text:
Talk:United States intervention in Chile

Dear VV
Dear VV, you insist in factual errors, the US gove was not only interested in to influence the politics of the government of Chile but in to change the government. Also if you think that the CIA stop to promote the coup, please state your source, because this is against the formal instruction to the CIA.

Please don't work to make an encyclopedia a laughing stock Milton 09:20, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)~

 * "Influence the politics" is more general - it includes mild operations like campaigning for a candidate as well as larger-scale ones such as changing the government. Both efforts were undertaken, and this is clearly explained in the article, so there is no doubt as to what is being referred to. The instruction to the CIA is not only linked to but quoted in the article (which seems redundant, a separate issue), so there is no need to reiterate it. The source for the breaking off is, which reads

 * Under “Track II” of the strategy, CIA sought to instigate a coup to prevent Allende from taking office after he won a plurality in the 4 September election and before, as Constitutionally required because he did not win an absolute majority, the Chilean Congress reaffirmed his victory. CIA was working with three different groups of plotters. All three groups made it clear that any coup would require the kidnapping of Army Commander Rene Schneider, who felt deeply that the Constitution required that the Army allow Allende to assume power. CIA agreed with that assessment. Although CIA provided weapons to one of the groups, we have found no information that the plotters’ or CIA’s intention was for the general to be killed. Contact with one group of plotters was dropped early on because of its extremist tendencies. CIA provided tear gas, submachine-guns and ammunition to the second group. The third group attempted to kidnap Schneider, mortally wounding him in the attack. CIA had previously encouraged this group to launch a coup but withdrew support four days before the attack because, in CIA’s assessment, the group could not carry it out successfully.

 * There is no evidence that any further coup efforts were pursued after 1970. Also, I noticed you claimed that the group that kidnapped Schneider was given arms by the CIA, but I don't see evidence for that as yet. Perhaps that claim should be dropped. Anyway, if you find the CIA denial not credible, it could be qualified. -- VV 09:33, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sorry VV. but in history exists what is called "primary documents" (like the documents released by the Chile declassification program, and secondary documents, that make comments to them. this is the category of your source, that start to said that is the definitive history do the Chilean participation, but in any case, bearing this in mind, your source said :

"""" After the coup in September 1973, CIA suspended new covert action funding

See funding was finished after the Pinochet coup (in 1973), not as you said, after that kidnapping fiasco.

""""""""After Allende’s election and before his inauguration, the CIA, under 40 Committee direction, made an effort—in coordination with the Embassy in Santiago—to encourage Chilean businesses to carry out a program of economic disruption.

This is not exactly information gathering !!! What is not said int his short report that this economics disruption includes financial support for a mayor truck-owners strike, that create havoc in the economy for lack of transportation. And move ones step further to make a coup possible,as was ordened by nixon "Make the economy scream" instruction. But, as can see in the previus extract, covert accion funding was suspended only after the 1973 coup !

"""""" In November 1970 a member of the Viaux group who avoided capture recontacted the Agency and requested financial assistance on behalf of the group. Although the Agency had no obligation to the group because it acted on its own, in an effort to keep the prior contact secret, maintain the good will of the group, and for humanitarian reasons, $35,000 was passed.

Sorry but if you give money to some people that is running from the law your are called a accomplice !!! I never said that CIA given money or guns to any specific group that was working in this terrorist act!!

As you can see, interesting information from an agency report that was busy trying to hide his hand !

Milton 09:28, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Your first example was after the coup; the second was in 1970, which was not during the information gathering period. If you want to add details about the sanctions and related efforts, you should find, document, and add them. Stop reverting a good basis for an article with the incoherent and inaccurate mess that was there before. And yes you did claim the CIA gave money and guns to the group that killed Schneider. -- VV 10:18, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dear """" After the coup in September 1973, CIA suspended new covert action funding

It means that until 73 the cia was financing covert accion ........please stop reverting an article to replace it with pov Milton 11:50, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Revert to version agreeded in talk page of state terrorism. Of course it can be developed further, but it is against ettiquette to do a full replace by a new text. Milton 11:50, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)~

 * I rewrote a directionless, opinionated, unbalanced, nonsensical screed into an article. To revert my work for no reason at all is a blatant violation of Wiki etiquette and I will not stand for it. Stop trying to destroy this page. -- VV 22:39, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, it looks more that you replace a page not that you rewrote. As a said, Of course that the page need to be open to developments, but To revert for no reason at all is a blatant violation of Wiki etiquette and I will not stand for it. Stop trying to destroy this page Milton 13:59, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I sugegst a Compromise, make a single change and we will discuss and make progress, to move on to make the next change and so on. Milton 13:59, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)~

Other's pages suggest the following approach:
 * Make small changes, a bit at a time, taking care to make sure that they are verifiable and expressed dispasionatley.
 * Tone down your language, take out as much emotive stuff as you can, and let the facts speak for themselves. Milton 15:21, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I have done that, namely taken out your emotive stuff and changed this into an article format. You have still not given me any problem with the version. Small changes are what's not needed when what existed before was not an encylopedia article but some random opinions and quotes mushed together. -- VV 21:44, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

See VV? your posibilities of compromise are not the best in the area!!!!Milton

- I will disect the original article to promote conversation and development

The U.S. Intervention in Chile (It is recomended to star the article with the article name)

was a policy that sought the overthrow the democratically elected Chilean president Salvador Allende (What was about the article, a factual statment, the recomendation is to let the facts speak by itself. !!)

promoting and supporting a series of activities some oriented to terrorize the population. (another factual statment, it needs backup, this is why the next quote was introduced )

The formal instruction to the CIA base in Chile was “It is a firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrow by a coup. It will be much preferable to have this transpire prior to 24 of October, but efforts in this regard will continue vigorously beyond this date. We are to continue to generate maximum pressure towards this end, utilizing every appropriated resource. It is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that USG and American hand be well hidden…”

(More facts)

The first documented action in this regard was the kidnapping of René Schneider,

(it is the firts documented action afther the formal instruction... a new fact)

the army commander (because he was a constitutionalist, i.e. he would not support a coup)

(A not disputed fact)

. The CIA in Santiago kept contact with two groups inside the military and provided guns and money for this action.

(maybe it is wrong, I remember that VV said that was three groups, also the paragrap dont said to what group was the support, needs further work)

One group succeeded in a an action that resulted in the killing of the Army commander on the spot. (A fact, again)

The result was just the opposite that his promoters expected, instead of terrorizing the population, the citizens and the military rallied behind the just elected Allende.

(more fact)

Failing this action, President Richard Nixon gave orders to Richard Helms, at this time the CIA Director, to implement economics sanctions that resulted in extended suffering to the general population.

(more facts, suported by the refenreces)

Some people think that the resulting instability created the conditions for the successful military coup against Allende, in 1973. (An opinion, it needs to be balanced with the opinions that some sustain that the resulting inestability was not a significant factor in making the coup possible)

Where is the emotive stuff, not suported by the facts ??? I don't see it, please help me

Milton 09:44, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * The problems are legion. First, the format. It is not written like an article but a lumpy screed. I factored it into sections and paragraphs to provide a neat presentation of the material. Second, the information. Schneider's kidnapping was not to "terroriz[e] the population" but to remove an obstacle to overthrow. Nor does the CIA quote say anything about terrorizing the population, so it does not back it up. My version clearly describes the sanctions and effects without using such such emotive terms. My version is so obviously better as to make your constant reversion ridiculous. -- VV 10:10, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

VV there is no My version or Your version in Wikipedia !! Good that you found a error. Your mention that in the case of Schneider's kidnapping was not to "terrorize the population= Why do not just correct it ____????????? Because there is not such claimin the article !!!!!!! Milton 13:10, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC) And the "Formatting" losse a lot of key elements !!!

Why do not work from the original version one step at a time ? Milton 13:10, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I read a quote from Kissinger that ordered the Viaux plot "turned off" on October 15th. The bungled kidnapping happened on October 22nd.

I think that should be mentioned somewhere in the article, along with other information about whether or not the CIA continued to have close contacts with these guys that were involved, and whether or not the weapons they used were provided by the CIA. Supreme Moolah of Iran 07:43, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Articles about Allende/Pinochet regime change in Chile

 * Salvador Allende - deposed by 1973 coup
 * Augusto Pinochet - took power in 1973 coup
 * History of Chile - long article with section on 1970-1973 events
 * Chilean coup of 1973 - about the 1973 coup itself (also linked via 1973 coup in Chile
 * U.S. intervention in Chile

The killing of the Chief Commander of the Army I agree that the intention was kidnapping the chief commander, and I modify my suggestion to reflect it, But the fact is that is was killed on the spot, and the people rallied behind the Marxist Allende for his killing, the intention of Kidnapping appears months later, when the team was captured. In practical terms, the important national political impact was for his killing, because at this time nobody was aware that the intention was to kidnap it.

Also I suggest that the title needs to reflect that the action was Against the chief commander of the army, this is the important point, The fact that is name was Schneider is to be mentioned in the paragraph. The Chilean army have a lots of commanders, and if we reefer to Schneider only as a Commander we risk to give the erroneous perception that he was in a low key position.

US dumping strategic copper reserves on market?
Why does this article make no mention of the US' dumping strategic copper reserves on the market, leading to the rapid price declines that crippled Chile's economy. This is backed up by documents released during the clinton administration under the FOIA. Combined with the instant cut-off of foreign aid, is it any wonder that the Chilean economy collapsed? Blaming this all on Allende in this article, and the article about Allende, seems at best absent minded. --jacobolus (t) 10:11, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Certainly this belongs; because of all of the controversy surrounding this area, I suggest citing you sources with more than the usual care. Do you want to write it, or are you just asking someone else to? -- Jmabel | Talk 21:39, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Chamber of Deputies of Chile
I removed:

"The Chamber of Deputies of Chile's Resolution of August 22, 1973 sanctioned Allende's military removal by passage (81 to 47 votes) of its "Declaration of the Breakdown of Chile’s Democracy", and weeks later on September 11, 1973, Chile's armed forces led by Chief Commander Augusto Pinochet, ousted Allende from power. (Pinochet subsequently refrained from relenquishing martial law, and Chile became a military junta under him at that point.)

Because I Think that the Chilean Chamber of deputies political resolution was a sovereign act by such chamber, and NOT a part of the US Intervention in Chile —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuye (talk • contribs)

 * It gives it historical context, I am going to add it back.Travb 16:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Revert
Please do not delete links to articles nor description of articles in the "see also" section.

Project FUBELT - secret CIA operations documents: US government spent millions of dollars to unseat Allende. Explains to the user what the program is. This is factually correct, as are the other comments.

Salvador Allende was deposed by 1973 coup and Augusto Pinochet - took power in the same 1973 coup.

Signed:Travb 10:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit
The Chamber of Deputies of Chile Resolution of August 22, 1973 sanctioned Allende's military removal by passage (81 to 47 votes) of its "Declaration of the Breakdown of Chile’s Democracy", and weeks later on September 11, 1973, Chile's armed forces led by Chief Commander Augusto Pinochet, ousted Allende from power. (Pinochet subsequently refrained from relenquishing martial law, and Chile became a military junta under him at that point.)

to

The Chamber of Deputies of Chile condemned Allende by passage of the Declaration of the Breakdown of Chile’s Democracy. Less than a month later on September 11, 1973, Chief Commander Augusto Pinochet, ousted Allende from power.

The Chamber of Deputies of Chile Resolution of August 22, 1973 did not "sanction Allende's military removal". Please quote from the document. Please do not add unverifiable historical interpretations of the event. Please verify all of your edits. The best edits are ones which quote the document verbatium. Travb 03:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I found the quote:

First: To present the President of the Republic, Ministers of State, and members of the Armed and Police Forces with the grave breakdown of the legal and constitutional order of the Republic, the facts and circumstances of which are detailed in sections 5 to 12 above;

Second: To likewise point out that by virtue of their responsibilities, their pledge of allegiance to the Constitution and to the laws they have served, and in the case of the ministers, by virtue of the nature of the institutions of which they are high-ranking officials and of Him whose name they invoked upon taking office, it is their duty to put an immediate end to all situations herein referred to that breach the Constitution and the laws of the land with the goal of redirecting government activity toward the path of Law and ensuring the constitutional order of our Nation and the essential underpinnings of democratic coexistence among Chileans;

I was wrong, I will edit the page quoting this text.Travb 03:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Chamber of Deputies and Allende
The paragraph that begins "The Chamber of Deputies of Chile condemned Allende…": as far as I know, the resolution, while receiving the vote of the majority of the Chamber, fell short of the two-thirds that would have given it legal force. If I'm correct, the article should say this if it discusses the resolution at all. If I'm wrong, would someone please show me a citation to the contrary? This is an area in which I am moderately well-read, but not expert. - Jmabel | Talk 04:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Wow, good point, I am not even well read on the subject, maybe you can add an to the page.Travb 04:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I see that this still hasn't been addressed. We have a half-assed and potentially misleading passage in the lead, and it isn't particularly on-topic (that is, it has no specific relation to United States intervention in Chile). We have s somewhat better handling of this at Salvador Allende ("the Chamber of Deputies (with the Christian Democrats now firmly uniting with the National Party) accused Allende's government of unconstitutional acts and called on the military ministers to assure the constitutional order") and a pretty decent, lengthy discussion of the resolution and Allende's response at [Chilean coup of 1973]; remarkably, the latter is not even linked from the lead as it stands.

I'll give at least seven more days for someone else to rewrite this more evenhandedly, but if it is not sorted out by then, I will simply remove the matter of the Chamber's resolution from the lead, on the basis that it is somewhat off-topic. - Jmabel | Talk 00:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

 * For what it may be worth the difference is that a resolution, being a public declaration without major legal consecuences, could be passed by simple majority, while the impeachment of a president needed a two thirds vote to be passed. The opposition had 55% of the vote in Congress, hence could pass any resolution or block any law, but did not have 2/3s, hence could not impeach Allende. Mel Romero 13:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

ITT
No mention of ITT? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.24.227.28 (talk • contribs) 31 May 2006.

Appalling Vandalism
Please cease this appalling vandalism which includes:

 * The misuse of a source which implies a 1964 coup when it speaks of 1970.
 * The introduction of innaccurate information.
 * The presence of information totally unrelated to U.S. involvement.

CJK 01:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't call this edit, which includes removal of Wikisource and others, for a "revert of vandalism". Maybe then we can talk about the deletion of the source, but if you mix up justified edits with deletion of massive portions of text, no wonder someone decides to reverts you. Tazmaniacs 01:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The wikisource is about a resolution which has absolutely nothing to do with U.S. intervention in Chile. The resolution was an all-Chilean affair. CJK 01:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

 * The source you are questioning is titled [http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm Chile and the United States:

Declassified Documents Relating to the Military Coup, September 11, 1973]. Tazmaniacs 01:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding that source, it is misleading as it implies that the coup stuff was done in 1964 while the link addresses 1970. CJK 01:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see in what it is misleading. Tazmaniacs 01:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

''The Marxist presidential candidate Salvador Allende was a top contender in the 1964 election, and the US, through the CIA, spent millions campaigning against him, mostly through radio and print advertising. Covert operations were also ordered to promote a military coup and undermine Allende's government .''

The covert operations to promote a coup cited in the link were in 1970, not 1964 which is implied by "also". CJK 01:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

But why delete the source? See Avoiding common mistakes. Tazmaniacs 16:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

 * See the article i cited, pages 246-254. There are conflicting statements whether the coup plan in 1970 was aborted or not. Kissinger said he turned it off. CIA officials said the coup wasn't turned off. I think the correct address of your source should be or . Those documents are available from the site you linked and partly on page 251 in the article i cited. See also Project FUBELT. Vints 19:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What is really noteworthy is that there's never been any claim that the US was behind the Chamber of Deputies decision to ask the military to kick Allende out, leaving one with the reasonable conclusion that his ouster was a "given" in hindsight regardless of whatever fantasies of feasible orchestration the Nixon administration may or may not have indulged.--Mike18xx 23:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Bertilvidet and Tazmaniacs, what part of your source says that Kissinger in fact turned the 1970 coup off? I couldn't find anything. The article I cited, Alleged Assassination Plots Involving Foreign Leaders, says on page 246-254 that "the testimony given to the Committee by Henry Kissinger and General Haig conflicts with that given by CIA officials." Kissinger and Haig said the coup was turned off October 15. CIA officials said that "they operated before and after October 15 with knowledge and approval of the White House." In addition, CIA delivered weapons to a group of kidnap plotters October 22. Vints 06:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The memory hole
The following has been deleted from this page in the past couple of months:

Once Allende was in office, the US, led by Nixon, who stated his fear that Chile could become "another Cuba", initiated plans to work with insurgent elements within Chile to overthrow Allende in a coup.

The US began implementing economic sanctions against Chile to encourage Allende's resignation, his overthrow, or his defeat in the impending election of 1976.

The Chamber of Deputies of Chile condemned Allende by passage of the Declaration of the Breakdown of Chile’s Democracy, the declaration stated that "it is (the Armed and Police Forces) duty to put an immediate end to all situations...that breach the Constitution and the laws of the land with the goal of redirecting government activity toward the path of Law." Less than a month later on September 11, 1973, Chief Commander Augusto Pinochet, ousted Allende from power.
 * Chamber of Deputies of Chile's Resolution of August 22, 1973 "Declaration of the Breakdown of Chile’s Democracy"; de-facto impeachment resolution, approved 81 to 47 votes, imploring the military forces of the nation to remove President Allende for myriad violations (enumerated within the resolution): "...it is their duty to put an immediate end to all situations herein referred to that breach the Constitution and the laws of the land..." (economiaysociedad.com) (In English, German, Spanish, French, Polish)
 * Alternate source of the Resolution of August 22, 1973 (In English, German, Spanish, French, Polish)
 * "Never Again: An essay about the breakdown of democracy in Chile" by José Piñera (examination of events leading up to, and implications regarding, the Resolution of August 22, 1973. (In English, Italian, Spanish) Mirror site

Signed: Travb (talk) 07:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, put 'em back in! (The Declaration has a newer wikisource link, btw; and I believe it's already referenced.)--Mike18xx 07:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

POV implicit in title
Based in part on some recent discussion at Talk:Chilean coup of 1973: I believe that the title of this article more-or-less forces a one-sided article. I would suggest moving to one of the following: I'd be quite open to other suggestions, but "intervention" suggests that the article will only deal with what at least borders on illicit, and will not contextualize it. - Jmabel | Talk 00:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * United States involvement in Chile
 * Relations between the United States and Chile
 * The second one is much more preferable, IMO, since it will enable a historically open-ended article.--Mike18xx 04:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean, Jmabel? I don't see how "intervention" necessarily means something "illicit," and greater context can always be found in other articles. There are many pages in Wikipedia exclusively devoted to the real or alleged crimes or human rights abuses of various groups that actually do, with their title and subject, suggest that the articles "deal with what at least borders on illicit," and I've never seen those articles summarily eliminated from existence because of that.

As in every Wikipedia article, illicit actions of an actor can be contextualized with writing in the article. If you feel the US intervention in Chile has been unfairly contextualized you, as you know, are free to add material to the article to contextualize it. --MarkB2 19:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Right now, we don't have a broader article on U.S.-Chile relations. The current title encourages a focus on about 15 years in the middle of the Cold War, because that was when the U.S. was most blatantly intervening in Chile. I cannot see how we can possibly get a better, more encyclopedic article out of this. I'm not ready to have a fight over this, but I think it is silly not to have a title that will encourage a broader, more informative article. - Jmabel | Talk 05:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I certainly wouldn't be opposed to a broader article on U.S.-Chile relations, but the precedent in Wikipedia seems to be to have to broader articles, were possible, but also to have articles that focus on individual interventions. See British-Spanish Relations and the more focused articles that are linked to on that page, for one example. I think there's already enough information present on the very controversial U.S. intervention in Chile to justify it having its own article. --MarkB2 20:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I am also surprised at Jmabel's proposal. Nothing impede the creation of United States-Chilean Foreign Relations as already exist many such articles (see a list at Foreign Relations of the United States), but it is clear that US intervention, legal or not, has enough historical content to make an article. I don't see why we should add to this article a section on, say, free-trade agreements between the US and Chile? Tazmaniacs 05:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I would have to agree with the previous statement, since US-Chilean Relations seems to have a more passive connotation. It seems that the title should be used solely for a section or topic which involves past or current economic relations between Chile and the US or similar topics. There is enough information to make this a separate article and there both sides of the argument available. At present there is a consensus about the US intervention in Chile from both sides. This not only includes the recently declassified CIA documents, but a near admission of guilt from the previous Secretary of State Colin Powell who stated that "[the Chilean coup] is not a part of American history we are proud of". for more info see: "The Pinochet File" by Peter Kornbluh or simply google CIA declassified documents on the topic or "Operation Condor." since these documents are now fully available to the general public. So there should be no question that US intervention in Chile is a two-sided statement. Caespinoza 01:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Cespinoza

Strange sentence
Maybe someone could better explain the strange sounding "Chile, more than any of its South American neighbors, had an extensive democratic tradition dating back to the early 1930s, and even before. Because of this, it is difficult to gauge how successful CIA tactics were in swaying voters." I have a hard time understanding the "Because". Does this mean that the US try to pay voters to change vote, and that because of democratic tradition, this would be difficult? But, apart of asking if you really think that so many million dollars were there only to "buy votes" (to whom? workers?) and not for other propaganda operations, how do you know it was employed this way? I find it very strange, and it almost seems to me a paradoxical defense of US intervention, in the style: "yes, we did spend money, but it was no use anyway". I hope for some clear reason (which should be included in the article itself, not only debated here). Cheers! Tazmaniacs 05:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources?
Although this article is generally good, it's permeated by sentences like this: "Regarding Pinochet's rise to power, the CIA undertook a comprehensive analysis of its records and individual memoirs as well as conducting interviews with former agents, and concluded in a report issued in 2000 that the CIA "did not assist Pinochet to assume the Presidency." [3]

Oh, well, that makes me feel better. The CIA investigated itself and concluded it did nothing wrong. Whew!

Does anyone have some reputable independent sources? MarkB2 07:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned in a previous edit, that there is a relatively good source available called "The Pinochet File" by Peter Kornbluh. It is an extensive look at the US involvement in the Chilean Coup. It uses primarily the declassified CIA documents which are available to anyone. Since these documents come directly from the perpetrators there is no reason to believe that it is propaganda from "the other side" of the argument. The CIA documents themselves are available to anyone on-line. I also heard that the book is now available for free in the form of an ebook, but I haven't looked for it myself (since I bought a copy a few years before). I am not sure if it supports all the claims purported by some, but it definitely substantiates many of the more heinous actions.Caespinoza 02:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Caespinoza

one sided
Will an article be created on the KGB as well? Maybe it is better to start an article foreign intervention in Chile? Intangible2.0 00:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

 * That's a fabulous idea. We should get TDC and some others to contribute. MarkB2 Chat 06:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:PinochetKissinger.jpg
Image:PinochetKissinger.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Holy Toledo, this article is WAY too biased
I think we should really state that there is a difference between the US trying to influence elections and comandeering a Chilean coup. Writers of the time, especially four Marxist writers that I will soon post all indicate that the Coup itseld was PURELY Chilean and mastered only by Pinochet and his inner circle. The only thing you can even blame the US was influencing elections which later influenced the turn of events that LED to the Coup. Remember that Cuba and the Soviet Union were likewise funneling money into Chile and into Allende's campaign. After the US cut off aid, Sweden and other nations INCREASED their aid to Chile. There is no mention of Allende's dismantling of the Constitution. His unconstitutinal confiscation of Chilean farms, the opposition marches to Allende (March of Pots), etc. The Church Commission Report is barely a blip on here. It seems that it doesnt fit into the bias of this article. SHAM of an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.239.203.139 (talk) 17:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, you're forgetting to mention that it was the CIA along with the business community that made the economy scream. Allende was taken to task in an obvious example of class warfare. The CIA and the business elites orchestrated a "scorched earth" policy that pitted Allende's policy against business interest in Chile. The Church Committee, if you even bothered to read it, goes into detail how they colluded to make this happen. You're wrong! The Article is too bias to let he CIA off the hook. How come you people never start off with the premise that a foreign nation is manipulating the economic and political affairs of another nation? If you guys cared about democracy at all, you wouldn't have tried to instigate a coup against a democratically elected leader. Hypocrite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.220.186 (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Money to the armed forces?
"The collection of 1,100 documents dealt with the years leading up to the military coup. One of these documents establishes that U.S. military aid to the Chilean armed forces was raised dramatically between the coming to power of Allende in 1970, when it amounted to US$800,000 annually, to US$10.9 million in 1972."

I dont undertand this statement, was this money delivered to Allende`s goverment or directly to the military commanders? Was it just money or military hardware? Is there any source about what happened with that money? Agrofelipe (talk) 08:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

DHeyward deletions
You deleted a lot of information and re-introduced an inaccuracy, which is unsourced. You also put in your unsourced POV, which is not allowed. You denied it last time but its apparent that you are wikistalking: following me to articles and reverting my edits. I suggest you stop.Giovanni33 (talk) 04:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I did no such thing. --DHeyward (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Yes, you did. You blanked a whole section and added in a statement that "there is no evidence" of US assistance to the coup against Allende. That may be your POV, but you it's unsourced. You didn't even bother to show common curtesy to discuss any of this before making massive changes, even after you were reverted. You also didn't show up here until after I made a minor edit. Do you also deny this?Giovanni33 (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Since you have not shown a willingness to edit collaboratively, I've asked for a neutral editor via the 3rd editor option to assist.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

 * A third opinion has been given here: I hope you will abide by consensus on this.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Just for reference a WP:Third opinion cannot, by itself, be construed as providing consensus. -Rushyo (talk) 01:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit War
To avoid future edit warring here some reasons why this edit is not acceptable to me. Strong POV language and not backed by source. It is argued or suggested by many historians and journalists that anticommunism wasn't the only motive for U.S. intervention. The sentence above is backed by a reputable and reliable source. I see no justified reason for its deletion. This section is controversial but a complete deletion is not acceptable. Frederick H. Gareau and Thomas Wright are notable scholars and the section is sufficiently sourced. If there is an issue with NPOV minor changes in the section should do the job after being discussed on the talk page.Neptun88 (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "The U.S. government had two approaches to fighting Marxism as represented by Allende."
 * "The NARA (National Archives Records Administration) found documents in Nixon's papers showing that the CIA had instigated the operation ."
 * the deletion of the section "state terrorism"
 * At a minimum the length of the quotes being included is a copyright violation, way beyond what fair use allows; I have trimmed them back to a reasonable length.- Merzbow (talk) 00:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Giovanni! Jtrainor (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is obviously not the appropriate forum for such accusations. If you have any actual evidence take it to the arbcom for enforcement. If you lack such proof, then please strike your above comment. -- The Red Pen of Doom  16:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What, you mean like this [] evidence? Jtrainor (talk) 23:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That is indeed an appropriate forum, and considering,
 * Neptun88 appears ❌... :Sam Korn (smoddy) 18:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I repeat my suggestion that you strike your accusation. -- The Red Pen of Doom  23:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Neptun88 is rather obviously G33. I shall be retracting nothing. Jtrainor (talk) 01:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I knew that this is a controversial subject but I would have never imagined that I would be welcomed with so many allegations after just - what was it? - 9 edits as a registered user. Still, I have not given up hope for a constructive discussion yet.--Neptun88 (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Spare us the platitudes, G33. We all know it's you. Jtrainor (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

"Strong POV language and not backed by source. It is argued or suggested by many historians and journalists that anticommunism wasn't the only motive for U.S. intervention."

Anti-communism and opposition to the spread of Soviet Socialism and Marxism were the main motives for the US support to pro-democracy groups that opposed Allende`s socialist regime in Chile, all other motives generated from it.

Besides what are these historians and journalists you talk about?Agrofelipe (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

it has been suggested that the article be merged ?????
At the start of the article said that has been suggested that this article needs to be merger with CIA intervention….

First I don’t see such suggestion in this page…. Where is such suggestion being made???

Also I think that is wrong, because CIA intervention is only a part of the intervention…. Not the full thing. The actual title presents this broader perspective.

Milton (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

 * It has been suggested that CIA activities in Chile be merged into THIS article, not the other way around.
 * Likeminas (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

How does this work"?
"Track I" was a State Department initiative designed to thwart Allende by subverting Chilean elected officials within the bounds of the Chilean constitution and excluded the CIA."

How does that work? How does a foreign nation subvert an elected official from another nation within the bounds of that nation's Constitution? You gotta love the language the CIA uses to cover their own behinds. They subverted the democratic process every step of the way in Chile and somehow we're supposed to take the Agency's word that they're "securing democracy worldwide"? Laughable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.220.186 (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

There is way more that can be said than whats in this article
This article doesn't even begin to scratch the surface on how the CIA made plans with the business community in Chile to make the economy scream. Th Church Committee report alone has tons of info on this subject. Also, how the CIA manipulated the media, staged phony strikes, etc. And this is just what the CIA has admitted to. C'mon people the CIA did way more than whats written in this article. They made that country ripe for a Coup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.220.186 (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

1973 Coup
I have substantially re-written the section about the 1973 coup. I believe that the section was misleading in parts and in others factually incorrect, after checking the footnotes attached to the article.

Many of the footnotes cited declassified documents as evidence that the CIA or other parts of the US government brought about the 1973 coup. However, these actually pertain to the 1970 botched coup attempt.

I also removed the section "Nonetheless, this is contradicted by the declassified documents involving the CIA, in which covert operatives were inserted in Chile, in order to prevent a Marxist government from arising and subsequent propagandist operations which were designed to push Chilean president Eduardo Frei to support "a military coup which would prevent Allende from taking office on 3 November." " because this pertains entirely to the 1970 botched coup attempt, which is detailed in the main article in the section 'Allende Presidency: Track II'. If valid, it should be re-inserted in that section, and not the one about the 1973 coup.

I also deleted a series of quotes because I thought they were trivial and added nothing to the section. Most of them related to the botched 1970 coup.

I have also included new sources, including another of Henry Kissinger's transcripted phone calls and a national security decision memorandum. Hopefully people will appreciate the changes, but please before simply reverting them, discuss them here! --yoctobarryc ⁂  ☎ 02:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Clarifying that Prominent Authors Claim Significant US Involvement in the Period Leading up to the 1973 Coup
The version of text I am modifying, says:

However, it was without doubt a major vindication for the Republican administration. Conrad Black, in his work "Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full", notes:

After more than thirty years, no evidence has come to light in either country that the United States played a direct role in the overthrow of the Allende government, but it was certainly a geopolitical bonanza for the United States, as Allende was cavorting with Castro with a particularly irritating relish.[28]

...and...

There is no evidence that the U.S. instigated or provided material support to Pinochet's successful coup in 1973, but the Nixon administration was undoubtedly pleased with the outcome; Nixon had spoken with disappointment about the failed coup earlier that year.

However, Kornbluh, Weiner, and Hitchens all argue the opposite and that controversy was not fairly presented here. The changes I am making present the controversy. Notice that I do not remove what Conrad Black says, although I believe he is incorrect. Regardless, we are supposed to report the controversies and not argue them amongst ourselves.

The changes I make have only added balance by showing the other authors' arguments. I removed the claim "There is no evidence..." as there is plenty of evidence that the US played a key role. A more fair claim would be that it is controversial. Currently this section is already heavily weighted to implying the US took a far more passive role than it did. What I add serves to balance this section out more towards NPOV.

Veritas Aeterna (talk) 06:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

 * Apparently some believe that if you destabilize a country, helping/paying opponents, assuring them of your future support, producing propaganda, economic warfare, etc., but just happen to not do anything on the day of a coup, then you have nothing to do with it. Pretty strange point of view. Aesma (talk) 17:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Sources
User:TheTimesAreAChanging, I'm calling you out for willfully misrepresenting two sources here. You inserted "Joaquin Fermandois criticized Kornbluh's "black and white" and "North American centered conception of world affairs", noting that a variety of internal and external factors, including covert actions by Cuba and the Soviet Union (which cost hundreds of thousands of dollars[33]), also played a role and that a careful reading of the documentary record reveals the CIA was largely "impotent"" But nowhere in the two sources (yes, I read them) is a mention of action by Cuba and the USSR that contributed to the coup, and definitely not of the "hundreds of thousands of dollars" of "cost." JF says that Cuba and the Soviets supported the Marxists; he also says that the US and the CIA funneled money to the opposition, and that this could have been "decisive". Ergo he contradicts NOTHING that Winn says, and supports a much more nuanced view than you claim he "supports." Withdraw the source, or modify its wording. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * JF does support a nuanced interpretation of events--in contrast to your blanket assertions that the CIA was behind everything--including "Cuban involvement in the preparation of an illegal armed contingent" and "Soviet aid to the Communist Party". Falcoff pg. 205 mentions over $350,000 spent by Cuba alone. The argument that this context is misleading because the Cubans/Soviets supported the other side is not persuasive, at least insofar as my text hardly suggested otherwise. Winn was not mentioned in my proposed text. Your edit summary set up a strawman by demanding a source proclaiming the CIA pristinely innocent of any involvement in Chile whatever. I don't need to provide one. JF sharply criticized Kornbluh, and the criticism should stay.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't fudge. Your text tried to claim the following:
 * a) That JF supported, in an unqualified fashion, the view that there was "no evidence" that the CIA had anything to do with the coup. He DOES NOT do this. He clearly states that any view that there was no US involvement was preposterous. He contradicts Kornbluh; which does not mean he supports the CIA rendition. Since you refused to correct that, I did.
 * b) That JF stated that Cuban and Soviet covert intervention was responsible for the coup. He does NOT say that. He mentions intervention, is all. The monetary figure comes from Falcoff, and JF does not invoke Falcoff on that point, so you cannot present their arguments in synthesized form.
 * c) That JF is a source on par with any other journal article. He is not; it is a book review, which carries weight because of the publication it is in, but not the same as an academic paper, so don't try to hide that. The "Books under review" bit is IN THE ORIGINAL TITLE.

 * Finally, if the CIA view is to be explained in detail in the intro, so must the opposing one. Likewise in the final paragraph. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Cheers, sparring partner. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on United States intervention in Chile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061205223350/http://foia.state.gov:80/Reports/HincheyReport.asp to http://foia.state.gov/Reports/HincheyReport.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on United States intervention in Chile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040807200347/http://cbsnews.cbs.com/stories/2000/09/11/world/main232452.shtml to http://cbsnews.cbs.com/stories/2000/09/11/world/main232452.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040807200347/http://cbsnews.cbs.com/stories/2000/09/11/world/main232452.shtml to http://cbsnews.cbs.com/stories/2000/09/11/world/main232452.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040807200347/http://cbsnews.cbs.com/stories/2000/09/11/world/main232452.shtml to http://cbsnews.cbs.com/stories/2000/09/11/world/main232452.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Important Reference Missing
The section has this sentence:

A subsequent September 2000 report from the CIA, using declassified documents related to the military coup, found that the CIA "probably appeared to condone" the 1973 coup, but that there was "no evidence" that the US actually participated in it.

The source on this claim is missing but is vital to this section of the article. If somebody has a source somewhere that says this you should replace this dead one that exists. Otherwise it looks like whoever put this here was just bullshitting.

Thanks, ― TaltosKieronTalk 21:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Expand the lede
No way the lede should be this short and this vague for an article this long. natemup (talk) 02:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


text:
White swamphen

The white swamphen (Porphyrio albus), also known as the Lord Howe swamphen, Lord Howe gallinule or white gallinule, is an extinct species of rail which lived on Lord Howe Island, east of Australia. It was first encountered when the crews of British ships visited the island between 1788 and 1790, and all contemporary accounts and illustrations were produced during this time. Today, two skins exist: the holotype in the Natural History Museum of Vienna, and another in Liverpool's World Museum. Although historical confusion has existed about the provenance of the specimens and the classification and anatomy of the bird, it is now thought to have been a distinct species endemic to Lord Howe Island and most similar to the Australasian swamphen. Subfossil bones have also been discovered since.

The white swamphen was 36 to 55 cm long. Both known skins have mainly-white plumage, although the Liverpool specimen also has dispersed blue feathers. This is unlike other swamphens, but contemporary accounts indicate birds with all-white, all-blue, and mixed blue-and-white plumage. The chicks were black, becoming blue and then white as they aged. Although this has been interpreted as due to albinism, it may have been progressive greying in which feathers lose their pigment with age. The bird's bill, frontal shield and legs were red, and it had a claw (or spur) on its wing. Little was recorded about the white swamphen's behaviour. It may not have been flightless, but was probably a poor flier. This and its docility made the bird easy prey for visiting humans, who killed it with sticks. Reportedly once common, the species may have been hunted to extinction before 1834, when Lord Howe Island was settled.

Taxonomy
Lord Howe Island is a small, remote island about 600 km east of Australia. Ships first arrived on the island in 1788, including two which supplied the British penal colony on Norfolk Island and three transport ships of the British First Fleet. When HMS Supply (1759) passed the island, the ship's commander named it after First Lord of the Admiralty Richard Howe. Crews of the visiting ships captured native birds (including white swamphens), and all contemporary descriptions and depictions of the species were made between 1788 and 1790. The bird was first mentioned by the master of HMS Supply, David Blackburn, in a 1788 letter to a friend. Other accounts and illustrations were produced by Arthur Bowes Smyth, the fleet's naval officer and surgeon, who drew the first known illustration of the species; Arthur Phillip, governor of New South Wales; and George Raper, midshipman of HMS Sirius (1786). Secondhand accounts also exist, and at least ten contemporary illustrations are known. The accounts indicate that the population varied, and individual bird plumage was white, blue, or mixed blue-and-white.

In 1790, the white swamphen was scientifically described by the surgeon John White in a book about his time in New South Wales. The binomial name in White's book, Fulica alba, was provided by the English naturalist George Shaw. The specific name is derived from the Latin word for white (albus). White found the bird most similar to the western swamphen (Porphyrio porphyrio, then in the genus Fulica). Although he apparently never visited Lord Howe Island, White may have questioned sailors and based some of his description on earlier accounts. He said he had described a skin at the Leverian Museum, and his book included an illustration of the specimen by the artist Sarah Stone. It is uncertain when (and how) the specimen arrived at the museum. This skin, the holotype specimen of the species, was purchased by the Natural History Museum of Vienna in 1806 and is catalogued as specimen NMW 50.761. The naturalist John Latham listed the bird as Gallinula alba in a later 1790 work, and wrote that it may have been a variety of purple swamphen (or "gallinule").

One other white swamphen specimen is in Liverpool's World Museum, where it is catalogued as specimen NML-VZ D3213. Obtained by the naturalist Sir Joseph Banks, it later entered the collection of the traveller William Bullock and was purchased by Lord Stanley; Stanley's son donated it to Liverpool's public museums in 1850. Although White said that the first specimen was obtained from Lord Howe Island, the provenance of the second has been unclear; it was originally said to have come from New Zealand, resulting in taxonomic confusion. Phillip wrote that the bird could also be found on Norfolk Island and elsewhere, but Latham said it could be found only on Norfolk Island. When the first specimen was sold by the Leverian Museum, it was listed as coming from New Holland (which Australia was called at the time)—perhaps because it was sent from Sydney. A note by the naturalist Edgar Leopold Layard on a contemporary illustration of the bird by Captain John Hunter inaccurately stated that it only lived on Ball's Pyramid, an islet off Lord Howe Island.

The zoologist Coenraad Jacob Temminck assigned the white swamphen to the swamphen genus Porphyrio as P. albus in 1820, and the zoologist George Robert Gray considered it an albino variety of the Australasian swamphen (P. melanotus) as P. m. varius alba in 1844. The belief that the bird was simply an albino was held by several later writers, and many failed to notice that White cited Lord Howe Island as the origin of the Vienna specimen. In 1860 and 1873, the ornithologist August von Pelzeln said that the Vienna specimen had come from Norfolk Island, and assigned the species to the genus Notornis as N. alba; the takahē (P. hochstetteri) of New Zealand was also placed in that genus at the time. In 1873, the naturalist Osbert Salvin agreed that the Lord Howe Island bird was similar to the takahē, although he had apparently never seen the Vienna specimen, basing his conclusion on a drawing provided by von Pelzeln. Salvin included a takahē-like illustration of the Vienna specimen by the artist John Gerrard Keulemans, based on von Pelzeln's drawing, in his article.

In 1875, the ornithologist George Dawson Rowley noted differences between the Vienna and Liverpool specimens and named a new species based on the latter: P. stanleyi, named after Lord Stanley. He believed that the Liverpool specimen was a juvenile from Lord Howe Island or New Zealand, and continued to believe that the Vienna specimen was from Norfolk Island. Despite naming the new species, Rowley considered the possibility that P. stanleyi was an albino Australasian swamphen and considered the Vienna bird more similar to the takahē. In 1901, the ornithologist Henry Ogg Forbes had the Liverpool specimen dismounted so he could examine it for damage. Forbes found it similar enough to the Vienna specimen to belong to the same species, N. alba. The zoologist Walter Rothschild considered the two species distinct from each other in 1907, but placed them both in the genus Notornis. Rothschild thought that the image published by Phillip in 1789 depicted N. stanleyi from Lord Howe Island, and the image published by White in 1790 showed N. alba from Norfolk Island. He disagreed that the specimens were albinos, thinking instead that they were evolving into a white species. Rothschild published an illustration of N. alba by Keulemans where it is similar to a takahē, inaccurately showing it with dark primary feathers, although the Vienna specimen on which it was based is all white. In 1910, the ornithologist Tom Iredale demonstrated that there was no proof of the white swamphen existing anywhere but on Lord Howe Island and noted that early visitors to Norfolk Island (such as Captain James Cook and Lieutenant Philip Gidley King) did not mention the bird. In 1913, after examining the Vienna specimen, Iredale concluded that the bird belonged in the genus Porphyrio and did not resemble the takahē.

In 1928, the ornithologist Gregory Mathews discussed a 1790 painting by Raper which he thought differed enough from P. albus in proportions and colouration that he named a new species based on it: P. raperi. Mathews also considered P. albus distinct enough to warrant a new genus, Kentrophorina, due to having a claw (or spur) on one wing. In 1936, he conceded that P. raperi was a synonym of P. albus. The ornithologist Keith Alfred Hindwood agreed that the bird was an albino P. melanotus in 1932, and pointed out that the naturalists Johann Reinhold Forster and Georg Forster (his son) did not record the bird when Cook's ship visited Norfolk Island in 1774. In 1940, Hindwood found the white swamphen so closely related to the Australasian swamphen that he considered them subspecies of the same species: P. albus albus and P. albus melanotus (since albus is the older name). Hindwood suggested that the population on Lord Howe Island was white; blue Australasian swamphens occasionally arrived (stragglers from elsewhere have been found on the island) and bred with the white birds, accounting for the blue and partially-blue individuals in the old accounts. He also pointed out that Australasian swamphens are prone to white feathering. In 1941, the biologist Ernst Mayr proposed that the white swamphen was a partially-albinistic population of Australasian swamphens. Mayr suggested that the blue swamphens remaining on Lord Howe Island were not stragglers, but had survived because they were less conspicuous than the white ones. In 1967, the ornithologist James Greenway also considered the white swamphen a subspecies (with P. stanleyi a synonym) and considered the white individuals albinos. He suggested that the similarities between the wing feathers of the white swamphen and the takahē were due to parallel evolution in two isolated populations of reluctant fliers.

The ornithologist Sidney Dillon Ripley found the white swamphen to be intermediate between the takahē and the purple swamphen in 1977, based on patterns of the leg-scutes, and reported that X-rays of bones also showed similarities with the takahē. He considered only the Vienna specimen to be a white swamphen, whereas he considered the Liverpool specimen to be an albino Australasian swamphen (listing P. stanleyi  as a junior synonym of that bird) from New Zealand. In 1991, the ornithologist Ian Hutton reported subfossil bones of the white swamphen. Hutton agreed that the birds described as having white-and-blue feathers were hybrids between the white swamphen and the Australasian swamphen, an idea also considered by the ornithologists Barry Taylor and Ber van Perlo in 2000. In 2000, the writer Errol Fuller said that since swamphens are widespread colonists, it would be expected that populations would evolve similarly to the takahē when they found refuges without mammals (losing flight and becoming bulkier with stouter legs, for example); this was the case with the white swamphen. Fuller suggested that they could be called "white takahēs", which had been alluded to earlier; the white birds may have been a colour morph of the population, or the blue birds may have been Australasian swamphens which associated with the white birds.

In 2015, the biologists Juan C. Garcia-R. and Steve A. Trewick analysed the DNA of the purple swamphens. They found that the white swamphen was most closely related to the Philippine swamphen (P. pulverulentus), and the black-backed swamphen (P. indicus) more closely related to both than to other species in its region. Garcia-R. and Trewick used DNA from the Vienna specimen, but were unable to obtain usable DNA from the Liverpool specimen. They suggested that the white swamphen may have descended from a few migrant Philippine swamphens during the late Pleistocene (about 500,000 years ago), dispersing over other islands. This indicates a complex history, since their lineages are not recorded on the islands between them; according to the biologists, such results (based on ancient DNA sources) should be treated with caution. Although many purple swamphen taxa had been considered subspecies of the species P. porphyrio, they considered this a paraphyletic (unnatural) grouping since they found different species to group among the subspecies. The cladogram below shows the phylogenetic position of the white swamphen according to the 2015 study:

The ornithologists Hein van Grouw and Julian P. Hume concluded in 2016 that many of the old accounts had errors in the bird's provenance, that it was endemic to Lord Howe Island, and suggested when the specimens were collected (between March and May 1788) and under which circumstances they arrived in England. They concluded that the white swamphen was a valid species which changed colouration with age, after reconstructing the colouration of juvenile birds before turning white (which was distinct from other swamphens). Van Grouw and Hume found the white swamphen anatomically more similar to the Australasian swamphen than the Philippine swamphen, and suggested that studies with more-complete data sets than the earlier DNA might yield different results. Due to their anatomical similarities, geographic proximity and the recolonisation of Lord Howe and Norfolk Island by Australasian swamphens, they found it likely that the white swamphen was descended from Australasian swamphens.

In 2021, Hume and colleagues reported the results of their palaeontological reconnaissance of Lord Howe Island, which included the discovery of subfossil white swamphen bones. A complete pelvis and representatives of most limb bones were found in the dunes of Blinky Beach (situated at the end of an airport runway), and the authors stated these would provide new insight into the morphology and behaviour of the species.

Description
The length of the white swamphen has been given as 36 cm (14 in) and 55 cm (22 in), making it similar to the Australasian swamphen in size. Its wings were proportionally the shortest of all swamphens. The wing of the Vienna specimen is 218 mm mm long, the tail is 73.3 mm, the culmen with its frontal shield (the fleshy plate on the head) is 79 mm, the tarsus is 86 mm, and the middle toe is 77.7 mm long. The wing of the Liverpool specimen is 235 mm long, the tarsus is 88.4 mm and the middle toe is 66.5 mm. Its tail and beak are damaged, and cannot be reliably measured. The white swamphen differed from most other swamphens (except the Australasian swamphen) in having a short middle toe; it is the same length as the tarsus, or longer, in other species. The white swamphen's tail was also the shortest. Both specimens have a claw (or spur) on their wings; it is longer and more discernible in the Vienna specimen, and sharp and buried in the feathers of the Liverpool specimen. This feature is variable among other kinds of swamphen. The softness of the rectrices (tail feathers) and the lengths of the secondary and wing covert feathers relative to the primary feathers appear to have been intermediate between those of the purple swamphen and the takahē.

Although the known skins are mostly white, contemporary illustrations depict some blue individuals; others had a mixture of white and blue feathers. Their legs were red or yellow, but the latter colour may be present only on dried specimens. The bill and frontal shield were red, and the iris was red or brown. According to notes written on an illustration by an unknown artist (in the collection of the artist Thomas Watling, inaccurately dated 1792), the chicks were black and became bluish-grey and then white as they matured. The Vienna specimen is pure white, but the Liverpool specimen has yellowish reflections on its neck and breast, blackish-blue feathers speckled on the head (concentrated near the upper surface of the shield) and neck, blue feathers on the breast, and purplish-blue feathers on the shoulders, back, scapular, and lesser covert feathers. Some of the rectrices (tail feathers) are purplish-brown, and some of the scapular feathers and those on the mid-back are sooty-brown at the base and sooty-blue further up. The central rectrices are sooty-brown and bluish. This colouration indicates that the Liverpool specimen was a younger bird than the Vienna specimen, and the latter had reached the final stage of maturity. Since the Liverpool specimen preserves some of its original colour, van Grouw, and Hume were able to reconstruct its natural colouration before becoming white. It differed from other swamphens in having blackish-blue lores, forehead, crown, nape, and hind neck; purple-blue mantle, back, and wings; a darker rump and upper-tail covert feathers; and dark greyish-blue underparts.

Phillip gave a detailed description in 1789, possibly based on a live bird he received in Sydney: "This beautiful bird greatly resembles the purple Gallinule in shape and make, but is much superior in size, being as large as a dunghill fowl. The length from the end of the bill to that of the claws is two feet three inches; the bill is very stout, and the colour of it, the whole top of the head, and the irides red; the sides of the head around the eyes are reddish, very thinly sprinkled with white feathers; the whole of the plumage without exception is white. The legs the colour of the bill. This species is pretty common on Lord Howe’s Island, Norfolk Island, and other places, and is a very tame species. The other sex, supposed to be the male, is said to have some blue on the wings."

Condition of the specimens
The Vienna specimen is today a study skin with its legs outstretched (not a taxidermy mount), but van Grouw and Hume suggested that Stone's 1790 illustration showed its original mounted pose. It is in good condition; although the legs are faded to a pale orange-brown, they were probably reddish in the living bird. It has no yellowish or purple feathers, contradicting Rothschild's observation. Forbes suggested that the Liverpool specimen was "remade" and mounted after Stone's illustration, though its present pose is dissimilar. Keulemans's illustration of the mount shows the present pose, so Forbes was either incorrect or a new pose was based on Keulemans's image. The Liverpool specimen is in good condition, although it has lost some feathers from its head and neck. The bill is broken, and its rhamphotheca (the keratinous covering of the bill) is missing; the underlying bone was painted red to simulate an undamaged bill, which has caused some confusion. The legs have also been painted red, and there is no indication of their original colouration. The reason only white specimens are known today may be collecting bias; unusually-coloured specimens are more likely to be collected than normally-coloured ones.

Behaviour and ecology
The white swamphen inhabited wooded lowland areas in wetlands. Nothing was recorded about its social and reproductive behaviour and its nest, eggs and call were never described. Presumably it did not migrate. Blackburn's 1788 account is the only one that mentions the diet of this bird: "... On the shore we caught several sorts of birds ... and a white fowl – something like a Guinea hen, with a very strong thick & sharp pointed bill of a red colour – stout legs and claws – I believe they are carnivorous they hold their food between the thumb or hind claw & the bottom of the foot & lift it to the mouth without stopping so much as a parrot." Some contemporary accounts indicated that the bird was flightless. Rowley considered the Liverpool specimen (representing the separate species P. stanleyi) capable of flight, due to its longer wings; Rothschild believed that both were flightless, although he was inconsistent about whether their wings were the same length. Van Grouw and Hume found that both specimens showed evidence of an increased terrestrial lifestyle (including decreased wing length, more robust feet and short toes), and were in the process of becoming flightless. Although it may still have been capable of flight, it was behaviourally flightless, similar to other island birds, such as some parrots. Though the white swamphen was similar in size to the Australasian swamphen, it had proportionally shorter wings and therefore a higher wing load – perhaps the highest of all swamphens. Upon the discovery of subfossil pelvic and limb bones in 2021, Hume and colleagues preliminarily stated that these bones were much more robust in the white swamphen than in the volant Australasian swamphen, a trait common in flightless rails.

Van Grouw and Hume pointed out that a white colour aberration in birds is rarely caused by albinism (which is less common than formerly believed), but by leucism or progressive greying – a phenomenon van Grouw described in 2012 and 2013. These conditions produce white feathers due to the absence of cells which produce the pigment melanin. Leucism is inherited, and the white feathering is present in juveniles and does not change with age; progressive greying causes normally-coloured juveniles to lose pigment-producing cells with age, and they become white as they moult. Since contemporary accounts indicate that the white swamphen turned from black to bluish-grey and then white, Van Grouw and Hume concluded that it underwent inheritable progressive greying. Progressive greying is a common cause of white feathers in many types of birds (including rails), although such specimens have sometimes been inaccurately referred to as albinos. The condition does not affect carotenoid pigments (red and yellow), and the bill and legs of the white swamphens retained their colouration. The large number of white individuals on Lord Howe Island may be due to its small founding population, which would have facilitated the spread of inheritable progressive greying.

Extinction
Although the white swamphen was considered common during the late 18th century, it appears to have disappeared quickly; the period from the island's discovery to the last mention of living birds is only two years (1788–90). It had probably vanished by 1834, when Lord Howe Island was first settled, or during the following decade. Whalers and sealers had used the island for supplies, and may have hunted the bird to extinction. Habitat destruction probably did not play a role, and animal predators (such as rats and cats) arrived later. Several contemporary accounts stress the ease with which the island's birds were hunted, and the large number which could be taken to provision ships. In 1789, White described how the white swamphen could be caught: "They [sailors] also found on it, in great plenty, a kind of fowl, resembling much of the Guinea fowl in shape and size, but widely different in colour; they being in general all white, with a red fleshy substance rising, like a cock’s comb, from the head, and not unlike a piece of sealing-wax. These not being birds of flight, nor in the least wild, the sailors availing themselves of their gentleness and inability to take wing from their pursuits, easily struck them down with sticks."

The fact that they could be killed with sticks may have been due to their poor flying ability, which would have made them vulnerable to human predation. With no natural enemies on the island, they were tame and curious. The physician John Foulis conducted a mid-1840s ornithological survey on the island but did not mention the bird, so it was almost certainly extinct by that time. In 1909, the writer Arthur Francis Basset Hull expressed hope that the bird still survived in unexplored mountains.

Eight types of bird have become extinct due to human interference since Lord Howe Island was discovered, including the Lord Howe pigeon (Columba vitiensis godmanae), the Lord Howe parakeet (Cyanoramphus subflavescens), the Lord Howe gerygone (Gerygone insularis), the Lord Howe fantail (Rhipidura fuliginosa cervina), the Lord Howe thrush (Turdus poliocephalus vinitinctus), the robust white-eye (Zosterops strenuus) and the Lord Howe starling (Aplonis fusca hulliana). The extinction of so many native birds is similar to extinctions on several other islands, such as the Mascarenes.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: White swamphen


text:
Camellia (cipher)

In cryptography, Camellia is a symmetric key block cipher with a block size of 128 bits and key sizes of 128, 192 and 256 bits. It was jointly developed by Mitsubishi Electric and NTT of Japan. The cipher has been approved for use by the ISO/IEC, the European Union's NESSIE project and the Japanese CRYPTREC project. The cipher has security levels and processing abilities comparable to the Advanced Encryption Standard.

The cipher was designed to be suitable for both software and hardware implementations, from low-cost smart cards to high-speed network systems. It is part of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) cryptographic protocol designed to provide communications security over a computer network such as the Internet.

The cipher was named for the flower Camellia japonica, which is known for being long-lived as well as because the cipher was developed in Japan.

Design
Camellia is a Feistel cipher with either 18 rounds (when using 128-bit keys) or 24 rounds (when using 192- or 256-bit keys). Every six rounds, a logical transformation layer is applied: the so-called "FL-function" or its inverse. Camellia uses four 8×8-bit S-boxes with input and output affine transformations and logical operations. The cipher also uses input and output key whitening. The diffusion layer uses a linear transformation based on a matrix with a branch number of 5.

Security analysis
Camellia is considered a modern, safe cipher. Even using the smaller key size option (128 bits), it's considered infeasible to break it by brute-force attack on the keys with current technology. There are no known successful attacks that weaken the cipher considerably. The cipher has been approved for use by the ISO/IEC, the European Union's NESSIE project and the Japanese CRYPTREC project. The Japanese cipher has security levels and processing abilities comparable to the AES/Rijndael cipher.

Camellia is a block cipher which can be completely defined by minimal systems of multivariate polynomials: Theoretically, such properties might make it possible to break Camellia (and AES) using an algebraic attack, such as extended sparse linearisation, in the future, provided that the attack becomes feasible.
 * The Camellia (as well as AES) S-boxes can be described by a system of 23 quadratic equations in 80 terms.
 * The key schedule can be described by 1,120 equations in 768 variables using 3,328 linear and quadratic terms.
 * The entire block cipher can be described by 5,104 equations in 2,816 variables using 14,592 linear and quadratic terms.
 * In total, 6,224 equations in 3,584 variables using 17,920 linear and quadratic terms are required.
 * The number of free terms is 11,696, which is approximately the same number as for AES.

Patent status
Although Camellia is patented, it is available under a royalty-free license. This has allowed the Camellia cipher to become part of the OpenSSL Project, under an open-source license, since November 2006. It has also allowed it to become part of the Mozilla's NSS (Network Security Services) module.

Adoption
Support for Camellia was added to the final release of Mozilla Firefox 3 in 2008 (disabled by default as of Firefox 33 in 2014 in spirit of the "Proposal to Change the Default TLS Ciphersuites Offered by Browsers", and has been dropped from version 37 in 2015 ). Pale Moon, a fork of Mozilla/Firefox, continues to offer Camellia and had extended its support to include Galois/Counter mode (GCM) suites with the cipher, but has removed the GCM modes again with release 27.2.0, citing the apparent lack of interest in them.

Later in 2008, the FreeBSD Release Engineering Team announced that the cipher had also been included in the FreeBSD 6.4-RELEASE. Also, support for the Camellia cipher was added to the disk encryption storage class geli of FreeBSD by Yoshisato Yanagisawa.

In September 2009, GNU Privacy Guard added support for Camellia in version 1.4.10.

VeraCrypt (a fork of TrueCrypt) included Camellia as one of its supported encryption algorithms.

Moreover, various popular security libraries, such as Crypto++, GnuTLS, mbed TLS and OpenSSL also include support for Camellia.

Thales and Bloombase support Camellia encryption cipher with their data cryptography offerings.

On March 26, 2013, Camellia was announced as having been selected again for adoption in Japan's new e-Government Recommended Ciphers List as the only 128-bit block cipher encryption algorithm developed in Japan. This coincides with the CRYPTREC list being updated for the first time in 10 years. The selection was based on Camellia's high reputation for ease of procurement, and security and performance features comparable to those of the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES). Camellia remains unbroken in its full implementation. An impossible differential attack on 12-round Camellia without FL/FL−1 layers does exist.

Performance
The S-boxes used by Camellia share a similar structure to AES's S-box. As a result, it is possible to accelerate Camellia software implementations using CPU instruction sets designed for AES, such as x86 AES-NI or x86 GFNI, by affine isomorphism.

Standardization
Camellia has been certified as a standard cipher by several standardization organizations:
 * CRYPTREC
 * NESSIE
 * IETF
 * Algorithm
 * : A Description of the Camellia Encryption Algorithm
 * Block cipher mode
 * : Camellia Counter Mode and Camellia Counter with CBC-MAC Mode Algorithms
 * S/MIME
 * : Use of the Camellia Encryption Algorithm in Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)
 * XML Encryption
 * : Additional XML Security Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)
 * TLS/SSL
 * : Addition of Camellia Cipher Suites to Transport Layer Security (TLS)
 * : Camellia Cipher Suites for TLS
 * : Addition of the Camellia Cipher Suites to Transport Layer Security (TLS)
 * IPsec
 * : The Camellia Cipher Algorithm and Its Use With IPsec
 * : Modes of Operation for Camellia for Use with IPsec
 * Kerberos
 * : Camellia Encryption for Kerberos 5
 * OpenPGP
 * : The Camellia Cipher in OpenPGP
 * RSA-KEM in CMS
 * : Use of the RSA-KEM Key Transport Algorithm in the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)
 * PSKC
 * : Portable Symmetric Key Container (PSKC)
 * Smart grid
 * : Internet Protocols for the Smart Grid
 * ISO/IEC
 * ISO/IEC 18033-3:2010 Information technology—Security techniques—Encryption algorithms—Part 3: Block ciphers
 * ITU-T
 * Security mechanisms and procedures for NGN (Y.2704)
 * RSA Laboratories
 * Approved cipher in the PKCS#11
 * TV-Anytime Forum
 * Approved cipher in TV-Anytime Rights Management and Protection Information for Broadcast Applications
 * Approved cipher in Bi-directional Metadata Delivery Protection

title: Camellia (cipher)