideological contention emerged. I am **not** concerned with the circular arguments of the people squabbling still over whether or not the '73 coup was justified, and whether or not Pinochet's a "good guy" or a "bad guy" in the context of the values of U.S. political culture. And BTW, notice that my intro skirts a number of can of worms usually opened up by leftwing users in order to take shots at the legitimacy of Pinochet's regime. The page history attests that I have also stood in the way of users attempting to cast him as mythical villain, who scrapped a 'democratically elected government' in favor of a 'brutal tyranny.' Instead, why not look at this coup, say, as a part of broader political pattern in South America in the 1960s and 1970s, which saw military takeovers reverse in Brazil (1964), Argentina (1966), Chile (1973), Uruguay (1973), and Argentina again in 1976 (civilian rule was restored in 1973)?

Maybe I'm being too pedantic for the purposes of Wikipedia, but I think that if users want to pit a mythical villain against a romanticized savior of Chile, they can wrangle over this in the legacy section. But why not stay straightforward and factual in the intro? Speaking for myself, when I'm referring to an encyclopedia, I'm looking for an informative, factual write-up, as opposed to seeking some reaffirmation of a mythology that I find reassuring. 172 01:55, 8 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I fail to see how your intro is any more "factual" than the current (protected) one. Calling other people's views "mythologies" is one particular point of view, it is not the truth. NPOV is the balance of different views, some of which may be mythological, some of which may be factual. NPOV is not a "middle ground", that is a common misconception (the middle ground is itself a POV which must be treated like any other), and it is also not the avoidance of controversy. As for the argument of conciseness, I have already addressed this. Lead section very much allows for an intro of the present length.
 * I'm not saying that NPOV is a "middle ground" - that would be even worse than what VeryVerily's promoting. I'm just stressing historical context and scholarly consensus, but perhaps I should just drop that. I guess that this comes with too many nuances to be promoted on Wiki, and it's way too easy to be read as a straw man. 172 03:30, 8 May 2004 (UTC)


 * That doesn't mean that we have to water down facts, and we don't. I would strongly object to a weasel statement like "Many people believe that the United States supported Pinochet", because this is a fact that is not seriously disputed by anyone.--Eloquence*
 * Um, read the second paragraph of VeryVerily's version. That's what you'll find. 172 02:46, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Erik, read this paragraph: He is widely considered a brutal military dictator responsible for severe human rights violations and social decay. The support by the United States for Pinochet's government has also been the target of substantial criticism, and many believe the CIA had a role in the 1973 coup. Pinochet's admirers regard him as a great modernizer who staved off communism and rescued the faltering economy (the "Miracle of Chile"). 172 02:48, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I'm more concerned with removing this drivel than making changes to his version of the first paragraph. 172 02:51, 8 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I wrote some of this "drivel". What part in particular do you consider "mythological"?--Eloquence* 03:15, May 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * You said you would strongly object to a weasel statement like "Many people believe that the United States supported Pinochet." Well, this paragraph states, "Many believe the CIA had a role in the 1973 coup." Where in my version do I use "many people believe" as a clutch? And why not deal with the "Miracle of Chile" and "severe human rights violations and social decay" stuff in the legacy section? 172 03:27, 8 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I am very well aware that the current version refers to the Sep. 11 1973 coup in this form. That was after all the compromise reached between me and VV. Unlike the example I cited, I do not believe this to be a weasel statement at all, as so far no evidence has been produced for a direct role in this specific event, and whether one concludes it from the surrounding evidence is mostly a matter of political association. However, I could agree to removing the ",..and many people believe" part of the sentence completely.--Eloquence* 03:42, May 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * You don't have to do that. My text deals with the U.S. role and has the footnote. What's wrong with that? 172 03:47, 8 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with your text per se (although I think that the sharply polarized opinion about Pinochet deserves some space); I merely tried to find a solution which would be more acceptable to VV without being non-factual. Perhaps VV can articulate his objections against the footnote solution again?--Eloquence* 05:30, May 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * VerilyVerily is irrelevant. And we are irrelevant too. The only thing that's relevant is what's best for the article. I'd be interested in knowing what you think. 172 12:36, 8 May 2004 (UTC)


 * There is little to say in response to 172. His charge that what I've written seeks to "pay lip service to his narrow, knee jerk, rightwing Americentric worldview" is too absurd to even comment on, as anyone who has read the intro can see. 172 believes that his view and his view alone is the only right one so there is simply no need to balance with other views, which is not the NPOV policy I know. Furthermore, he wants to erase the brief summary of Pinochet's legacy, but this is crucial information for someone who wants to learn about the person in question. What "many people believe" today about him is an important part of it. Worst here of course is his disrespect of consensus, the essence of Wiki; he has the last word on what the historical content and meaning of Pinochet is, and no dissent will be brooked. Here, he wants to flatly assert the unsubstantiated US-backed part, offering only a superscripted 1 to say what could be said with a few words in the intro, attached to a modifier which on its face pushes a POV, disclaimer or no. -- VV 21:35, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

I think the following need to be mentioned in the intro: These are, in my opinion, the things most remembered about Pinochet. An intro that satisfies these criteria is fine with me. Beyond that, I am willing to make compromises to keep the peace on the article if they do not hurt its factuality.--Eloquence* 20:54, May 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * overthrow of Allende
 * United States support for Pinochet
 * human rights violations
 * "Miracle of Chile"


 * That is not how intros are written. Intros are written by 172 deciding what it should say and any other views are "bullshit". As he eloquently states, "If that makes you uncomfortable, you'll probably have to bear it." -- VV 21:35, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with Eloquence's suggestions for what should be in the intro, and I don't think VV's intro was anywhere near as POV as 172 made out. Doesn't look like we're going to get much sensible discussion on this, though. Perhaps a very short intro like the one I introduced temporarily would at least be able to gain a consensus, even if everyone agreed it wasn't as informative as it should be. Until VV and 172 kiss and make up I'm not sure I can see an alternative. (And yes VV, I agree it can be difficult to have a discussion with 172 without being flamed.) Cadr


 * Incidentally, I forgot to mention that I'm happy (as I indicated before by not reverting) to accept your super-short intro as a stop-gap measure until 172 stops trolling we figure something out. -- VV 01:25, 10 May 2004 (UTC)


 * FWIW (and if you'll forgive me belaboring the point, what we think is apparently not worth anything), sarcasm aside, Eloquence's list is fine. I still think US support is a bit off the path - it's not mentioned in the intro to, say, Israel - but it's okay as long as the intro does not also say Pinochet is pure evil and the text provides for understanding the US's policy choices in context (Eloquence sees no/little moral grey here, of course, but others do). The US-coup allegation remains a sticky point, and none of my tries (e.g., "support for Pinochet's government" w/o specifics) for anything short of what's there now seemed to gain consensus acceptance. -- VV 12:34, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Wow, it's nice reading something by VV that isn't an attack on me for a change. Anyway, while I agree with everything in the above paragraph, I'd like to add that I don't see a "sticky point" in my intro, which doesn't misconstrue the scope of U.S. involvement in the coup ('backing' does not mean 'orchestrated' or 'deciding factor'), and even includes a footnote to check the possibilities of confusion. 172 01:18, 10 May 2004 (UTC)


 * BTW, if VV wants the U.S.'s 'policy choices in context,' let's drop the debate about the 'morality' entirely (let's agree to agree that the U.S. role was 'moral' to Pinochet but immoral to Allende...). Instead, we can add to the footnote about the authoritarian swing in South America in the 1960s and 1970s, and the context of both heightened political instability in South America and the growing significance of Latin America as an arena of Cold War conflict. 172 01:33, 10 May 2004 (UTC)


 * In a footnote? -- VV 01:42, 10 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, the not worth anything was an "attack" (in your parlance) on you. But anyway your version has only one of Eloquence's four points, unless you count your false/deceptive "US-backed" (you're not fooling me one bit on that) as making up point 2. -- VV 01:23, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
 * And just how is adding "U.S.-backed "false/deceptive?" 172 01:33, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Refer to the thousands of words above. I'm not playing your games. -- VV 01:42, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Okay, I reread your comments. So I'm abusive, trolling, pushing leftwing mythology, taking a unilateral stance, a poor writer, beholden to the far-left view, anti-consensus, and an uncivil pusher of misinformation; I only tolerate my own version, and deliberately add inflammatory misinformation over several users' wishes. Now that we've established this, how is my version of the intro "false/deceptive," considering the addition of the footnote, the definition of "backing," and the history? 172 01:57, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm waiting. 172 03:52, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Don't wait too long. People have lives ;-) --Cantus 04:01, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
 * A particularly comical example of this is in Talk:Origins of the American Civil War/Archive 1 under the rule under section 6, where 172 declared "proof" that I was "trolling" because I did not respond to his comment within thirty-one minutes! Anyway, 172 is playing dumb here; if he really had reread the comments, he would have seen the extensive discussion on this point, the most reason one involving him, Cadr, and me. But what trolls do is post inflammatory content to provoke more and more responses. That's why he wants me to keep repeating myself. -- VV 11:29, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

I think US-backed is a bit misleading, 172. It does imply (to me at least) that the particular coup which actually happened was materially supported by the US. This may well have been the case, but we can't be sure. Cadr


 * Of course it implies this. 172 knows this perfectly well. He just wants us to say it again and again in multiple forums (we even had this discussion in Requests for protection). -- VV 11:35, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Please explain how MSN Encarta is false/deceptive as well. In the intro for their Pinochet article, they add, "Pinochet was one of the leaders of a United States-backed military coup d'état that deposed the Marxist government of Allende in 1973." If anything, their writers must be far worse "pushers of inflammatory misinformation" than I am. They don't even bother to add a footnote in order to ensure that readers are not thinking "orchestrated" when they see "backed." 172 21:11, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not Encarta. Cadr
 * Quite right. Encarta does not have an NPOV policy. -- VV 06:18, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, but for the sake of argument, I'm saying that if one applied Wikipedia's governing policies to this Encarta entry, this intro would fit well in the context of Wikipedia as well. So far, I've only been told why a misinterpretation of my intro also ignoring the footnote might be problematic. 172 22:06, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
 * The footnote isn't even needed. "U.S.-backed" is perfectly correct and indisputable. It is amazing how VV calls this misinformation when Colin Powell himself said that "what happened with Mr. Allende" (what does that mean if not the coup in which he died?) "is not a part of American history that we're proud of" (what does that mean if not that it was backed by the U.S.?). VV is obviously trying to censor any facts that might reflect negatively on the U.S., but facts are facts. --Wik 22:15, May 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * What Powell said is extremely open to interpretation, and I hardly think what he says is NPOV. I understand that what 172 means by "US-backed" is uncontroversial, but it's a sad truth that words don't always mean quite what people want them to. We're not lying. To a lot of people, "US-backed" strongly implies "US-aided/organized", and that's the only reason I want it changed (because there is no conclusive evidence that the US aided/organized a coup specifically with the intention of bringing Pinochet to power). I don't think anyone disagrees about the facts, it's just an issue of presentation. Cadr
 * This is Wik's old argument all over which he somehow thinks settles the issue. What Powell said is of course open to interpretation, but more to the point he is no position to say anything authoritatively. He was not involved in the coup and his opinion matters about as much as mine does. -- VV 06:18, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Re the footnote, I just think it's silly, sorry. There's plenty of room in the intro for a proper explanation, and a footnote rather implies that the intended meaning of "US-backed" is some minor side-issue. Judging by the debate that's been going on for God-knows-how-long, I think we can all agree that's not the case. Cadr
 * Yes, the footnote is silly. But it's even sillier to insist that factual content be kept out of the article because someone states that hypothetically someone else could be under the wrong impression that a single word means something that it does not. So, in order to compromise with Veriverily's extremely silly stance, I am offering a somewhat less silly footnote. 172 00:16, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
 * My point is that your interpretation of "US-backed" is not the only sensible interpretation. It is not that it might hypothetically be misinterpreted by some deliberately contrary fool; it is actually unclear what it means. To me, the word "US-backed" implies quite strongly "US-organized". We should either drop the issue of US support from the intro altogether, or have a full explanation. Cadr
 * Well, my "interpretation" is the only one that fits the dictionary definition(s). Yes, 'U.S. backing' and 'U.S. planning' are not mutually exclusive, but you still cannot infer things that are not within the confines of the definition(s) of "backing," which **does not** in and of itself imply anything else without further information. 172 01:56, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
 * It's more of this "dictionary definition" crap. No one needs a dictionary. This is a common English word and I am a native English speaker and US-backed means a hell of a lot, especially when it's one of only a few things put in an intro paragraph. -- VV 06:18, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
 * You can go ahead and disregard the meaning of words, and base everything on the whim of emotional reactions to the fantasy world in which you live, in which misinformation is facts and facts are misinformation. That doesn't matter to me, as I consider you irrelevant. I will continue to write articles for English Wikipedia in English and add factual content. 172 07:58, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
 * The word "US-backed" is not in the dictionary. I am a native English speaker, so is VV; our opinions of what it means matter. You are not an authority on the English language (and neither is anyone else either). If we say it means X to us (and probably a lot of other people), then we are just telling the truth, we're not ignoring the facts. Cadr
 * You should also bear in mind the semantics/pragmatics distinction. Dictionaries aren't much use to us here: we're talking about what the word implies, not its dictionary defintion. Cadr
 * Language is a tricky matter. But facts and the meaning of words are all we have to go on here, so I'll continue to hold that a factual summation of history takes precedence over Veriverily's feelings and chauvinist U.S. nationalist jingoism. BTW Cadr, can you think of a word that's less commonly 'misunderstood' than "backing" to go in its place? 172 09:06, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * You seem to be missing my point. Your summation of history is not factual because "US-backed" does not convey your intended meaning to a lot of people (including myself). This has nothing to do with "chauvinist U.S. nationalist jingoism" &mdash; I'm as left-wing as they come. Re your question, I wouldn't use a single word, I'd have an expanded intro something along the lines of VV's. Cadr
 * I wasn't asking for your political affliations, but rather if you can think of a better word from your vantage point to replace 'backing.' 172 15:17, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * As I said in my previous response: "I wouldn't use a single word, I'd have an expanded intro something along the lines of VV's." And if you aren't interested in people's political affiliations, why are you making wild assumptions about what they are and inluding them in your posts? Cadr
 * Re: "As I said in my previous response: 'I wouldn't use a single word, I'd have an expanded intro something along the lines of VV's.'" Does or doesn't the footnote I am offering suffently contextualize the intro? If not, then explain why. Re: "And if you aren't interested in people's political affiliations, why are you making wild assumptions about what they are and inluding them in your posts?" Where did I bring up assumptions about your 'political affiliations?' My comments did not pertain to you, and I do not wish to discuss this with you. 172 17:14, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * The footnote, as I've said before, is silly &mdash; we should just have a full explanation in the intro or drop the matter entirely. You didn't bring up my political affiliations, you brought up VV's (I said "people's poltical affiliations", not "my political affiliations"). In any case, since you attributed VV's views to his (supposed) political tendencies, and I agreed with VV in many respects, and you were replying to one of my posts, it was sort of implied...Cadr
 * BTW, you still have not presented any evidence as to your claim that users will see "U.S.-backed" but think "U.S.-installed." The word backing refers to support, assistance, or encouragement (against a contending force). On that note, would you feel better with the synonymous "U.S.-supported" instead? 172 17:23, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * The adjective "X-backed" is extemely vague. In the context, with no supplementary information, it appears to many people (for example to me and VV) that the intro is suggesting the US supported Pinochet directly. "US-supported" is worse than "US-backed", it seems to imply that the US organized the coup to some degree (which as I've said before, may well have been the case, but there is not any very strong evidence for it). Cadr
 * No, the intro is saying that the U.S. backed the coup. You could claim that you think that it is suggesting anything, and thus you have reason to make any ridiculous demand you want. These misunderstandings are much more "silly" than the footnote. 172 23:29, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * The adjective "X-backed" is extremely vague; its meaning varies greatly with context. Let's take a look at the pragmatics of "US-backed coup" in your intro to the article. It's a short intro, so the reader will naturally assume that only important information is in it. Now, if "US-backed" is being used in the limited sense of "desired" or "sought-for", the fact that the coup was "US-backed" in this sense would not be particularly remarkable &mdash; the US was bound to prefer one or other of the governments, and unless they provided some kind of material support to the coup, it's not overwhelmingly interesting who their preferred ruler of Chile was. So the reader might well conclude that "US-backed" was being used to mean "materially supported by the US", or something like that. Given that there is not any conclusive evidence that the US materially supported the coup, only that they desired and fermented a coup, the intro is a little misleading. I find your statement that "You could claim that you think that it is suggesting anything, and thus you have reason to make any ridiculous demand you want." rather rude. If you refuse to believe anything I say, I don't see how we can have a grown-up discussion. The word "US-backed" gives a misleading impression to me and several others, honestly. The footnote clears up the ambiguity, but its silly to cause unnecessary confusion and then clear it up with a footnote &mdash; why not just extend the intro to avoid confusion in the first place? (Note: this does not mean adopting VV's intro as it stands, since it has little more of a consensus that yours or mine.) Cadr
 * Well, if cognitive dissonance is causing you not to understand things you read, that's none of my business. After all, I'm a historian, not a psychologist. I offered you a footnote (which Encarta doesn't even bother with) - take it or leave it. 172 00:06, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * There you go, being needlessly rude again. Look, this is Linguistics 101. Words can have (very) different meanings depending on their context. Not everyone will interpret a sentence you wrote the way you intended. This does not mean that they have cognitive dissidence (I think you mean "dissonance", btw) or that they are living in a world of make-believe. Personally, I think the problem is that nature of US support for the coup is too complex to be summarised accurately by a single adjective. As I said, if you refuse to believe that I am not a retard, and that I am not being deliberately difficult in my reading of your intro, we can't have a sensible dicussion. Maybe if you'd explain what was incorrect or misguided in my previous post, we could. "Take it or leave it" is precisely the un-Wikilike attitude which has lead to this page being repeatedly protected. Cadr
 * I was typing too fast for my own good, being rushed for a meeting. That's what I meant. Anyway, we're not just dealing with any context, but the context of what the word means in this intro (which I'm sure everyone has read many times over and in the context of the footnote). I can't help it if people can't read, but the intro in question does not state that the U.S. provided backing to Pinochet, that the U.S. was in control of the situation, that the U.S. role was the deciding factor, and that the U.S. initiated the coup. You are being deliberately difficult in your reading of the intro; you'd be able to use the same argument to raise objections about anything posted in any intro. 172 02:54, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * The intro implies quite strongly all the things you claim it doesn't "state", as I have explained in enormous detail (and I was talking about what "US-backed" means in the context of the intro, as I made painfully clear). Still your only reply is to deny outright my opinion of what the intro means (I can't read apparently &mdash; this is news to me and several other people), and to make out that I'm using some sort of bizarre semantic argument (i.e. reading a sentence in context) to arrive at "deliberately difficult" readings of your intro. You refuse to believe a word I say or (apparently) read a word of my postings; you refuse to countenance any opinion or interpretation of your precious intro other than your own. Why are you being so rude? This isn't a personal attack on you, I just want to change the intro a bit. Why can't you accept that there are some problems with your intro? Cadr
 * I disagree that it implies at all any of the things I claim it doesn't "state," as I have explained in enormous detail (and I was talking about what "US-backed" means in the context of the intro, as I made painfully clear). And yes, once again, you really are being deliberately difficult in your reading of the intro. 172 14:31, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
 * You haven't responded to any of my points, so I don't have much to say. I know you disagree that it implies those things, but as I've said over and over again, the same sentence can imply different things to different people. Your opinion isn't the only one that matters. If anyone is being deliberately difficult, it's you. Cadr
 * Of course it can imply different things to different people. So can any sentence in an intro. I'm only saying that it isn't too ambiguous for an intro sentence. 172 16:19, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, and you're wrong, in the case of this particular sentence. I've explained in detail why I think you're wrong, but you haven't responded to most of my points. Saying your intro isn't too ambiguous don't make it so. Cadr