Talk:Alejandrina Cox incident

See references for this article: Talk:Alejandrina Cox incident/References

POV

Exactly how can one dispute the Paulina Lyon incident? It happened, as stated, and it did have the political impact as stated. So how is this controversial or matters of dispute? --MILH 13:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Your language and assertions are biased. ☆ CieloEstrellado 04:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

If you believe that the language is biased, by all means edit it. But do not call, in effect, label the incident fictitious, when it is not. --MILH 20:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

A list of your POV edits:

Driving himself to work one morning in mid-1973, at the height of the civil unrest caused by the Allende government's increasingly erratic economic measures as well as Prats' own failure to maintain public order

For one, it made General Prats the laughingstock of the entire country. Much more seriously, General Prats lost all standing with the other branches of the armed forces, and most especially lost the loyalty of the entire officer corps of the Chilean Army, of which he was the Commander in Chief.

This was important, as the perception up to this time was that General Prats was a serious, level-headed bulwark of the so-called Schneider Doctrine—that is, deliberately keeping the Army out of Chile's civilian affairs. Once General Prats so spectacularly lost the trust and respect of the population at large and the armed forces in particular, talk of a coup d'etat stopped being mere talk and suddenly started becoming a real possibility.

Tell me how the above statements are fact and not your own opinion. Tell me, can you prove each and every one of your comments with documents? Please notice Wikipedia has a neutrality policy. I don't think you can get away with the above. ☆ CieloEstrellado 02:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Following WP:MOS

MILH , would you please follow WP:MOS? ☆ CieloEstrellado 02:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Alejandrina Cox

She was called Alejandrina Cox, not Paulina Lyon. This proves how well researched your edits are, MILH.

This sorry incident was apparently planned by the CIA and carried out by Patria y Libertad. ☆ CieloEstrellado 00:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand you at all, CieloEstrellado. You dispute the factual accuracy of the Alejandrina Cox article (which I admit, for some idiotic reason on my part I grossly misnamed, the sole error of fact of the article), and you go so far as to claim that Alejandrina Cox was a member of Patria y Libertad, part of a CIA plot! Then a couple of hours later, you yourself provide all the evidence necessary to support exactly what was stated in the article I wrote.

You are a strange little man, CieloEstrellado — you call someone a liar, then when all the evidence proves that the person you libelled is telling the truth, you have neither the decency nor the courage to admit you were wrong. Rather, you go behind their back, bad-mouthing them in a cowardly fashion, even though you know she is right.

--MILH 03:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I'm the one that is baffled by your behavior. I never said Cox was a PyL member. I suggest you to read the references below in their entirety (I hope you can read Spanish). Your choice of words in the article is clearly very convenient. You pepper alleged facts with the most outrageous adjectives and you omit important information, such as the fact that it was all planned out in advance in order to weaken Prats's reputation. Why do you omit this information? Because of ignorance (which I can understand) or to further your own political agenda? ☆ CieloEstrellado 04:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Read three paragraphs above, Cielo Estrellado: "This sorry incident [i.e., the Alejandrina Cox incident] was apparently planned by the CIA and carried out by Patria y Libertad." You yourself wrote this. --MILH 13:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do yourself a favor and s-l-o-w-l-y read that paragraph again. Do I say she was a PyL member? No. ☆ CieloEstrellado 15:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

"Do I say she was a PyL member? No." Yes, you did. You can argue that saying "apparently" indicates otherwise, but that would simply be dissembling and cowardice. You said it in a fashion that indicates you agree with it. At least have the decency to stick with what you said, or state that you spoke in error and retract your statement. Disorganisation Man 00:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this article

Beyond its lack of a neutral POV, the problem with this article is the language used. It's not encyclopedic. The article's writing is great for a miscellaneous magazine, but not for an encyclopedia, where the writing is more fact-based and less colorful. ☆ CieloEstrellado 17:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:General Prats car.jpg

Image:General Prats car.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 Wikipedia: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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)