Talk:Salvador Allende/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

A flat-out LIE

Watch carefully:

....the Chamber of Deputies of Chile's Resolution of August 22, 1973 sanctioned the end of democratic rule with a simple majority vote.

Whomever altered this sentence to read that way wasn't merely making a mistake, or smuggling in a "point of view" -- he was LYING through his shit-stained teeth. And it's been sitting their like a pus-dripping wart at the end of a witch's nose for God knows how long now? (I submit this is a prima-facia example of why Wikipedia is doomed to utter failure as an in any way remotely credible regards any obliquely partisan issue.) —This unsigned comment was added by Mike18xx (talk • contribs) 2 April 2006.

Actually, I think your style of addressing other editors is more of a threat to the project than much anything in this article. I have added a signature to your comment, because you are particularly out of line to make such a remark and not sign it.

For what it's worth, I agree that the sentence you complained about was not an accurate representation of what the Chamber of Deputies voted for, but the version that you subsequently added is no prize either. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I edited it to be correct, not popular.--Mike18xx 09:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The resolution was never approved, because it failed to get two-thirds majority in the Chamber of Deputies, right? See Chilean_coup_of_1973#Allende_responds Vints 13:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

See Jose Pinera's dissection of Allende's rejoinder here: http://www.lyd.com/english/weekly/never.html --Mike18xx 09:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

"Questions of coup justification"

The lead of a biographical article is not the place to get into the questions of whether the coup was somehow justified or even "authorized" (edit comments, 21:59, 10 April 2006 Jmabel)

The text you reverted away from not only did not "justify" the coup, it differentiated the removal of Allende from the "coup" proper (i.e., Pinochet's assumption of dictatorial power ex post facto). This issue has been discussed before (see above). Merely mentioning the Resolution of Aug 22, 1973 does not constitute endorsing Pinochet's dictatorship. I can certainly fathom why Allende's hoary hold-outs prefer continually airbrushing the Resolution out of history, over thirty years now after the fact, in order to maintain their adopted illusion (originally Soviet propaganda) of Allende as a ruthlessly usurped champion of the people. One of these days, I'll get around to including referenced accounts of Allende's importation of Cuban enforcers into Chile, at which point the torch-bearers will wish they'd never poked the ant-hill.--Mike18xx 01:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, I am not "airbrushing" it out of history, and I agree that it belongs in the article. I am simply saying that it does not belong in the lead. - Jmabel | Talk 02:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Here, and at History of Chile, and doubtless elsewhere, someone seems to be editing with a strong anti-Allende agenda. I don't have time to do more than note this and hope someone else will follow up, but besides the continual return of the mention of the Resolution of Aug 22, 1973, with no mention that the legislature could not muster the two-thirds majority that could have legally removed Allende. Also, the addition of "Soviet-aligned". Chile under Allende was certainly somewhat friendly toward the Soviets (and very friendly toward Cuba) but aligned? I don't remember any Soviet bases in Chile, nor any military treaties. - Jmabel | Talk 05:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you and when I added a sentence in the Salvador Allende article about the two-thirds majority my edit was quickly removed by Mike18xx. Vints 06:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm really busy now, and don't have time to fight over this, but I think there have been several very contentious recent edits. We do not usually describe elected leaders of having "imposed" on their countries the very policies on which they ran and won office. - Jmabel | Talk 06:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

What's with the legacy section?

Someone needs to look over the Legacy and Debate section with a fine-toothed comb. Yes indeed, Mr. Allende was a cotnroversial figure. Yes indeed, there are many little sectrets he may have been involved in. However, many of the items here are conspiracy theories largely lacking credence. There are legitimate points against Allende that go unmentioned. There needs to be clearer support for some of these allegations. Grenye | Talk 01:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Internal opposition to Allende

• Allende’s transparent lust for power was well recognized in Chile by the time of the 1973 coup. On August 23, 1973 the Chamber of Deputies, the equivalent of our House of Representatives, adopted a resolution charging: "It is a fact that the present Government of the Republic [the Allende administration], from its inception, has been bent on conquering total power, with the evident purpose of submitting all individuals to the strictest economic and political control by the State, thus achieving the establishment of a totalitarian system, absolutely contrary to the representative democratic system prescribed by the Constitution." [1]

It seems it was not only Pinochet who opposed Allende, but the Chilean Congress as well. It seems he disregarded written promise he had made in exchange for Congressing appointing him president in 1970. --Uncle Ed 01:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Do we have a credible source for the text of this resolution? A google search for [allende "has been bent on conquering total power"] turns up only three websites, all highly polemical, none of which refer to any other source for the text. Cadr 15:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

(I'm not suggesting that these websites have made the resolution up, I just think it would be good to have a better source.) Cadr 15:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Do not confuse one house of Congress with the entirety of Congress. There was both a Chamber of Deputies and a Senate.
2. This was basically (maybe entirely?) a party-line vote. The Christian Democrats had turned against him.
3. It had no legal force. There was a constitutional process to remove a president; it would have required a 2/3 vote, which this did not achieve
4. Yes, the majority of the Chamber did basically claim that Allende had violated the constitution and called for his overthrow by force, if necessary. Clearly a constitutional crisis, in that part of the apparatus of government was invoking violence against another part, but (lacking a 2/3 vote) they had no more constitutional right to remove him than he them.
5. In any event, Pinochet's coup was clearly not an attempt to "restore" constitutional rule. It was an opportunistic exploitation of the split between constitutional forces.

- Jmabel | Talk 22:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's the text of the August 22 resolution in English (I don't know where someone got August 23), with several other languages, including the original Spanish, linked. Whatever one thinks of the politics of the person who maintains the site, I see no reason to doubt the authenticity of the text. - Jmabel | Talk 22:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Allende's early political career

• 1934, Allende became a minister [not of Health?] in one of the three Popular Front governments of Chile led by Pedro Aguirre Cerda.

Though I may well be wrong, I have been unable to track down any other source information suggesting that Allende became a minister at any stage before 1938, and Cerda did not have a government prior to 1938 either. Does anyone else have any feelings about this?

Kissinger quote

Google "communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people", including the quotation marks. There are hundreds of results and many in Google Books as well. —Sesel 00:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is a biography of Allende. Quotes about his government (which I do not doubt the Kissinger quote is one) do not belong here- you may wish to incorporate them into the Chile under Allende article. There is already one Kissinger quote which directly addresses Allende in the article, there's not need for this one. Isarig 17:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no quote section in Chile under Allende so let's keep the citation here. And this article deals with both Allende and his government and the coup.Vints 09:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be a "quotes" section there. Find a section where this quote is appropriate and add it in, either in Chile under Allende or United States intervention in Chile. This article is a biography of Allende, and There is already one Kissinger quote which directly addresses Allende. Isarig 14:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you add the quote where it belongs, since you removed it. Vints 15:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the quote is that notable. but if you feel differently - by all means go for itIsarig 19:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind the quote, it shows how people are ready to violate democracy in the name of democracy. But, but, Wikiquote is where quotes belong, there's no need for a "quotes" section on WikiPEDIA when there's a WikiQUOTE made exactly for this. --A Sunshade Lust 22:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I moved the quotes to Chilean Coup of 1973. Vints 07:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Causes of civil unrest

Mingus ah um, with whom I am currently in an edit war with, seems to feel that the following phrasing: "Domestic opposition and intervention from the United States led to a state of civil unrest amid strikes, lockouts, American economic sanctions, and calls by some opposition members for the military to restore order." is more factually accurate than "Allende is generally considered to have imposed a controversial...agenda.../snip/... which led to civil unrest, strikes and lockouts, American sanctions, and calls by some opposition members for the military to restore order." I maintain that his preferred wording is historically innacurate propaganda seeking to blame Allende's domestic opposition and the United States for creating Chile's problems under Allende -- rather than being a response to them). The Chilean Chamber of Deputies (whose Resolution Mingus is desperately attempting to remove from the Pinochet entry foreward) certainly and emphatically disagreed with that interpretation.--Mike18xx 01:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Mike, you and I both know that it is a stretch to state that Allende's "agenda" was the only factor which led to civil unrest, which is what your edit blatantly implies. If it were not for your simultaneous edits on the Pinochet page, I would have given you the benefit of the doubt, but it is very clear that you are trying to pin everything negative on Allende. Until you are willing to actually acknowledge the fact that you are not the sole possessor of "the truth," your actions (and your notorious wiki reputation) will amount to nothing more than POV pushing. Are you willing to engage the language contructively, sans elipses? --(Mingus ah um 07:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC))

I will revert again in the interests of accuracy over placating you, and leave it to you to formulate a reasonable edit which does not "try to pin everything negative" (your phrase) on everyone but Allende (which is the propaganda version I will continue to nuke my alotted three times per day).--Mike18xx 09:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It appears that another user agrees with me; your edits have already been reverted by him or her. --(Mingus ah um 19:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC))

I have no doubt that you'll find an endless number of persons to agree with you (and nearly all of them will be American or European leftists) who nevertheless won't put forward any kind of credible case here in talk, should they appear here at all. Meanwhile, the occasional editor from Chile will troop through Wiki and not see any occasion to revert my submissions (eg, Melromero over in the Pinochet entry).--Mike18xx 20:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

So... I take it that the answer to my question ("are you willing to engage the language contructively, sans elipses?") is a no. Why should anyone take an editor seriously who is not willing to discuss or consider altering the language of his edits? --(Mingus ah um 20:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC))

Why should anyone take an editor seriously who is not in command of the subject matter, and whose "trump card" is to issue threats of moderation of other editors? Cut-n-paste: I will revert again in the interests of accuracy over placating you, and leave it to you to formulate a reasonable edit which does not "try to pin everything negative" (your phrase) on everyone but Allende (which is the propaganda version I will continue to nuke my alotted three times per day).--Mike18xx 21:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

US intervention began already in September 1970 when Allende had won the popular election, and before he had "imposed" any agenda. So they weren't "a response" to Chile's problems, as Mike says.Vints 21:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Vints is entirely correct.

Both Vints and You are tossing up, and confirming, a wholly arbitrary statement. More below.--Mike18xx 06:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

As for your previous response to me: Why do you say I am not in command of the subject matter? Simply because I do not agree with your POV edit, and have suggested you either submit to a discussion of your edit or accept moderation (an activity which is not unusual on wiki, and generally offends only those who have trouble working with others)? I'm not the one who tries to defend his arguments by labeling the individual in question with a term which bears no relationship to the man's ideology, polemics or implemented policy (that term, if you have already forgotten, was Leninist)?

A descriptive I will stand by.--Mike18xx 06:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The original statement: "Domestic opposition and intervention from the United States led to a state of civil unrest amid strikes, lockouts, American economic sanctions and calls by some opposition members for the military to restore order."

Your statement: "Allende's term as president was market by civil unrest, strikes and lockouts, American sanctions, Allende's refusal to enforce numerous Chilean Supreme Court rulings, and calls by some opposition members in the legislature for the military to restore order."

Our differences are very clear:

First, you refuse to accept the fact that we should highlight the fact that domestic opposition and US intervention dramatically increased the state of civil unrest. You just want to cut "domestic opposition" from the article and replace it with a reference to Allende's administration. That's POV pushing if I've ever seen it, but, if you are actually willing to discuss the language we may be able to come to a conclusion.

Second, you believe that Allende's relationship with the Supreme Court should be highlighted (even though his disagreements/opposition to the court are only vaguely mentioned and are not referenced in this article). Most individuals would believe that a reference to a particularly troubling relationship with the court should not be made more prominent in the introduction of a biography than within the body of the article itself.

Third, if you weren't so interested in POV pushing (that is, if you were really trying to clean up the article), you would have probably been interested in highlighting something as important as, say, the fall of the price of copper on international markets or the fact leftist civil unrest was the result of socialists and anarchists advancing land reforms (which began not under Allende by under Christian Democrat who preceeded him) ahead of Allende's (and the Marxist's) shedule. But these are factors which you clearly have no interest in.

Finally, Allende did not have a pro-Soviet agenda (a statement which is still in the introduction, and which you initially attempted to add your new statement too); he had repeatedly opposed Soviet activities and encouraged a detente with China, the Soviet Union's arch-rival at that time. I intend to remove the statement, although I'm sure you will revert my edit.

I don't know what more to say. I'm willing to produce a compromise draft if you are willing to put down in print that you are willing to consider a draft that I present. If you are not, we may have hit a brick wall. I think we both know what the next step would be if that is the case. --(Mingus ah um 22:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC))

(1) Allende unquestionably had a pro-Cuban agenda, which is close enough to my tastes; I otherwise have no objection to removing the pro-Soviet....although I am 99% certain it won't take too much digging to buttress it. China was an annoyance to the SU, not an "arch-rival" (the US was its "arch-rival").

(2) Nixon and Kissinger dusting off contingency plans and exploring how to plant some articles in newspapers and spread a little money around doesn't really constitute on-the-ground "intervention" in the manner that legions of Marxists hacks who've been butchering this story for three decades would desperately like you to believe. It certainly doesn't represent "intervention" in the way of, say, Allende green-lighting his buddy Fidel Castro to send down 5,000 "embassy personnel" to run riot as his own personal brownshirt squad, and greenlighting the MIR to murder & loot the countryside. I'm going to guess that didn't know either of these.

(3) The fact that falling copper prices could cripple an entire country is evidence of that fact that Allende's socialist gutting of the rest of Chile's economic infrastructure had left it so utterly dependant upon that one thing left.

(4) Regards the Supreme Court: Would you prefer I replaced the word "numerous" with "7,000"? Allende's near-complete and deliberate intention of marginalizing the entire judicial branch of the Chilean government was a primary impetus for the Resolution which led to his demise. Pinochet didn't just mount up his horse and charge like Don Quixote in a one man army, you know; the rest of the military forces followed him for good reasons.

(5) Regards the unnamed "civil opposition" which you are so certain shares responsibility for "unrest" -- when you can dig up something that isn't sourced to a Marxist screed, I'll be more than happy to entertain it. Prior to then, it's simply an unsourced statement regardless of its merits. In any event, if the "unrest" is a response to Allende, then its difficult for you to maintain that Allende isn't responsible for it. I maintain that the "unrest" (in the form of a socialism-destroyed economy) resulted in opposition to Allende. But then Marxist accounts are all about inversion (i.e., to accuse one's enemy of doing exactly that which oneself is doing).--Mike18xx 06:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Surely "pro-Cuban" is not necessarily "Leninist". Are you also going to say that (for example) Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales are Leninists?

Chavez certainly qualifies. (Of course he's also a fascist -- overlap exists between these categories.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mike18xx (talk • contribs) 25 July 2006.

I can't find a way not to respond to that without being somewhat ad hominem, other than to say I believe that you are totally wrong on both counts, and that I doubt you could find a reputable scholar who would call him either of these. - Jmabel | Talk 21:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope you will acknowledge that the reason for much of Pinochet's initial support was under the mistaken impression that he would restore the status quo ante.

Anything looks good after a taste of communism.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mike18xx (talk • contribs) 25 July 2006.

As for sources: the issue should be their intellectual honesty and factual accuracy, not their politics. Th author being a Marxist (and I suspect you use that term very broadly) no more disqualifies a source than being (for example) a capitalist, a Muslim, or a lawyer, though in each case there would be people who would be made as uncomfortable by that as you are by a Marxist. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

So you say. I disagree, as there are certain modes of illogic involved in falling into certain ideologies -- and anyone throwin' down with dialectics, let alone religious fanaticism, is just, plain out. I expect as much accuracy from Marxist dialectitions appraising so-called "peoples revolutions" (orchestrated from the Kremlin) as I expect from Islamists attempting to obfusicate the Wiki entries for dhimmi and honor killing. Which is to say: None save clever "consessions" designed to milk "compromise" abandonments of truth elsewhere via "consensus". Which is fine, of course, if your idea of a well-written encyclopedia entry is one which consists of fifty-percent truth and fifty-percent distortion, weaseling, and censorship-by-ommission.--Mike18xx 22:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Rene Schneider

This:

Allende assumed the presidency on November 3, 1970. Twelve days before, General René Schneider, Commander in Chief of the Chilean Army, was wounded during a kidnap attempt by a group lead by Roberto Viaux. Viaux's kidnapping plan had been supported by the CIA, although it seems Kissinger ordered the plans turned off.[2] Schneider was a known defender of the "Constitutionalism", a doctrine according to which the Army's role is exclusively professional, its mission being to protect the country's sovereignty and not being allowed to interfere in politics. General Schneider's resistance while being kidnapped terminated in his death in a hospital, three days later, not being able to recover from gunshot wounds. + Allende assumed the presidency on November 3, 1970.

René Schneider's murder was disapproved by a lot of people, and helped citizens and military support Allende,[3] whom the Parliament finally chose on October 24. On October 26, President Eduardo Frei named General Carlos Prats as commander in chief of the army in replacement of René Schneider.

...is just appalling grammar through and through; and chock full of other problems: The word "seems", for instance, has no place in an authoritative encyclopedia entry. The FrontPage linked piece doesn't claim that Schneider's assassination translated into civilian support for Allende. (In fact, his murder was exploited by the promulgators of the "Plan Z" theory.) There's also the incongruity of indulging the purported "Constitutionalism" of Schneider when Wiki-editing professed lovers of constitutions are mostly AWOL when it comes to dealing with Allende's own peeing all over the Chilean Constitution to the extent that a Resolution imploring the military to overthrow him for violating the Constitution handily passed the Chamber of Deputies. (I had to fight tooth-and-nail to get that pivotal document, the passage of which was trumpeted on the front pages of Chilean newspapers the next day, referenced at all in the Wikipedia entries.) Essentially, it's an unseemly excercise in hypocrisy.--Mike18xx 23:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Grammar is also not a reason to delete entire paragraphs. I didn't revert your edits because you can't spell "customary" ("customery") or "obfuscation" ("obfusication" ).

Nor you the word "paid" (below).

I copied the part about of the text about popular and military support from Chilean presidential election, 1970.

The fact that one Wiki entry is badly sourced is not legitimate grounds for propogating the error.

The Chamber of Deputies' resolution was written by Allende's adversaries and is by no means a neutral source.

You could say that about anything. Moral-equivalence logical-fallacy.

Also it failed to get enough support in the Senate.

Because senators had longer terms, and Allende's supporters there hadn't been thrown out in elections yet.

I used the word "seems" because it should be short and the matter is explained in the FrontPage Magazine article. Kissinger said he had turned off the coup. But since Viaux went on with the plan it's possible Kissinger never did in fact turn it off, thus "seems". According to the René Schneider article, CIA afterwards payed the kidnappers $35.000.

You're completely ignoring the main objection that your claim that "citizens" were influenced by the Schneider assassination is sourced is in fact not sourced. Why are you assuming that I'm not going to catch you hopscotching right on by that?

Also, why do you write "pro-Cuban and pro-Soviet agenda" for Allende and delete "pro-US agenda" for Pinochet? Vints 06:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Because that's accurate. As I told you before, kicking communists out of your country's government does not ipso facto equate to a "US agenda". Pinochet, for instance, had little interest in implementing any of the ideology behind, say, the Declaration of Independence. He certainly didn't have any qualms about keeping the copper mines under government control as a source of revenue, so you really can't even call him a capitalist nominally respectful of property-rights.--Mike18xx 18:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Pinochet imposed a vast privatization of most sectors, although not every part of the economy was privatized, but the US didn't have an entirely privatized economy either.

Regretably, no it does not.

To say that Allende was pro-Soviet is not more correct than saying that Pinochet was pro-US.

Opposing Soviet-style command-collectivization of your country does not make you pro-US.

Allende had no intention to turn Chile into a one-party state.

I didn't claim that he did...although one could reasonably infer that all of the Soviet and Cuban personnel crawling around Chile weren't there just to enjoy scenic vacations in the Andes.

The lead in particular should be objective so I'd rather have both pro-US and pro-Soviet removed.

Objectivity does not consist of giving fact and error equal-time.

Probably the article doesn't mention that in addition to the support from the military, the citizens' support for Allende also increased, because it's obvious that the opposition killing Schneider had this effect. I will remove it though until a source supports it. Vints 06:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Cause and effect fallacy. Given that Allende has already been elected, but had yet to do anything prior to being sworn in; it's unlikely civilian opinion about HIM changed merely because a military commander was mysteriously assassinated. At least, you've yet to indicate so in any cite. "Probably" is just your conjecture. In fact, you have no evidence whatsoever of how citizen opinion of Allende changed one way or the other after the murder of Schneider. Suffice to say that 36.2 percent of the voters, itself a subset of the entire population approved of Allende in the election. Hardly a ringing endorsement; Hell, the Nazis got 44% in Germany's 1933 plurality.--Mike18xx 07:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Mike, given your objection above to a wide swath of sources on the left (apparently, you believe that no Marxist can be an acceptable source, and clearly your definition of Marxist is wide enough to embrace people who don't even call themselves such), it is remarkable that you think David Horowitz's FrontPageMag.com magazine is not equally disqualified by being so far to the right. Oh, but I forgot: according to your remarks above, intellectual honesty is beside the point. And if you want to file an RFC on me for that last sentence, I welcome it; indeed, I would welcome a close review of the discussion on this page in general. - Jmabel | Talk 22:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Jmabel? Most US Republicans are Marxist without knowing it (because they're idiots); and all you have to do to nail the fact down is ask them what their plan is for eliminating coercion-funded government welfare (AKA "vote-buying programs") and economy-collectivizing federal bureaucracies (and draw a vacant stare). (Yes, yes; I am quite well aware of the fact that eventually the State is supposed to whither away in the final stage, even though it just never gets around to that phase.) Furthermore, I dislike all "left" and "right" descriptions as they are completely arbitrary, generally obfusicationist as the point of their being uttered, and are totally neglectful of the only meaningful political scale: that of liberty versus subjugation. As far as Marxists who self-describe themselves as such (or by various, evasionary euphemisms), their "credibility" and "intellectual honesty" goes exactly as far as their dialectical method, which is to say not very far at all. Beyond that (which is quite enough already), I have zero regard for anyone whose philosophy consists of their assuming they have the right to dispose of my property as they see fit.--Mike18xx 07:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I take it that you define a "Marxist" as anyone who disagrees with your political views.

You take it wrongly, and you wouldn't have the slightest clue what my political views are (although I can guess with reasonable certainty what you erroneously assume them to be).

I also take it that you would do well to re-read wikipedia's NPOV policy. And the credibility of a source does not rest on the degree to which the author approves of your beliefs. -- Nikodemos 08:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't play with double-edged swords, because they're sharp on both sides. Now then, this isn't about me; and you should get over your dialectic games right now.--Mike18xx 09:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Mike, why do you not use the edit summary field? Without giving a motivation you deleted this sentence: The "truckers' strike", backed by CIA funding, virtually paralysed the economy for three weeks, which Moscow saw as evidence of the weakness of the Popular Unity government. [4] The deleted statement is verified in the article that you copy text from. (I inserted it again.)Vints 14:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)