From: "libertarian" libertarian@myway.com On the coup that overthrew Allende, it ***was backed by United States***, but there are several reasons that Americans refuse to have that information out there.
...
Wiki admins can still redeem themselves and prove that they are not White Supremacists. All they have to do is allow the point about USA backing the coup against Allende to be put up along with other facts.
Since I happen to be a U. S. citizen who believes that the USA almost certainly did back the coup against Allende, and since I have been utterly uninvolved in any articles about that subject, I decided to see whether there really is a problem with Wikipedia's coverage of the topic. I typed in "Allende," it redirected to "Salvador Allende," and under "The coup" I read:
"In the aftermath of the coup, many Allende supporters began to allege that the president's overthrow had been the result of an US-orchestrated scheme. The CIA denies having actively supported the coup and claims that it was merely informed of it. Classified documents indicate that the CIA was at least supportive of a coup to overthrow Allende, though not necessarily in favour of bringing Pinochet himself to power."
The section on "Legacy and Debate" links to "Chilean coup of 1973." That article contains a seven-paragraph-long section entitled "US role in 1973 coup." It notes that "the CIA actively supported the military junta after the overthrow of Allende." It says the CIA "contends it 'played no direct role in' the coup," where the word "contends" distances the article from the CIA's denial. It quotes Colin Powell as saying "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" and says that "Chilean newspapers hailed the news as the first time the U.S. government had conceded a role in the affair." It does says "claims of [the CIA]'s direct involvement in the actual coup are not supported by documentary evidence" but immediately qualifies this with the phrase "although many documents still remain classified."
It seems to me to be a very well-supported, well-written section.
Libertarian, why do you suggest that the admins are "not allowing the point" to be made? It seems to me that the point _is_ being made. Do you insist on some particular phraseology?
-- Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith@verizon.net alternate: dpbsmith@alum.mit.edu
--- "Daniel P.B.Smith" dpbsmith@verizon.net schrieb:
Since I happen to be a U. S. citizen who believes that the USA almost certainly did back the coup against Allende, and since I have been utterly uninvolved in any articles about that subject, I decided to see whether there really is a problem with Wikipedia's coverage of the topic. I typed in "Allende," it redirected to "Salvador Allende," and under "The coup" I read:
(a rather good sumary)
It's one of the interesting aspects of Wikipedia that conflicts on wordings often are focused to one or a few articles at a time. One must guess that in the long run the articles on [[Augusto Pinochet]] and [[1973 Chilean Coup]] would be put in harmony with the article on [[Salvador Allende]]; but the fierce reversion wars (and actually also fierce debate at [[Talk:Augusto Pinochet]], which is a good sign after all) makes me wonder whether the article on Salvador Allende is next in turn to be "sanitized".
Libertarian, why do you suggest that the admins are "not allowing the point" to be made? It seems to me that the point_is_ being made.
I think administrators' role is exaggerated by Libertarian. But we have to be aware of Wikipedia's inherent US-centricism, and how this may be a serious disadvantage for Wikipedia's credibility outside of the Anglo-Saxon world.
/M.L.
Bestellen Sie Y! DSL und erhalten Sie die AVM "FritzBox SL" für 0. Sie sparen 119 und bekommen 2 Monate Grundgebührbefreiung. http://de.adsl.yahoo.com