Talk:1973 Chilean coup d'état

An event mentioned in this article is a September 11 selected anniversary.

---

This article could also be entitled Views of the Chilean coup of 1973. This might be necessary if the facts regarding the events can't be described here... --Uncle Ed 12:55, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

It also might be a good idea to "merge" this talk page with talk:Augusto Pinochet, at least until that page gets unlocked. --Uncle Ed 14:08, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Cantus, you wrote:

The neutrality of this article is disputed.

Please discuss the flaws you see in this article, such as biased wording or leaving out significant facts or views. If you prefer, we can combine this talk page with talk:Augusto Pinochet. --Uncle Ed 17:45, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Ed, thanks for creating the article. I'm against combining the Talk. A major aspect of the dispute over the Pinochet article is how much elaboration about the coup, particularly about U.S. role, is appropriate for the introductory summary of a Pinochet article. There are different considerations for this article. JamesMLane 01:32, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

The main problem with this article is that it so totally misrepresents the POV of the Allende supports and the opponents of the coup; it is embarrassingly reductionistic, almost cartoonish. Ed, with all due respect, why don't you simply abandon trying to present both sides of the story in such situations and limit yourself to just articulating the pro-US, conservative Republican, anti-Communist POV that is your own? Your efforts to speak for the other side(s) simply don't work.

Also, at this point, I don't know why we need this dubious material in a separate article. -- Viajero 18:53, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

As it stands now, the article is of course just a beginning. It doesn't adequately present either side's position. There's a great deal more to be put in. For example, I don't think Ed intended that the finished article would ignore all the information about the CIA's role that's come from the documents declassified in recent years. As for having a separate article, the material has logical relevance to the articles on Augusto Pinochet (where related issues are being wrangled over), Salvador Allende and history of Chile. It makes much more sense to assemble all the information in one place and then link it from those articles, instead of having three different versions of the same facts. (For that matter, the finished article should include Kissinger's lying Congressional testimony to the effect that the U.S. had no advance knowledge of the coup, juxtaposed with the CIA's subsequent admission to the contrary. Then there should be a link here from Henry Kissinger.) JamesMLane 21:34, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Viajero, I had no idea my pro-US, anti-Communist conservativism was so obvious in what I wrote in Chilean coup of 1973. I honestly thought I was representing each side fairly, but if you say it looks cartoonish and embarassingly reductionistic, then much work remains. I hope you and Cantus will both explain in detail what's wrong with this new "coup" article, and help James and me fix it.

James, I simply ran out of time last week. I was painfully conscious of leaving out the CIA stuff. I think we should add that next. The issue of America's role in the 1973 Chile coup is so big and important that it really deserves an article of its own; it shouldn't just be in the Augusto Pinochet article. --Uncle Ed 13:59, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ed Poor, you might be aware that accusations of being "pro-US" and "right-wing" are a dime a dozen around here and are often shot at anyone who tries to write something truly balanced. The article needs work, but the use of derision such as cartoonish is troubling. VV 18:34, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

All the discussion about the election of Allende is nonsense. He was elected according to the Constitution of 1925. He didn't have mayority, so the Congress had to decide, and they did. End of the matter. No serious person denies the validity of his election. If his actions illegitimized him or not later is really the dispute --AstroNomer 18:29, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

Astronomer, I disagree. The results of 1970 election are a key question to understand part of the inestabilty and political violence of Chile during the seventies. The results showed the country splited in 3, 3 different and totally against each other projects. The UP had to negociate with the Christian Democrats (DC)the election of Allende (with the DC votes Allende came to the Presidency) and the break of the agreement signed by UP with the DC made the last to join the opposition and initially supported the coup d'état. It's important to emphazise in the idea of the political biased and violent Chile of the 1970's as one the main easons of the coup (US intervented but it wasn't the main factor). --Baloo rch 21:15, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree completely with you, the facts about the election must be put forward, but to say that Allende was not elected but appointed but congress as a way of denying his initial legitimacy as president is nonsense. It might be argued (and I actually think, as a matter of fact), that he lost that legitimacy when he started violating the constitution, but that happened during his presidency.--AstroNomer 21:28, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Allende got more votes than any of his opponents, which is more than can be said for SOME leaders who claim to have been democratically elected. I don't think there's any basis for questioning the legitimacy of his assumption of power. Coming in with only 36% support, however, certainly meant that he was starting off from a weaker position than many elected governments, and is worth mentioning. It would also be worthwhile if people with more knowledge of the Chilean constitution could elaborate on the 1970 mechanism. For example, in the U.S., if no candidate has an Electoral College majority, the President is chosen by the House. Was a similar rule in effect in Chile? or did Congress step in to resolve a situation that wasn't addressed in the constitution? JamesMLane 03:21, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The mechanism was perfectly clearly written in the constitution. The Congress convenes to take knowledge of the results: if there is a mayority winner, that's the president, if not, Congress votes to decide between the two most voted candidates. The constitution gave a detailed account of the quorum needed, what to do in case of a tie, etc. Congress didn't have to improvise anything. The only thing that was talked and negociated was if the precedent that Congress always elected the most voted candidate would be followed this time. Congress could have voted for the second candidate, Allessandri, a former president himself, a there was effort invested by many sectors that wanted that to be the case. --AstroNomer 06:53, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)

The legitimacy issue

Let me sum up what I'm hearing from everybody. Er, no, let me first thank you all for meeting me here in talk! We haven't had a single reversion war or nasty remark thrown amongst each other since starting this article. So we are probably on the right track.

Okay, the big issue is not:

• how Allende came to power; but,
• what Allende did after coming to power

I guess we say that Allende came to power through the democratic process, and is accordance with the Chilean constitution. He got a plurality of the vote, so he could not automatically or immediately become president. That is, he was not directly elected by the people; he was not elected by a majority vote.

However, this has nothing to do with the legitimacy of his coming to power; it only affects the perception of his having a "mandate" from the people. As Astronomer reminds us, there was indeed a provision in the constitution that the legislature was to vote between the two candidates getting the most votes. That would be Allende, who got 36% of the vote against Allesandri's 34% and Tomic's 27%. The two top candidates got 70% of the vote between them.

What did the legislature do next? Did it "affirm" the 36-34 split as a "victory"? Does this mean that Congress elected him rather than the people elected him? Or, does it not really matter that much?

It does not matter at all. Similar situations are not unusual in presidential systems, and recent examples from the US would come to mind. /Tuomas 14:27, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Here's one angle that explains why how he became president matters. Opponents of the 1973 coup, particularly those who opposed US anti-communist policy, condemn the coup as "the overthrow of a democratically elected president". They imply or sometimes state outright that the US had ulterior motives (like, financial greed) for supporting the coup; and that it was against American democratic principles to overthrow an elected leader. In short, America LIED about its motives and DENIED the yearning of the Chilean people to enjoy the socialist paradise which was right around the corner if only greedy American capitalist pigs hadn't jerked the rug out from under them.

There is a great difference between just "overtrowing a democratically elected president" and "substituting democracy with dictature", and this is a point which I wish you could ponder for a while. /Tuomas 15:05, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Am I hitting close to the mark, or what? (VV, please don't mind my "sarcasm", I'm only trying to figure this thing out; I'm a staunch anti-communist for religious reasons.) --Uncle Ed 21:43, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It seems there's a point about Allende becoming President: he became to power in a legitimate way. The process was according Chilean Constitution of 1925.

Howewer, as I said, i think it's important to show the complete picture of 1970 Chile. Allende became to President of a biased country: he represented only a third of the votants and had 2/3 of the congress as opposition. As he said, he wasn't the President of all the Chileans (Yo no soy presidente de todos los chilenos, feb 4, 1971).

On this scenario, many groups decided the the violent ways were legitimate. Left-wing movements were impacient to make reforms and the democratic way to socialism was to slow, due the congress opposition, so they began to particpate on violent acts. Right-wing movements see no peacefully choice to avoid the socialist reforms and take the violent path too.

This one of the reasons of the coup. Things in Chile became progresively violent and all the dialog instances closed. Opposition turned harder and the goverment lost the control of the ways of expression of it supporters.

US. support to the opposition was relevant but not decisive in the coup. Internal factors were the most important catalyst to the violent ending of Allende's goverment. (There's no balanced chilean version of 1973 history signaling the coup as result of US intervention). Baloo rch 01:19, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The US were seen as the beacon of justice, civil liberties, human rights and democracy in much of the world. In Latin America people might have been less convinced, but also there many idealists believed in American values. I think it's important to distinguish between the reaction in the rest of the world from the reaction in the socially divided societies of Latin America, where anti-democrats and anti-socialists were more than grateful for US support and a broad stratum of "ordinary citizens" (Chilean middle class) were happy that US economic warfare of the early 1970s had ended. For US supporters in Western Europe, US involvement in the overtrow of democracy in Greece and Latin America was a serious liability. Among educated people in the third world, the disappointment with US "hypocracy" - i.e. US repeated treacheries against what she said was her dearest values - turned many an idealist into corrupt cynics. US anti-democratic activities put her ideologically akin democratic allies in NATO, and other closely related countries such as Australia, Austria, Switzerland, Sweden and Finland, in a precarious position. Soviet propaganda tried to do as much out of it as possible, and the allied governments condemned the overtrowal of democracy and the human rights abuses in ways that were intended not to disturb the relations with USA.

The reason the coup of 1973 is more controversial than many other is that US-allied countries tried to prosecute Pinochet. In this context, it was a complicating factor that Pinochet was supported by the US. While many conservatives in Western Europe put a blind eye to during the Cold War, their domestic opponents did not, and today nobody does. To leave out references to US less honorable entanglement in the coup is in much of the world seen as a sign of bowing for US supremacy which not directly contributes to the credibility of this site.

/Tuomas 15:05, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

U.S. role

The only way we are going to NPOV this is to cite (conflicting) sources and indicate what they say. Right now we refer to documents declassified in particular years, but don't cite documents in any useful manner. I hold no brief for how the U.S. behaved: they certainly welcomed the coup, doubtless played a major role in creating the circumstances that led to a coup, and probably in some degree backed the coup materially, but it's a controversial matter and we should have better documentation (including any appropriate documentation of contrary beliefs). The fact that an article leans toward one's own views in a controversial matter shouldn't reduce one's standards of proof.

On the basis of what is present in the section "US role in 1973 coup", I think the wording in the lead overstates the case. The lead says, "the Chilean armed forces, with the backing of the US government, overthrew... [Allende]]". The section "US role in 1973 coup" suggest thats this may be too strong a wording. -- Jmabel 21:22, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

I suggest that a prerequisite for such additions is that users such as 172 and VV grow up and start behave as adults. There is little use in serious contributing to these articles as long as these editors cut away whatever they feel damage their propagandist agenda. /Tuomas 14:17, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Addenda to 2.1

I put these paragraphs to the Situation before the coup paragraph. After a complete deletion of my contrib by someone (no registered user, only IP), i decide to put the text for your discusion:

Allende's programme included major reforms like the statization of private companies, a reform to :educational system and others. The agrary reform became more violent. The so called Chilean way :to socialismwas refused by the Christian Democrats and the right-wing parties, who saw a crealy :attempt to impose a cuban-style government in Chile.

After a first year of goof results, Chilean economics crushed. Opposition organised themselve in :the Comité Democrático (CODE). In the latest days of Allende goverment, the commerce virtually shut :down and transportion stopped and organised protests against the government of a daily basis.

Also, there was an intensification on violence on extreme left and right factions. Left wings :movements like the Movimiento de Izquierda Revolucionaria and MAPU enforced their view of the armed :way to socialism. Although the violent way was not shared by Allende, her had sympathy for them. :Also right-wing movements enforced their violent actions, as they saw no alternatives to take the :UP out the government.

This situation became more tense day after day the Chamber of Deputies - with the votes of the :CODE members - declared Allende government out of the Consitution. This action was used by the :military to justify the coup.

My intention is to describe the social and political tension during Allende's government and before the coup. I think it is a missing part and important as background of the coup, and they ara significant in the way the posterior actions took place.

Please, send your comments. Baloo rch 21:55, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

With absolutely no endorsement intended -- I quite disagree with the general direction of this POV of this-- I've tried rendering Baloo rch's text into reasonable English. Unless he says I've gotten something wrong, I think any further discussion of this material should be based on my revised version, so we can focus on content rather than language issues.

Allende's programme included major reforms, including the nationalization of private companies and reform of the educational system. Efforts at agrarian reform led to increased violence. The so-called Chilean way to socialism was rejected by the Christian Democrats and the right-wing parties, who saw it as an attempt to impose a Cuban-style government in Chile.

After a first year of good results, the Chilean economy crashed. The opposition organised themselves as the Comité Democrático (CODE). In the last days of Allende goverment, commerce was virtually shut down, transportation stopped, and organised protests against the government occurred on a daily basis.

Also, there was an intensification on violence by extreme left and right factions. On the left wing, movements like the Movimiento de Izquierda Revolucionaria and MAPU increased their violence in support of an armed way to socialism. Although this violent way was not shared by Allende, he had sympathy for them. Also, right-wing movements increased their violent actions, as they saw no alternative means to get the UP out the government.

This situation became more tense day by day. The Chamber of Deputies -- with the votes of the CODE members -- declared the Allende government to be in violation of the Consitution. This action was used by the military to justify the coup.

Again, I disagree with this as a direction to take the articlein terms of POV issues, but it should be judged on its merits rather than handicapped by language issues. Jmabel 00:03, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

I find the above very POV (rather pro-coup). Nonetheless, it covers some ground that we should probably cover in the article. Does someone want to try a rewrite of this (here or in the article) that touches these bases without such a slant? It would certainly be worth mentioning:

1. nationalization of certain large-scale industries (notably copper)
2. reform of the educational system.
3. agrarian reform, but please some clarity, not just one vague sentence.
4. Christian Democrats slowly moving over to the right.
5. Economic problems, and at least one good citation from each side as to whether Allende or his (domestic and international) opponents were mainly to blame.
6. Comité Democrático (CODE) certainly merits mention, as does increasing level of confrontation prior to military coup. Street demos by both sides merit mention.
7. Movimiento de Izquierda Revolucionaria and MAPU
8. I don't know about this Chamber of Deputies vote declaring the Allende government to be in violation of the Consitution. If it can be documented, it merits mention.

-- Jmabel 00:19, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

Jmabel, thanks for the language corrections and opinions about the addenda. It wasn't my intention to write POV-ish, but I mean the article is too focused on US intervention and don't consider the coup d'etat of 1973 as result of internal process which started in the sixties. In the current state, the article only shows only few isolated antecedents in the way to the coup.

If you found some terminolgy POV, i've used the terms that the same groups used. (i.e., UP government declared is programme as La vía chilena al socialismo- the chilean way to socialism).

About the Deputies declaration, you can read more about at [1] (i couldn't find an imparcial reference but the owner of the site - José Piñera - is not a strong supporter either).

This appears to be a broken link. Is it what you meant to write? -- Jmabel 05:44, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)

If you understand spanish - or trust on google translation - you can visit the site [2]. The text is simple - it is a school-homework oriented site.

I'm looking info about the political violence during the 60-70 period in chile, but i havent' founded anything yet. Baloo rch 01:45, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[3] This site (also in spanish, made by allende supporters) has a cronology of the 1970-1973 period. Baloo rch 01:57, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It looks really impressive. I don't have the patience (or the devotion to this topic) to wade through so much material right now, but if someone else wants to, there is probably a lot to be gleaned. Because this is a clearly partisan source, it would probably be best to try to independently source any potentially controversial information gleaned here (especially where they, themselves, have not indicated their sources), or at the very least to be explicit in the article about drawing from this partisan source. -- Jmabel 22:30, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)

[4], taken from Allende's Talk. It could considered POV, but it's in english and has a lot of references.

[5] MIT'S OCW timeline.

[6] Here's a new link about the Declaration of the Chamber of Deputies on August 22nd, 1973. (there's and english version) [7] I've also found the answer from allende (only in spanish). Note specially the terms (vocabulary) used in both documents. Baloo rch 14:32, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[8] Declaration of the Conferencia Episcopal de Chile (bishops) asking for a delay on the Escuela Nacional Unificada Programm (the link is to official chilean catholic church website)

Chile en el siglo XX]

I don't understand what's intended by this passage: "However, by this point what had started as an informal alliance with the Christian Democrats [cite to http://countrystudies.us/chile/85.htm] was anything but: a proposal Christian Democrats now leagued with the right-wing National Party ...." Was it only a proposal that the Christian Democrats join with the right-wingers? or should the words "a proposal" be deleted? JamesMLane 23:37, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I self-edited sloppily and will clean up. -- Jmabel 16:09, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

capital flight

In many of the histories I've seen of Chile, it's said that during the Allende years one of the chief causes of economic problems was the flight of foreign and domestic capital to other countries following the beginning of the reform programs. This was both the natural capitalist response in order to maximise profits and also a concerted effort to destabilize the country along the lines Kissinger discussed. However, I don't have references or in-depth knowledge. This is not discussed in any of the relevant articles: History of Chile, Salvador Allende, etc. Does anybody have information on this topic? Thanks! DanKeshet 20:37, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Good catch, Dan! I brought this up once, but I don't remember if it was a talk page comment or an article edit. We should definitely mention the effects of capital flight on the Chilean economy in the 3 years leading up to the coup of 1973.

Have any economic or political scholars discussed this issue? Has any "capitalist" said something like the following?

• Serves him right, that no good Allende, for trying to steal from the rich (copper mine nationalization) and give to the poor (socialism).

Or have any socialists blamed foreign investors?

• Those greedy capitalists deliberately sabotaged the Chilean economy just to make an excuse to have a coup and throw out Allende. Everything was going fine until then.

It probably is not as simple as "Nixon got the CIA to overthrow Allende so his buddies could get rich". On the other hand, if that's a popular viewpoint, than that POV should go into the article. --Uncle Ed 22:35, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

...and other matters

I've probably done about all I will in this article by way of major additions for a while, although I do still plan to look over Allende's response to the August 22 document and see what can be used.

Here's what I'd urge someone else to take up next:

1. I think the now-separate article about the 1970 Chilean presidential election needs more material on the various efforts to prevent Allende taking power, and this article then needs to give a quick summary of that
2. I agree that capital flight should be discussed, as should more specific accounts of Allende's economic policies.
3. We could use more on agrarian reform.
4. We could probably have more on the various street demonstrations and the gradual break between the elected government and the military. After all, that's a big part of the story of the coup.
5. Closely related, we should have more about the accelerating cycle of violence by the radical left and right. There were a lot of political assassinations in this period, and they are not yet covered in the article (nor is there an account of the appalling murders in the immediate wake of the coup, when tens of thousands were herded into the soccer stadium and thousands were killed, among them Victor Jara.

Thanks to Baloo rch for turning up multiple useful documents. -- Jmabel 23:24, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)

Citation on US involvement in coup

From a review of The Pinochet File in Foreign Affairs:

But what is very clear in all of this is that the coup in Chile is exactly what Kissinger's boss wanted. As Nixon put it in his ineffable style, "It's that son of a bitch Allende. We're going to smash him." As early as October of 1970, the CIA had warned of possible consequences: "you have asked us to provoke chaos in Chile. ... We provide you with a formula for chaos which is unlikely to be bloodless. To dissimulate the U.S. involvement will be clearly impossible." [9]

-- Viajero 00:14, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Recent insertion of POV

The recent edits by User:200.68.31.209 strike me as little but insertion of POV. I am inclined to revert them all, but as a major author of this inevitably controversial article, I'm hesitant to unilaterally prevent other voices. Do others agree with me on reverting this? Do you see anything in these edits worth salvaging? Maybe some additional content for the section on what was believed by supporters of the coup? -- Jmabel 05:11, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

Maybe his edits, or a substantial share of them, in this and correponding articles could be rephrased in wikipedia weasel term style. Of course it would have been much better if that pov could have been given references and quotations, but that might be too much to ask for - initially. /Tuomas 06:19, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• I gather this is sarcasm, but I'm not sure what your point is. Again, I'd have no objection to expanding the section on what was believed by supporters of the coup, but permeating the article with POV is another matter. There is probably at this point a slight bias (in selection of material) in favor of Allende, and I'd love to see it balanced better, but by adding relevant material, not by slanting the writing. -- Jmabel 06:39, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

Of course it was POV, of the ugliest nature, and I have removed it. --Cantus 06:24, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"even though"

The reason I took "even though" out of the sentence re: the CIA paying the coup officials is because there is no evidence that the CIA was opposed to the torture as "even though" implies. "because" would be a much better connector. The CIA (and the US generally) "established the conditions" for the coup; they gave quite a bit of aid to the military generally (meaning they know who they were), and they generally praised it. Their School of the Americas has taught many "anti-torture" classes on torture techniques among Latin American torturers. There is no reason to infer that they were opposed to the torture. DanKeshet 15:15, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The even though alludes to the supposition that the CIA perhaps should not have worked with contacts with human rights problems but did anyway. Because is ridiculous. And yes of course they were opposed to torture; don't be absurd. The use of such contacts was a subject of fierce debate back then. VV[[]] 20:00, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

broader U.S. reservations?

I removed this phrase:

and in fact that many CIA officers shared broader U.S. reservations about Pinochet's single-minded pursuit of power.

Yes, I know it is on the first page of the report. What "broader U.S. reservations?" Can someone substantiate this vague statement? -- Viajero 05:44, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The text merely states what the report concluded, which is useful information. Anyway, it's clear what it means, no? VV[[]] 05:59, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It probably means "Pinochet sure is useful to us but he's going so far that we'll look bad if some of these facts come to light." JamesMLane 06:37, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Global recession

The article doesn't really mention the global recession/oil crunch at all - it mentions the hyperinflation in Chile, but then doesn't say that there was global (near) hyper-inflation at the time. I don't know if it's relevant (don't know enouygh about the Chilaen exposure to oil in 1972) but surely it's relevant.

The disputed description of the link

The page has been protected because of a dispute between two different ways of describing this link:

"which provides documents obtained from FOIA requests regarding the US's support for the coup and Pinochet" or

"which provides documents obtained from FOIA requests regarding US attempts to promote a coup in 1970".

The edit summaries are a little sparse in terms of actually discussing this issue. The most substantive is that of Jmabel, who said, in support of the second version, "Pinochet has nothing significant to do with that matter". If "that matter" is the 1970 coup, I'd agree, but the link is not by any means limited to 1970. If you go to the site, you find a list of the materials available there. The list includes:

• "Chile and the United States: Declassified Documents Related to the Military Coup of September 11, 1973"
• "CIA Acknowledges Ties to Pinochet’s Repression: Chilean Secret Police Chief was a CIA Asset"
• "On 25th Anniversary of Chilean Coup, Documents Detail Abuses by Chilean Military, U.S. Role in Chile" (dated 1998, so referring to 1973 not 1970).

On this basis, I believe the first description quoted above is clearly correct. The documents provided at that site do concern the US's support for the 1973 coup and for Pinochet. JamesMLane 04:19, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The website mislabels some of the information. The U.S. had no role in the 1973 coup, contrary to rumors. VeryVerily 23:30, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Interesting. Without following up the link, I had made the mistake of presuming that the person who originally added the link had characterized it correctly, that it referred only to 1970, and that Pinochet was therefore a red herring. But, yes, now that I follow the link, it looks like ""support for Pinochet" is a perfectly accurate description of part of what it covers. Sorry, guess I made a mistake, although I will add that it didn't help any that the person who made the change failed to explain the nature of the factual correction. -- Jmabel 07:35, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

Jmabel, I agree with your last sentence, except that the unhelpful behavior came from both camps. On one side, VV kept reverting in support of his position in a good-faith content dispute and gave the misleading edit summary "rv vandal". In doing so, VV was in keeping with the regrettable and widespread tendency, which has been seen in edit summaries by him and in edit summaries by people reverting him, to use "vandalism" to mean "an edit with which I disagree". On the other hand, the anon(s) reverting VV in this instance didn't provide even a misleading edit summary. Which of these objectionable approaches is more objectionable is left as an exercise for the frustrated reader. JamesMLane 10:58, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I probably more-or-less unconsciously took VV's edit summary at face value, since the other person wasn't refuting it. -- Jmabel 18:47, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

I called the user a vandal because the user is a vandal. I did not call the edit vandalism. The anon user (who logs in as Turrican) in question vandalized my user page several times and then began reverting all the edits I make to various articles. I agree that the trend towards calling good faith edits vandalism is an unfortunate one, which I myself resist taking part in, but this is not such an instance. VeryVerily 23:30, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So am I to understand that when you write "rv vandal", I should never assume that you have reverted vandalism and that you are simply making a disparaging remark about the previous editor? Normally, when I see a remark like that from an experienced wikipedian, I take it as an indication that I probably don't need to look at the edit, as (I'm sure) do a lot of other people. I would say that (1) if you believed that the edit in question was not vandalism, this at least borders on a deliberately misleading edit summary. -- Jmabel 23:51, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)