This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chile, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chile on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChileWikipedia:WikiProject ChileTemplate:WikiProject ChileChile articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article is clearly biased toward liberal, environmentalist special interests. For instance, it doesn't mention that so called 'renewable' energy makes up over 60% of Chilean energy production - clearly this gives lie to what the socialists in America would have you believe. It also doesn't mention that Chile's recent socialist regime got in the way of business and degraded infrastructure. Various American communist groups and the Democrat party would have you believe that liberal policies are good for infrastructure - this event completely destroys their argument.
Why is this article silent on these key issues? Could it be wikipedia's liberal bias? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.14.28.86 (talk) 04:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the preceding comment even deserves a reply due to it being so off topic. BTW, a pat on the back to the contributors of this article for it's extensive citations, both in the list of sources and inline. Three Cheers! EaswarH (talk) 13:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of your thinking this is an important bias of omission. I've added a background section to call readers' attention to these important facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.14.28.86 (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see you and the rest of the Wikipedia thought police are now removing this section which due to my newness to wikipedia I'm not able to source all my facts in the regular style, but is still true and valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.14.28.86 (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I want to know what happened to any airplanes flying in at the time? Could they still recieve landing signals from the ground? Or did they just have to wing it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.89.7.178 (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this article should be merged into the 2010 Chile Earthquake article, as being the black-out mostly considered to have been caused by the weakness of the electricity system in Chile after that event. If not, until the ongoing investigation ends and proves otherwise, it should at least bear a "current event" or such kind of banner on top. My modest suggestion. 201.220.233.86 (talk) 02:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Nico[reply]
