|
[[image:Koresh.jpg|right|framed|David Koresh]]
[[/Archive1|Archive 1]] | [[/Archive 2|Archive 2]] | [[/Archive 3|Archive 3]] | [[/Archive 4|Archive 4]]
'''David Koresh''', born '''Vernon Wayne Howell''' ([[August 17]], [[1959]] - [[April 19]], [[1993]]) was a self-proclaimed head of the [[Branch Davidians]] from [[1988]] until a raid by the [[Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms]] (now [[BATFE]]) and subsequent [[siege]] by the [[Federal Bureau of Investigation]] ended with the burning of Branch Davidian ranch, the Mount Carmel Center.
==Early life==
== POV edits I've been reverting and why ==
Vernon Wayne Howell was born on [[August 17]], [[1959]] in [[Houston]], [[Texas]] to a 15-year old single mother. He never knew his father and was raised by his grandparents. Koresh described his early childhood as lonely, saying that the other kids teased him and called him "Vernie". As a young boy, he was abused by his stepfather. A poor student because of [[dyslexia]], Vernon dropped out of [[high school]]. By 18, he was working as a [[carpenter]].
When he was 20, Howell joined his mother's church, the [[Seventh-day Adventist Church]]. He fell in love with a 15-year-old girl, who became [[pregnant]], but marriage was forbidden by the girl's father and church elders. Vernon began to challenge the elders on many points of scripture and was expelled for being a bad influence on young people.
* I've slightly reworked the reason the House of Lords used to extradite him. It previously said he could be extradited to Spain only to face charges of crimes committed after the UK signed the Torture Convention in 1988, which is false. The House of Lords decision was that he could only face charges for crimes after the UK incorporated the Torture Convention (which it had signed years before 1988) into UK law via the 1988 Criminal Justice Act. I have amended it accordingly.
Shortly thereafter, he went to [[Hollywood]] hoping to become a [[rock and roll]] guitarist; however, nothing came of this. In [[1981]] he moved to [[Waco, Texas]] where he joined the Branch Davidians, a religious sect which had split from the Seventh-day Adventists. They had established their headquarters at a ranch about 10 miles out of Waco, which they called the Mount Carmel Center (after the Biblical [[Mount Carmel|Mount Carmel, Israel]]), in [[1955]].
* removing Marxist and replacing with Socialist: this is a POV omission, it might be most informative to say ''Marxist [[Socialist Party of Chile]]'' or some such.
* adding "dubious" to "a dubious [[referendum]]" is completely true, but POV, find another way to phrase it such as mentioning a first or third-party's assessment of the referendum.
* removing "but five of his military bodyguards were killed." is unnecessary and definitely POV.
==Ascent to leadership of the Branch Davidians==
I don't disagree fundamentally with these edits, but you have to find a better NPOV way.
Howell allegedly had an affair with [[Lois Roden]], the alleged prophetess and leader of the sect who was then in her late sixties. This included a trip the two took to [[Israel]]. In [[1983]], Roden allowed Howell to begin teaching his own message which caused controversy in the group. When Roden died in [[1986]], a power struggle ensued between Howell and Roden's son, George, with the majority of the group uniting behind George Roden, who forced Howell and his group off the property.
Late in [[1987]], Howell returned to Mount Carmel in camouflage, with seven of his male followers, armed with five .223 caliber semiautomatic assault rifles, two .22 caliber rifles, two 12-gauge shotguns and nearly 400 rounds of ammunition. In the ensuing gunfight, George Roden was wounded in the chest and hands, and took cover behind a tree. As a result of the incident, Howell and his followers were charged with attempted murder. At the trial, Howell testified that he went to Mount Carmel to uncover evidence of corpse abuse by George Roden. Howell testified further that they had come armed because George Roden had expelled him from Mount Carmel at gunpoint, and claimed that his shots had been aimed at a tree. Howell's followers were acquitted, and in Howell's case a mistrial was declared. Roden was later committed to a mental institution in an unrelated murder conviction, leaving Howell free to assume leadership of the Branch Davidians at Mount Carmel.
[[User:Daniel Quinlan|Daniel Quinlan]] 23:29, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
In [[1990]] Vernon Howell legally changed his name to David Koresh. In the documentation involved, Howell stated that the change was for "publicity and business purposes." The switch arose from his belief that he was now head of the biblical house of [[David]], from which Judeo-Christian tradition maintains the Messiah will come. The name ''Koresh'' is a transliteration of the Hebrew name of [[Cyrus II of Persia|Cyrus]] the [[Iran|Persian king]] who allowed the Jews who had been [[diaspora|dispersed]] throughout [[Babylonia]] by [[Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon|Nebuchadnezzar]] to return to their homelands. Both David and Cyrus (Koresh) are referred to as Messiah (lit. anointed one) in the Hebrew Bible (David on several occasions, Cyrus in Isaiah 45:1), thus the names Vernon Howell chose evidenced his belief that he was the Messiah, a belief that stemmed from a vision he claimed to have received from God in [[1985]] during his trip to Israel.
: Cantus, please justify the continual POV attempts you are making to this article. It's not like the article portrays him as a nice man, I don't see the need to keep trying to tweak it with your POV. [[User:Daniel Quinlan|Daniel Quinlan]] 04:57, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Koresh openly advocated [[polygamy]] for himself and select others in the group, and asserted himself married to several female residents of the small community, and there were allegations of [[child abuse]] occurring at Mount Carmel.
::As a specific example, Cantus gives this edit summary: ''("In 1980 a new constitution was approved in a highly irregular and undemocratic plebiscite" -- From The US Library of Congress' Country Studies: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/cltoc.html)''. I don't find that precise quotation on the website (I followed the link for "The 1980 Constitution"). Even if it's on there somewhere, though, simply asserting this view without attribution (except in the edit summary) is POV. What I do find on the site is a somewhat cursory discussion of the 1980 referendum, stating, for example, "Because there were no safeguards for the opposition or for the balloting, most analysts expressed doubts about the government's percentage and assumed that the constitution may have won by a lesser margin."
Some former members of the cult accused (and still accuse) Koresh of declaring they owed him 140 wives, and felt he could claim any of the females in the compound as his. Evidently he fathered at least a dozen children by the harem. Some of these mothers were as young as 12 and 13 years old.
::I suggest this approach: In the passage here at issue, in the lead section, we refer only to a "controversial" plebiscite or some such. More elaboration could come at the point in the article where 1980 falls chronologically. Either at the end of "Suppression of opposition" or at the beginning of "End of the Pinochet regime", there could be a paraphrase or direct quotation from the Library of Congress site, with a proper attribution. We might well be able to find a notable spokesperson (opposition leader, international human rights activist, or some such) to go beyond the cautious wording that there "may" have been "a lesser margin" and who would instead come right out and say that the election was stolen. It would be misleading to refer to a 1980 plebiscite while remaining silent about the objections to it, but the current version is too dogmatic. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 07:09, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Including one by Kiri Jewell.
::Comment on latest edits: As indicated above, I don't agree with the wording inserted by Cantus. I do agree with his latest edit summary, however, in which he says that the criticisms of the 1980 referendum aren't made clear in the text absent what he inserted. My take on it is that Daniel Quinlan's edit suppresses the criticism completely, while Cantus's states one opinion as a fact. Does anyone want to take time out from reverting to comment on the approach I suggested above? [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 03:02, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/waco/renoopeningst.html]
==The raid & siege==
::: The phrase is under Chapter 4 - Government and Politics, Constitutional History, Imposition of Authoritarian Rule. Your suggestion to put ''controversial'' first, and say why later in the article makes sense, however that can only be implemented when there is a ''1980 Constitution'' section in the article, which is not the case as of now. —[[User:Cantus|Cantus]]…[[User talk:Cantus|<big><big>'''☎'''</big></big>]] 05:31, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
''For a more complete description of the circumstances surrounding the raid on and siege of Mount Carmel see the [[Branch Davidian]] article. This article is concerned solely with the last days and demise of Koresh.''
::::Thanks for the more precise reference. I don't think the 1980 plebiscite needs a separate section. It was an instance of "Suppression of opposition" so it could be discussed in that section. It could also be considered the beginning of the process by which democracy was eventually restored so it could be part of "End of the Pinochet regime". I wouldn't object to a separate section about 1980, but I think it would be disproportionately small. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 07:30, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
On Sunday morning, [[February 28]], [[1993]], the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) raided Mount Carmel. The raid resulted in the deaths of 4 agents and 5 Davidians. Shortly after the initial raid, the [[FBI]] took command of the scene and contact was established with Koresh inside the compound. Communication over the next 51 days included telephone contacts with various FBI negotiators.
== Let's be grown ups ==
As the standoff continued, Koresh, seriously injured by a gunshot to his side, and his closest male leaders negotiated delays, possibly so he could write religious documents he said he needed to complete before he surrendered. His conversations, dense with biblical imagery, alienated the federal negotiators who treated the situation as a hostage crisis, despite a two hour video tape sent out by the Davidians with some of the children, in which the adults and older children/teens appeared to explain clearly and confidently why they chose of their own free will to remain with David.
Okay, I have adopted the compromise suggested above and I even allowed the "violent" adjective (which I think is a POV addition because tell me about a coup that is not violent), but I seriously object to my compromise edits being reverted as "vandalism". That is serious abuse on the part of [[User:Cantus|Cantus]]. I have tried to compromise, I have discussed by changes and objections, and I am not blindly reverting, I am working my edits towards some middle ground. Please do the same. If you disagree, call for a vote on one of my last set of changes and see how you fare. Actually, I'll call for a vote right now to see if we cann putput an end to this. [[User:Daniel Quinlan|Daniel Quinlan]] 09:43, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
The 51-day siege of Mount Carmel ended when U.S Attorney General [[Janet Reno]] approved recommendations of veteran FBI officials to proceed with a final assault in which the Branch Davidians were to be removed from their compound by force. In the course of the assault, the compound caught fire. The cause of the fire was later determined by The Danforth Report, which was commissioned by The Special Counsel, to be the deliberate actions of some of the Davidians inside the compound. However this theory is disputed both by independent media and others.
=== Vote: "violent coup" ===
Barricaded into their building, 85 Branch Davidians, including Koresh, were either unable or unwilling to escape the blaze and died. Seventeen of these victims were children under the age of 12.
* '''violent coup'''
** I have bigger issues with the edits, although I think ''violent'' is redundant POV, clearly only inserted for POV reasons. [[User:Daniel Quinlan|Daniel Quinlan]] 09:43, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
** The [[English Restoration]] and the [[Glorious Revolution]] are two good examples of non-violent coups, as was the [[Velvet revolution]]. Coups are not always called coups. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 13:25, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
**Agree with Tony above. (Wow, is that a first?) —[[User:Cantus|Cantus]]…[[User talk:Cantus|<big><big>'''☎'''</big></big>]] 00:13, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
* '''coup'''
==References==
=== Vote: Allende: Marxist or Socialist ===
*[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/waco/davidkoresh.html Biography: David Koresh] from [http://www.pbs.org/ PBS]
*[http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/religion/cult/david-koresh/ David Koresh] from [http://www.rotten.com/ rotten.com]
* '''Marxist'''
** Reading biographies of Allende, he is clearly best described as a Marxist or a Communist. To be sure, he was anti-Russian domination, but he was no Socialist. [[User:Daniel Quinlan|Daniel Quinlan]] 09:43, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
** The distinction is really non-existent. Allende was a marxist in that he was a progressive who implemented land reform and partial nationalization with the purpose of empowering the workers, the producers of his country. This also fits the modern definition of a socialist. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 13:25, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* '''Socialist'''
**I tend to agree with what JTD says below, and I'd also like to point out that while Marxists may be socialists by definition, not all socialists are Marxists. What Marx offered was first and foremost a technique for analyzing contemporary society, less so a concrete program for social change. I don't associate Allende with dogmatic assertions of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and that kind of thing. -- [[User:Viajero|Viajero]] 17:47, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
**Don't know about your language usage, guys, but this is my understanding of the ''words' '' meaning applied on my knowledge of Pinochet. The idea that one can be a Marxist without being a Socialist, when expressed without qualifications, is totally alien to me. /[[User:Tuomas|Tuomas]] 09:42, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
**I think Socialist doesn't have the negative connotations that Marxist has. [[User:Samboy|Samboy]] 14:47, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* '''Marxist''' ''and'' '''Socialist'''
**This is my attempted compromise version. —[[User:Cantus|Cantus]]…[[User talk:Cantus|<big><big>'''☎'''</big></big>]] 00:13, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
** I agree. The standard way in many works for describing someone who different groups attach different terms to, is to say, applying the same standard here, "variously described as a Marxist or a Socialist". The problem, a little over a decade after the fall of communism, is that words like ''marxist'' carry implicit negative meanings. Unless the word is strictly defined in a totally neutral, objective manner it carries baggage that may distort his political viewpoint or push the agenda of the writer of the article. BTW, Daniel, a ''marxist'' and a ''communist'' are different terms, like say ''Catholic'', ''Anglo-Catholic'' and ''Roman Catholic'', ''Anglican'' and ''High Church Anglican'' and ''Low Church Anglican''. In all of these, like marxism and communism, there is a degree of overlap, but they are not identical. [[User:Jtdirl|''Fear'''ÉIREANN''''']] 01:10, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
**: I realize that. I wasn't proposing that we call him a communist. I think Marxist is the most accurate term or I wouldn't be proposing it. [[User:Daniel Quinlan|Daniel Quinlan]] 07:24, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
** He was both! He belonged to the Socialist Party of Chile, but the party in his time defined itself as Marxist-leninist, and was partidary of revolucionary violence. In the UP coalition, it was even to the left of the Comunist Party of Chile. So, if you just say "socialist", it may be mistaken by the tame Socialists of today. --[[User:AstroNomer|AstroNomer]] 11:08, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
**:Well, I guess it all depends on your perspective. Allende's nephew, Andrés Pascal Allende, who was a leading figure in the avowedly Leninist ''Movimiento de Izquierda Revolucionaria'' (MIR), criticized his uncle's government as "timid and reformist".
==External links==
=== Vote: Referendum quote ===
*[http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/not_guilty/koresh/1.html Crime Library Article Focusing On Raid & Siege.]
*[http://www.rickross.com/groups/waco.html Rick Ross Institute Collection Of Articles]
* '''Reference inline'''
** I think this works best. [[User:Daniel Quinlan|Daniel Quinlan]] 09:43, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
* '''Reference via footnote'''
**This is the standard way to quote sources in scholarly articles. There are even special tags on wiki to use when quoting sources, which I did not use this time. (See [[2004 Indian Ocean earthquake]].) —[[User:Cantus|Cantus]]…[[User talk:Cantus|<big><big>'''☎'''</big></big>]] 00:13, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
** I think footnotes should be used rather than in-line references where possible. That is the standard academic and encyclopaedic notation. [[User:Jtdirl|''Fear'''ÉIREANN''''']] 01:15, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
**Inline external references are considered undesirable (see: [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)]]). Ideally, we should be using the citation guidelines and templates described on [[Wikipedia:Cite sources]]. -- [[User:Viajero|Viajero]] 11:29, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* [http://start.at/mtcarmel Official Branch Davidian Web Site]
Thank you for voting. [[User:Daniel Quinlan|Daniel Quinlan]]
* [http://www.hardylaw.net/waco.html David Hardy's Waco/FOIA Research]
==Capitalisation==
From [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style]]:
::Philosophies, doctrines, and systems of economic thought do not begin with a capital letter, unless the name is derived from a proper noun: lowercase republican refers to a system of political thought; uppercase Republican refers to a specific Republican Party.
Thus: Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, Luddism; but capitalism, neoliberalism, fascism. "Socialist" appears with a cap in the article, because Allende was a member of a specific Socialist Party (and perhaps that word should link to the [[Chilean Socialist Party]], if we have such an article, and not to "socialism" in general). It's not an expression of bias, and writing Neoliberal with a capital letter Just Looks Unprofessional. Leaving the other disputes to one side, can we at least follow these grammatical rules? [[User:Hajor|–''Hajor'']] 01:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[[Category:1959 births|Koresh, David]]
== relationship between Allende and Pinochet ==
[[Category:1994 deaths|Koresh, David]]
[[Category:Houstonians|Koresh, David]]
[[category:Charismatic religious leaders|Koresh, David]]
[[es:David Koresh]]
Can the article shed some light on this relationship? I am just curious, because was Pinochet pretending to be Allende's loyal counterpart, and acting all along to become head of the Army, or was he once genuinely a friend, was it a betrayal, change of mind? What exactly happened to the relationship between the appointment in August and the coup in September, I'm just curious and thought the article should shed some light on this. -- [[User:Natalinasmpf|Natalinasmpf]] 21:19, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[[no:David Koresh]]
:From what I understand, Pinochet was an anti-Communist who was concerned over the unrest occurring in the country during the UP's tenure. Chilean military officials have said that he didn't ''plan'' the coup, but that when it came, he essentially decided to go along with it.
[[sv:David Koresh]]
:I seriously doubt they were friends. Allende was extremely concerned about a coup long before it occurred, and asked Prats for reassurance that Pinochet would stay loyal. [[User:Trey Stone|J. Parker Stone]] 08:04, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
== What the hell ==
happened to the [[Marxism]] article? [[User:Trey Stone|J. Parker Stone]] 07:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
== not true numbers ==
"As a result, approximately 3,000 Chileans were executed or disappeared, more than 27,000[2] were imprisoned or tortured, and many were exiled and received abroad as political refugees."
The numbers that say the highest amount never go over 2500 people dead or disappeared, including the people who died during Allende's government, and including people who died on combat (i.e. terrorists who attacked chilean soldiers. As a result of these battles lots of terrorists AND soldiers died). Soldiers are also counted on these figures. A better approach would be "about 1500 people", and I still think that it's just too high. There are lots of people known to be living outside of Chile that are also added to this numbers.
:The [[Rettig Commission]] verifies about 2000 dead and 1000 disappeared. The issue of whether these people were dissidents or "subversives" as the junta called them is addressed in the article. [[User:Trey Stone|J. Parker Stone]] 04:15, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
I checked the inform and you are right here.
But checking the inform allows me to say that the "brutal repression against leftist parties" is not true. Here I go with the dead numbers divided on political parties (I'll put political party names in spanish... "-" means leftist and "+" means right. (some parties ahve changed from side, I'll put - or + according to those times).
P. Socialista -: 405
M.I.R.* -:384
P. Comunista -:353
M.A.P.U.* -:24
Frente Patriótico Manuel Rodriguez* -:19
P. Radical (centre):15
D. Cristiana +:7
I. Cristiana -:5
P. Nacional +:4
Other political parties:15
NO POLITICAL PARTY:1048
This information was extracted from the Rettig inform. Using this I demand that the part of "brutal repression against left-pary members..." (something like that) is removed and never again written.
x* means that they are not political parties. Those are terrorists (because they where fighting (with violence) against the government) groups.
== At least this is being disputted ==
"(...)allowed Pinochet to implement profound neoliberal economic reforms while at the same time committing gross human rights violations both at home and abroad."
This says that Augusto Pinochet ordered those "gross human rights violations". This is being discussed, and no one has ever proved anything against General Pinochet. This MUST be edited, at least until Pinochet is sown guilty on a trial.
Information must always be neutral. Some sources can't be used for obvious reasons, specially the Valech inform (if you said that you where tortured, then you obtained money... This is true and if you don't believe me, just do a search. President Lagos said that people who where abused would receive money for themselves. The problem is that the people who checked each inform had only 1 minute per person (considering that they worked 12 hours a day)... not a reputable source). The CIA inform shouldn't be used either. The CIA has obvious reasons to be against Pinochet.
:...the money is compensation for trauma caused by the torture. And 7000 claims were rejected based on believed shaky evidence/false allegations. [[User:Trey Stone|J. Parker Stone]] 04:52, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
Again: 1. This inform was never made to become a reliable information source (President Lagos (socialist) and bishop Valech already said that).
2. Investigators took less than 3 minutes per claim to check them, and that time is true only if it's correct to say that they worked 12 hours a day including weekends and that every time they went out to investigate different places thay stayed working even more time that day, until they completed 12 hours.
3. There are lots of people that showed lots of evidence and where not believed, while others just said that they where tortured and they got their money.
4. You can't make a reliable inform if you offer money for the rest of your life for everyone who says something credible.
The only (somewhat) reliable information source about deaths and abuses is the rettig inform, and even that inform is not good for this article, because officers and terrorists who died on action are also counted.
== And this is NOT being disputed ==
"(about allende's death)(...)The exact circumstances of his death are being disputed"
There's NO ONE who still says that Allende was murdered or killed on combat. Even Allende's family agrees that he killed himself.
Where's the damn evidence?
I'll say a book first and then some webpages. I've selected webpages that say that Allende's government was something excellent and other things. You can search for reputable sources for yourself (I wouldn't use the rest of these pages as a source, as they are obviously biased in favor of Allende) (everything is in spanish... I think that I may find some chilean sites that are written in english):
Book:
"Páginas en blanco. El 11 de septiembre en La Moneda"
Webpages:
http://www.puntofinal.cl/010915/nactxt.html (they are deffending Allende's legacy saying that suiciding isn't bad at all)
http://www.puntofinal.cl/010302/esptxt.html (interview to Luis Fernández Oña, husband of Allende's daughter, saying why did Fidel Castro didn't say anything about the suicide, but then he adds that accordingly to what Allende thought, he had to kill himself before leaving the power to his enemies).
Then you have Isabel Allende Bussi (relative to Allende (how do you call your sister's daughter? nephew?)), who said for El Mercurio (biggest and most reliable newspaper in Chile)on august 17, 2003 that she was convinced about Allende's suicide.
Also note that Allende's body was unburied a few years ago (2000-2002... I can't remember the year right now) and that the official version was only confirmed with new tests that where made to the body.
-------
Isabel Allende Bussi, ´diputada'and former President of the Deputies Chamber, is Salvador Allende's daughter. The Isabel Allende you mean is the world-famous writer (cousin of each other).
[[User:Baloo rch|Baloo rch]] 22:47, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
**** The article says Isabel Allende Bussi (I copy/pasted the name). I confused the names of each other. Either way, it's his daughter who agrees that he killed himself.
== Trey Stone ==
You changed most of the things I added (I don't have a Wiki name yet, so for now I'm my ip address... something like 200.90... call me Matias).
We all agree that information on wikipedia must be NEUTRAL AND TRUE. I edited this page because there is information that is not true (Pinochet started a terror campaign??? Come on... This has never been proved. The CIA has some reports about Pinochet's government but the CIA has obvious reasons to hate Pinochet (and even if you based this information on what the CIA has said, this would be an extremely biased article...)). There are trials against Pinochet, but none of them has stated that Pinochet tried to kill everyone that didn't think what he thought, and that makes a huge difference. First because although Pinochet had a lot of power some of his officers abused from their power commiting different kinds of abuses. There's no trial that has said that Pinochet is guilty from any of these crimes. I can backup what I'm saying on different sources (even from some people who declare themselves against Pinochet). I wonder... what are your sources?. I'll wait for an answer until tomorrow or I'll just change everything back.
Also note that the comunist party in Chile hates Pinochet because he destroyed their dreams of taking over the power in Chile (I know that this isn't something that should be added to the article). It's strange that some of this party members when they are outside of Chile say strange things such as "Pinochet ordered his soldiers to kill Allende", but when they are back on Chile, everibody agrees that Allende killed himself...
Second: total of people who died during Pinochet's government is about 2100, including soldiers who fought for Pinochet and terrorists (terrorist means someone who fights (using violence) against the government) who died while fighting. Why do you keep on moving those numbers up? You had no problems on writting that there is people who say that Allende was murdered (at least, nobody has said it on Chile for more than 5 years... including the comunist and socialist party-members), something that's not true, but when you have the information (you can check the Rettig inform), you change it. You are making a biased article.
I don't know if you are a communist, but when you write on wikipedia you must stay neutral.
== Correcting ==
Ok. As no one answered to my claims i understand that everybody agrees. I don't want to write everything again because I know that there's a way to revert changes... I just deleted most of the things that are untrue or that where posted as true while they are still under discussion on several trials. I left a message on the article because I would need to rewrite a complete section (that section may be discussed, but I already posted information that shows that Pinochet's regime wasn't trying to destroy left party members). (unsigned comment from 81.178.64.2)
:Hello Matias, I reverted your edit because you removed several facts and quotes which are sourced, without providing sources of your own. I'm not trying to prevent you from changing the article, but I don't think that removing sentences like "Some supporters still insist <nowiki>[Allende]</nowiki> was killed by Pinochet's military forces" does anything to make Wikipedia more neutral and true. If you have references to your assertion that Pinochet's forces did not arrest hundreds of members of the left-wing opposition and kill many of them, please post them. I do not think the fact that Pinochet has been cleared of his accused crimes by the same Supreme Court he appointed is reason enough to remove the accusations entirely. Of course it should be mentioned that he has never been found guilty. [[User:Rebrane|Eliot]] 15:10, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:: Hello Eliot. I agree with you about the sources. I'm not very used to wikipedia, but I posted my sources here on the discussion page. I knew that this article needed to be edited (it has to be rewritten in some places) but I did it once I it was reverted. Leaving this article as it was or as it is destroys Pinochet's honor and is against the NPOV (that's what you use for neutrality, don't you?). I posted above about suppression of opposition, and just by posting information of the rettig inform it's obvious that his government wasn't trying to destroy the oppossition (even if those deaths where Pinochet's fault, something that hasn't been proved either). I agree that his trials should be posted, but you can't say that he's guilty for now.
::About Allende's death, I also posted above my source: an interview to Allende's daughter (c'mon... her word is enough... maybe you should add that for Allende killing himself wasn't something bad but something brave).
::BTW... Would you tell me where can I revert changes? (unsigned comment from 200.90.206.33)
:::Hi Matias. I'm glad you've decided to contribute to Wikipedia, but I think your contributions will be better received if you read the [[WP:NPOV|NPOV]] article and the [[WP:RULES|policies]], and create an account.
:::I think you have some misunderstandings about NPOV. For instance, you removed the phrase "However, some supporters still insist that he was killed by Pinochet's military forces while defending the palace." I don't see any justification for removing this, as it is true that some supporters claim this. Removing it in support of "Pinochet's honor" is very un-NPOV.
:::You may view older revisions of the article via the 'Page history' link. [[User:Rebrane|Eliot]] 21:58, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::: Thanks for the information. I will surely read the NPOV and the policies. Maybe I will understand better the idea of wikipedia (it's still difficult for me to think about this encyclopedia... It's missing many things). About Allende's death, his own family (inside or outside of Chile) agrees that he killed himself. I don't know what the point is about keeping that. Just because a few guys think something you'll put it on an article? maybe it should be posted at the very end, but I don't think that it's good for Allende's memory to say that he was murdered. I don't agree with his vission of the world, but he thought that killing himself was something good.
:::: About Pinochet's honor, I referred to the part of suppression of opposition. I posted above here on the discussion page death tolls according to the Rettig inform. You can check it for yourself. Look at those numbers and please answer: Can you state that Pinochet wanted to suppress opposition? The comunist party at that time had some 1500 people and the socialist party had some 5000-7000 people (not sure about those numbers). The CUT (central unitaria de trabajadores - not a political party but definately oposition) had about 1 million of people (that number is tricky though, because workers where forced to join). At least the suppression of oposition should be posted as "some people say that Pinochet tried to eliminate oposition...". (Even though it's (very) probably untrue that Pinochet gave an order to kill someone). I agree to continue disscusing this. What do you think about adding a disscusion tag to the article?
:::: Just wanted to say good bye. I'm leaving the Wikipedia project (I give up. Some articles are just way to biased, and what's worst, saying anything against what most people whant to think means a npov message). Eliot: I left some data here (some posts above, specially the one with the death toll). I'm not working here anymore. I hope that what you write about Pinochet is the truth and not what most would like to read (this encyclopedia is converting on a CNN info source...).
::::: Matias, I have no interest in doing your editing for you. You say you have the facts right here. Nobody is stopping you from putting them in. You have no one to blame but yourself if you see problems in the article. [[User:Rebrane|Eliot]] 15:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
== NPOV dispute ==
I have tagged the neutrality as disputed for the simple reason that the article at present makes no mention whatsoever of the United States role in the 1973 coup and its support for Pinochet's government. Given that it previously did so, I have no doubt that this is the result of edit warring and POV pushing over the past months. This information is now spread in sub-sub-articles and meta-articles such as [[U.S. intervention in Chile]] and [[Chilean coup of 1973#U.S. role in 1973 coup]]. This includes the massive economic sanctions against Chile before Pinochet, combined with the massive military aid ("U.S. military aid was raised dramatically between the coming to power of Allende in 1970, when it amounted to USD $800,000 annually, to $10.9 million in 1972"), and the admission by Kissinger that the USG had "created the conditions as great as possible" for a coup. It also includes at least a brief summary of the previous CIA and USG support for a coup in Chile. The nature of the USG relationship with Pinochet's government should also be discussed.--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]][[User:Eloquence/CP|*]] June 29, 2005 13:40 (UTC)
: This article is primarily about Pinochet, not about Chile's relationship with the US. [[User:TDC|TDC]] June 29, 2005 13:56 (UTC)
:: Pinochet was the military leader of Chile, and as such, key government relationships which he pursued or which were related to his rise to power have a place in his biography. In summarized form, sure, but omitting them entirely reveals bias, hence the NPOV tag.--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]][[User:Eloquence/CP|*]] June 29, 2005 14:22 (UTC)
::: There was a similar issue with the [[Fidel Castro]] article, and the bulk of the information was redirected to the article on Cuba’s foreign relations. I would assume that this would be appropriate in this case as well. [[User:TDC|TDC]] June 29, 2005 19:21 (UTC)
: I would propose the following summary of the pre-coup relationship:
: "Before Pinochet seized power, the U.S. government under [[Richard Nixon]] had established a strong CIA presence in Chile and had made several attempts to instigate a military coup against Allende ([[Project FUBELT]]). In addition, the U.S. had imposed economic sanctions on Chile, while increasing military aid from $800,000 anually in 1970 to $10.9 million by 1972. This combined strategy, as Nixon's advisor [[Henry Kissinger]] acknowledged privately days after Pinochet seized power, had "created the conditions as great as possible" for a military coup. While Nixon's government strongly supported Pinochet, there is no evidence that U.S. intelligence was directly involved in the preparations or execution of the September 11, 1973 coup."
: I think briefly outlining that the U.S. government pursued a combined strategy of military aid, economic sanctions and direct support for potential coup leaders is important. Pinochet certainly benefited from this strategy. Therefore, a neutral biography that describes his rise to power should include it.--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]][[User:Eloquence/CP|*]] June 29, 2005 18:58 (UTC)
| 