Talk:Salvador Allende/Archive 11

NPOV/OR concerns
I have concerns about the new section "Political Violence During Allende's Presidency". While some of it appears to be reliable and sourced, the images have no source on them, and the article's wording has a decidedly anti-Allende POV to it.- Running On  Brains  19:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, the images do have sources, but I have no idea if they are reliable or not. The graphs do not seem to be of the quality of an official publication, but that's not the point. Not knowing any Spanish, can someone tell me if these came from a published and/or peer-reviewed source?- Running  On  Brains  19:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The data comes from a book published on 2003 by a chilean university with the help of a chilean private foundation.Agrofelipe (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)'

Yes this section is blatantly POV.

Look at the following:

The Human Rights Dialogue Panel, an initiative of the Socialist government of Ricardo Lagos, was composed by people from the military, by human right lawyers, academics and religious leaders. It concluded that:

“Chile suffered, from the decade of the sixties, a spiral of political violence, that the players at that time provoked or were unable to avoid. It was particularly serious that some of them would promote the use of violence as method of political action. This grave social and political conflict culminated with the events of September 11, 1973, on which Chileans maintain, legitimately, different opinions.”

And followed by the POV statement that The declaration made by this panel shades light on the responsibility that governments previous to Pinochet had in the violations of human rights in Chile.

This is NOT the main point of the round table discussions on human rights and the transitional process in Chile What actually the document talks about, are the shared responsibilities of all parties before, during and after the coup of 1973. It also examines in good depth the topic of human right abuses during the military government.

He’s a summary from the source itself.

'''The core of the article discusses the goals and methodology of the round table discussions, the main issues debated and the content of the final agreement. The latter involve a proposal for mechanisms to find out the truth about the fate of the "disappeared" prisoners and an acknowledgment of responsibilities for both the political crisis that preceded the coup d'état of 1973 and the human rights abuses committed during the military government. The article ends by examining the steps that followed the agreement and it offers some thoughts about possible future scenarios.''' Likeminas (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I should also point out that Youtube and Wikipedia itself cannot be used as reliable sources as someone tried to do for citations 50 and 51. citations 52 leads no where so it cannot be verified.

Anyway, this whole section is just a mess. It's loaded with POV edits, unreliable sources and it would be better suited for the article Criticisms of Salvador Allende Likeminas (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

About the Round Table: What I posted is translated word by word from the document, there is nothing untrue about it. You may prefer to focus you attention on other parts of the document, but that is your personal preference.

As for the human rights violation under Allende please take a look at the section on the breakdown of constitutional order in Chile. That declaration states very clearly that constitutional rights were violated, including the right to property, to education, eto freedom of speech, all who are human rights too.

Alejandro.rogers (talk) 05:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)arogersb


 * I didn’t say the translation was untrue, but it definitely gives undue weight to only one side of the story when the round table actually focused proportionally more in the events and human rights violations committed after Pinochet took over.


 * In any case, LyD (the source you cite) is well known in Chile for a being a right-wing hardline institution, despite their self-declaration of being non-partisan. So I would take anything they publish with a grain of salt.


 * Now If you’re cite anything from the round table, why not do it directly from the source ?
 * It would be advisable also to post the page number to the declaration where it states very clearly the human rights you mention were violated.
 * I did try to look for them in the original document, and although, a mention is given under Reconocimiento de responsabilidades on page 10, I could not find what you’re talking about (right to property, to education, to freedom of speech). Perhaps, you could clarify that point.


 * Also, please indicate the page number of the graph, so that we can verify its authenticity.
 * Likeminas (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a note I forgot to put in my edit summary: I deleted the reference to Castro's rifle, as 1) it adds little to the article 2) the source, a non-peer-reviewed thesis, is not necessarily reliable 3) the source itself admits there is little evidence of this. - Running On  Brains  19:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Death of Allende
The claim that Allende commited suicide has no backing except from testimony from his personal doctor (Who obviously was forced to make such a statement by Pinochet) and "Official Records" from Pinochet's government.

But wouldn't Pinochet want to make Allende look bad? It is easy to fabricate a fake suicide.

Allende's last speech implies that Allende died fighting.

Aprill809 19:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It all boils down to the sources. Do you have a realiable one to back up that statement?
 * Likeminas (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you have ONE reliable source to back up the statement that he commited suicide? (No "Government Releases" or documents or papers citing the above mentioned banned sources alllowed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by April809 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Even Allende`s family admits that he committed suicide.Agrofelipe (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC) Or So They say ... But it does not make it true.

Aprill809</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></P> 21:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe a few years ago the cuban government in an attempt to wash Allende`s image started to spread the version about him dying fighting the chilean army (even exploiding a few tanks with a bazooka), however that version got obviously discredited pretty fast. I would be surprised if you can find some serious source that claims Allende was killed. Agrofelipe (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Exploding you mean?

Well here is the Pro Died Fighting links:

<li>

</li><li>http://www.telegraphindia.com/1050912/asp/opinion/story_5222012.asp</li>

<li> http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/42a/130.html</li>

<li>A</li>

I don't get it, those sources only say "he died fighting"..... nothing more. I hoped for the testimony of a witness.

Besides that half of those sources have a very strong leftist vision, making other historical inaccuracies which I wont analyze here. Agrofelipe (talk) 23:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And your sources have a strong - pro dictator Pinochet stance. Well, I think it's useless to argue over a disputed matter ...


 * But that article needs to become less of a POV'd article.


 * <P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: #ffffff; color: #000000"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="background: #000000"><FONT COLOR="#ffffff">April</FONT>l<SPAN STYLE="background: #ffffff">809</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></P> 17:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by April809 (talk • contribs)

I don't think that the KGB declassified intelligence documents or the Declaration of the Chamber of Deputies of 1973 have anything to do with Pinochet...... as a matter of fact I don't think I ever used the word "Pinochet" on any of my contributions. Agrofelipe (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Allende: Greatest Chilean
Agrofelipe: It seems to me, you're editing this article just to push you clear bias against Allende. Today in the morning you were deleting unsourced material (despite being other statements with older tags) and now you are adding your own opinions to the article. The source you're adding says nothing about the contest being bias. That's your statement. In fact it says: Luego del fraude por internet que buscaba posicionar a Arturo Prat como el candidato más votado del programa "Grandes Chilenos de la Historia Likeminas (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I will rewrite it, however can you honestly tell me that several votes a day for a candidate, votes coming from a person living in any country in the world, is a legitimate form of choosing "the greatest chilean"? Agrofelipe (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What I think about the legitimacy of the poll is rather irrelevant, since my opinions on the subject cannot be used to back up any support or criticism of it.
 * I must say, however, that your last revision looks much better.
 * Likeminas (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, if no one minds, I will move that piece of information into a new section called Allende in popular culture as it doesn't seem so relevant to be placed in the lead of the article. Likeminas (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed change
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Allende#Death

I propose editing it to sound more neutral: "President Allende's death is shrouded in mystery, but what is a fact is that he died Sptember 11 , 1973 in the Presidental Palace in Chile. Many theories exist and the most widely accepted theory is that Allende commited suicide."

<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: #ffffff; color: #000000"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="background: #000000"><FONT COLOR="#ffffff">April</FONT>l<SPAN STYLE="background: #ffffff">809</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></P> 23:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What is neutral about a lie? Should we cave in with the truth just because some fringe elements insist on spreading false statements? There's the theory that the moon landing was filmed in Holywood and never happened at all... but that "fact" is never mentioned in the page about the event. If anybody takes the time of looking through the article on Allende's death, they'll find at least 5 SOURCED witnesses. The Allende family agrees with the witnesses, the official page of the Presidency list his death as suicide. There's virtually no serious student of the period who will dispute the facts about his suicide. What else do we need in order to take a stand about these people who definitely are acting with a political agenda rather than searching for facts? A signed statement by Allende himself? That would be kind of difficult to obtain... --Mel Romero (talk) 23:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the debate (and it was a debate for a long time) has been resolved in favor of Allende taking his own life at the end. It's fine if someone wants to mention that it was a controversy for a while, but this point shouldn't be given undue weight. Still, I think most impartial observers would acknowledge that this wasn't some simple "suicide." The Presidential Palace was being attacked with artillery, and the building was on fire. He had refused to surrender peacefully and the Army had made it clear that it was going to assassinate him. After the "grandes alemedas" speech, historians and his family agree that he took his own life.Notmyrealname 03:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That's an uphill battle. And that is, because most sources tend to corroborate the version of the suicide. And if most sources say so, then, the article should reflect it proportionally.
 * Unless you have any serious and reliable research done on the matter, I see no room for minority viewpoints.
 * Likeminas (talk) 13:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Mel, you were not there that day , and it appears what you do know comes from books. Please Mel , try to be as NPOV as     possible. My grandfather was there , and was marked by the police as a leftist. He was there in 1973 , you probably were not. ::According to my grandfather , Allende was killed in battle.

<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: #ffffff; color: #000000"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="background: #000000"><FONT COLOR="#ffffff">April</FONT>l<SPAN STYLE="background: #ffffff">809</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></P> 19:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Did Allende publicly condemn the Soviet invasion of Hungary and Czechoslovakia?
Is this true? I was intrigued by this statement in the article so I look for it at the reference provided but I couldn't find a quote by Allende on that regard. Agrofelipe (talk) 02:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Citations cleanup required
I am revieing these references and they require some cleanup.

1.? ^ [1] BBC: Profile of Salvador Allende
 * ? I don't delete but the links are not good and should be reviewed by someone else
 * ✅ ok, don't see any problems
 * Needs deletion, its a no-no
 * ✅2. ^ [2] Church Report: Covert Action in Chile 1963-1973
 * ✅3. ^ Kornbluh, Peter (2006-12-12). "PINOCHET: A Declassified Documentary Obit". gwu.edu. Retrieved on 2007-01-06.
 * ?4. ^ Biography of Allende from his official website.  - Not much info, seems bare.

When I have more, time I will finish the list. <P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: #ffffff; color: #000000"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="background: #000000"><FONT COLOR="#ffffff">April <SPAN STYLE="background: #ffffff">809</SPAN></SPAN></P> 17:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

New references
I am starting a subpage where the proposed new refernces are.

Feel free to contribute, critisize or otherwise add to it.

User:April809/Allende

<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: #ffffff; color: #000000"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="background: #000000"><FONT COLOR="#ffffff">April</FONT>l<SPAN STYLE="background: #ffffff">809</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></P> 18:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Evidence against suicide theory
1. The "witness" said he could see, but was not in earshot when Allende shoot himself.

Yet how could he see and not hear the gunshot?

2. Photo shows a pistol, not an automatic rifle.

Yet the "witness" said it was an automatic rifle. 3. Allende's speech implied that he would die fighting.

4. Pinochet controlled the press.

So if there was any proof of dying fighting, it was censored out.

5. The doctor gave his verdict under Pinochet's regime.

So if he said something such as he died fighting, it was changed.

<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: #ffffff; color: #000000"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="background: #000000"><FONT COLOR="#ffffff">April</FONT>l<SPAN STYLE="background: #ffffff">809</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></P> 19:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting that your taking the time to evaluate the accuracy of the sources, yet, you're putting foward a theory that presents none. Likeminas (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I always destroy some theory before I take the time to build one. Remind me to get a seat buckle for my dinosaur.

<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: #ffffff; color: #000000"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="background: #000000"><FONT COLOR="#ffffff">April</FONT>l<SPAN STYLE="background: #ffffff">809</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></P> 20:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Inroduction to Salvador Allende's page
In reference to the reverts of editor Likeminas. The standard introduction in encyclopaedias and wikipedia for presidents is opened with: …served as president…etc. His career as physician is secondary to his main role as a world renowned president. That he was a Chilean politicians is in essence redundant given that he was a president. It is very disrespecting of Allende to begin his biography with “he was a physician and a Chilean politician” and then to make a statement about the nature of his death in the introduction. Especially Allende’s death which is very controversial and a favourite point of “mockery” of his political opponents who believe Allende’s death was not the outcome of the military coup but an act of his own volition. Moshe-paz (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a better place for dicussing your changes. So allow me to weight in my opinion and explain why I reverted your last edit.


 * First off..The lead (intro) unambiguously says that he was the president of Chile.


 * Salvador Isabelino Allende Gossens IPA: [salβaðor aʝεnde 'gosens] (June 26, 1908 – September 11, 1973) was a physician and Chilean politician, usually reckoned as Latin America's first democratically-elected Marxist president
 * See? It’s right there on the first sentence.
 * And to be perfectly honest, I don’t see how naming his professions (Physician and Politician) can be considered disrespectful. It’s not fiction or some sort of gossip. They’re hard-cold facts.
 * Now, regarding his death. I see another guy (April08) making up fringe theories about it. Nonetheless, as far as sources go (and that's all we should care about), they all seem to corroborate the suicide version. So, until a reliable source is presented to refute them or at least cast doubt on them, I see no room for conspiracy theories.
 * Likeminas (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh your statements make me mad! I ought to sue you but since your a wikipedian, I suppose I will not. And as far as sources go , they seem to not confirm solidly the suicide theory. I have some words of advice :  Grow up , Go to Chile , Study , Watch.


 * My dear Likeminas, I have proved that the  suicide story is wrong.


 * <P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: #ffffff; color: #000000"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="background: #000000"><FONT COLOR="#ffffff">April</FONT>l<SPAN STYLE="background: #ffffff">809</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></P> 19:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by April809 (talk • contribs)


 * Thanks for the advice April809, but I don't need to go to Chile. I live in Chile. ; )
 * Likeminas (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for blowing up earlier. In reply to your message I say : "Save flight costs, huh?"


 * <P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: #ffffff; color: #000000"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="background: #000000"><FONT COLOR="#ffffff">April</FONT>l<SPAN STYLE="background: #ffffff">809</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></P> 20:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by April809 (talk • contribs)

Suggested introduction to Salvador Allende's page
Salvador Isabelino Allende Gossens[1]  (26 June 1908 – 11 September. 1973) served as the President of Chile from November 4, 1970 until the U.S. backed[2] September 11, 1973 coup d'etat that ended his democratically elected Popular Unity government. He was a physician and the first democratically elected Marxist socialist to become president of a state in the Americas[3].

Allende's involvement in Chilean political life spanned a period of nearly forty years. As a member of the Socialist Party, he was a senator, deputy and cabinet minister. He unsuccessfully ran for the presidency in the 1952, 1958, and 1964 elections, but was elected in 1970. ......etc.

This should be the first sentence as I placed it some time ago. First that he was president (with dates) then the nature of the end of his presidency - that should be the first sentence. With an official formal source documenting the US backing of the military coup that ended his government. The current first sentence of the introduction favored by Likeminas is:


 * “was a physician and Chilean politician, usually reckoned (?) as Latin America's first democratically-elected Marxist president”

This sounds like something uttered in a bar after a couple of beers. It’s not a good starting point to a biographical article about president Salvador Allende.

This Salvador Allende page is constantly being vandalized in a very subtle manner from the introduction, to the insertion of irrelevant material placed out of context within the body of the article. Even the official presidential photography of Allende seems to have been deleted from wikimedia commons. Moshe-paz (talk) 16:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Moshe, you got me! I did have a few beer before writing that passage, although, it wasn't precisely at a bar. ;)
 * Jokes aside. There's not a considerable huge difference between both versions. And I think we can definitely work something out.
 * Let's see what other people think about them, and then take it from there.
 * Likeminas (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with talk. Let's stick with the basic standard for presidents.Notmyrealname (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As a courtesy to others you could’ve at least wait for more editors to give in their opinion before changing the lead.
 * Just a thought.
 * Likeminas (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There wasn't much of a policy issue here. The edits weren't an improvement. Not every edit has to be the subject of a debate.Notmyrealname (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you take a second look at this talk page you'll see that there was a discussion under Alleged soviet involvement. above.
 * While I agree that particular section is loaded with POV edits, and the graph might need to be removed because it cannot be verified, it would be perhaps advisable to explain in the talk page why you're doing so. This, although not a policy issue as you said, helps to prevent edit wars and the continuous vandalization of the article.
 * Likeminas (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This didn't really deal with that debate. This article is a mess and the talk page has become unwieldy. My edits weren't vandalism (not that you were suggesting that they were), and you can't endlessly debate every comma on the talk page before making changes (well, you could, but then nothing would get done).Notmyrealname (talk) 16:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Salvador Allende was an eugenist?
I read in some sites that Salvador Allende was an eugenist, a follower of eugenics.At least he gave support to eugenic sterilization;at least this was writen on that site.After all, Salvador Allende was an eugenist?Agre22 (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)agre22

Proposal
Shall we:

(A) Replace the Disputed Content Tag with a logo

(B) Add the logo

(C) Do nothing

(D)Remove tag

April809   Compression09King 18:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Looks like Moshe-Paz is in favor of (D). Now it is time to counter the removal of tag with (A). Or perhaps (C). Compression09King-Extreme Wikipedian (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * To your comment:
 * You had a bright idea, but perhaps it would be better to discuss your change in the talk page. Yes , I agree that visually it was overkill , but some things need to be talked over.
 * I didn't introduce a change, I reverted a change (the insertion of a new tag) that was proposed but not discussed with other editors. You propose a change and discuss it, then on the basis of that discussion the change may be introduced. You don't propose a change, introduce it and then claim someone is changing and not discussing. In what way does this new tag improve the page? Moshe-paz (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)