Talk:Augusto Pinochet/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

POV edits I've been reverting and why

• I've slightly reworked the reason the House of Lords used to extradite him. It previously said he could be extradited to Spain only to face charges of crimes committed after the UK signed the Torture Convention in 1988, which is false. The House of Lords decision was that he could only face charges for crimes after the UK incorporated the Torture Convention (which it had signed years before 1988) into UK law via the 1988 Criminal Justice Act. I have amended it accordingly.

• removing Marxist and replacing with Socialist: this is a POV omission, it might be most informative to say Marxist Socialist Party of Chile or some such.
• adding "dubious" to "a dubious referendum" is completely true, but POV, find another way to phrase it such as mentioning a first or third-party's assessment of the referendum.
• removing "but five of his military bodyguards were killed." is unnecessary and definitely POV.

I don't disagree fundamentally with these edits, but you have to find a better NPOV way.

Daniel Quinlan 23:29, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Cantus, please justify the continual POV attempts you are making to this article. It's not like the article portrays him as a nice man, I don't see the need to keep trying to tweak it with your POV. Daniel Quinlan 04:57, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

As a specific example, Cantus gives this edit summary: ("In 1980 a new constitution was approved in a highly irregular and undemocratic plebiscite" -- From The US Library of Congress' Country Studies: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/cltoc.html). I don't find that precise quotation on the website (I followed the link for "The 1980 Constitution"). Even if it's on there somewhere, though, simply asserting this view without attribution (except in the edit summary) is POV. What I do find on the site is a somewhat cursory discussion of the 1980 referendum, stating, for example, "Because there were no safeguards for the opposition or for the balloting, most analysts expressed doubts about the government's percentage and assumed that the constitution may have won by a lesser margin."

I suggest this approach: In the passage here at issue, in the lead section, we refer only to a "controversial" plebiscite or some such. More elaboration could come at the point in the article where 1980 falls chronologically. Either at the end of "Suppression of opposition" or at the beginning of "End of the Pinochet regime", there could be a paraphrase or direct quotation from the Library of Congress site, with a proper attribution. We might well be able to find a notable spokesperson (opposition leader, international human rights activist, or some such) to go beyond the cautious wording that there "may" have been "a lesser margin" and who would instead come right out and say that the election was stolen. It would be misleading to refer to a 1980 plebiscite while remaining silent about the objections to it, but the current version is too dogmatic. JamesMLane 07:09, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment on latest edits: As indicated above, I don't agree with the wording inserted by Cantus. I do agree with his latest edit summary, however, in which he says that the criticisms of the 1980 referendum aren't made clear in the text absent what he inserted. My take on it is that Daniel Quinlan's edit suppresses the criticism completely, while Cantus's states one opinion as a fact. Does anyone want to take time out from reverting to comment on the approach I suggested above? JamesMLane 03:02, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The phrase is under Chapter 4 - Government and Politics, Constitutional History, Imposition of Authoritarian Rule. Your suggestion to put controversial first, and say why later in the article makes sense, however that can only be implemented when there is a 1980 Constitution section in the article, which is not the case as of now. —Cantus…☎ 05:31, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the more precise reference. I don't think the 1980 plebiscite needs a separate section. It was an instance of "Suppression of opposition" so it could be discussed in that section. It could also be considered the beginning of the process by which democracy was eventually restored so it could be part of "End of the Pinochet regime". I wouldn't object to a separate section about 1980, but I think it would be disproportionately small. JamesMLane 07:30, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Where is operation Condor and the murder of Ronni Moffitt?

No article on Pinochet would be complete without mentioning doing murders outside of Chile. There should some mention of the audacity of doing a terrorits hit inside Washignton DC. John wesley 14:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC) ~!

Let's be grown ups

Okay, I have adopted the compromise suggested above and I even allowed the "violent" adjective (which I think is a POV addition because tell me about a coup that is not violent), but I seriously object to my compromise edits being reverted as "vandalism". That is serious abuse on the part of Cantus. I have tried to compromise, I have discussed by changes and objections, and I am not blindly reverting, I am working my edits towards some middle ground. Please do the same. If you disagree, call for a vote on one of my last set of changes and see how you fare. Actually, I'll call for a vote right now to see if we cann putput an end to this. Daniel Quinlan 09:43, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Vote: "violent coup"

• violent coup
  • I have bigger issues with the edits, although I think violent is redundant POV, clearly only inserted for POV reasons. Daniel Quinlan 09:43, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • The English Restoration and the Glorious Revolution are two good examples of non-violent coups, as was the Velvet revolution. Coups are not always called coups. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:25, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with Tony above. (Wow, is that a first?) —Cantus…☎ 00:13, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
• coup
• violent coup violent is not point of view. i dont think anyone would disagree that weapons fire murders and bombing campaigns are not violent acts and these are undisputed this is how he came to power therefore violent is not a POV issue. Qrc2006 02:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• violent coup I agree with Qrc2006, there are many ways of conducting the overthrow of a government. I would even dare add "violent military coup", as there have been various civilian coups, such as the "Fujishock" self-coup conducted by elected president Alberto Fujimori of Peru in the 1990s, where he proceeded to give himself unchecked authoritarian powers by closing the legislative branch. The Pinochet coup was particularly brutal - with mass arrests, torture, assasinations, tanks in the streets, and jet fighters bombing civilian targets including the presidential palace of La Moneda. Komunysta 02:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Vote: Allende: Marxist or Socialist

• Marxist
  • Reading biographies of Allende, he is clearly best described as a Marxist or a Communist. To be sure, he was anti-Russian domination, but he was no Socialist. Daniel Quinlan 09:43, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • The distinction is really non-existent. Allende was a marxist in that he was a progressive who implemented land reform and partial nationalization with the purpose of empowering the workers, the producers of his country. This also fits the modern definition of a socialist. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:25, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Definitely a Marxist, because it is the more accurate definition. A socialist is a very wide spread definition, but might still have a very democratic tone, even sometimes almost free-market oriented, like in the European scene (just think about Tony Blair, Gerhard Schröder, etc...). A marxist is still a socialist, but more radical. Marxism doesn't get well along with democratic systems, and therefore I would rather chose the definition Marxist for Allende, as he clearly acted and stated towards an autoritarian state like his friend Fidel Castro with Cuba. Allende even disrespected and motivated to disrespect democratic insittutions like jundgments done by the Supreme Court during his own presidentship. RapaNui 13:12, 06 Dec 2005 (CET)

• Socialist
  • I tend to agree with what JTD says below, and I'd also like to point out that while Marxists may be socialists by definition, not all socialists are Marxists. What Marx offered was first and foremost a technique for analyzing contemporary society, less so a concrete program for social change. I don't associate Allende with dogmatic assertions of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and that kind of thing. -- Viajero 17:47, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't know about your language usage, guys, but this is my understanding of the words' meaning applied on my knowledge of Pinochet. The idea that one can be a Marxist without being a Socialist, when expressed without qualifications, is totally alien to me. /Tuomas 09:42, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I think Socialist doesn't have the negative connotations that Marxist has. Samboy 14:47, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I vote Socialist. Basically because of three reasons: 1) 'Marxist', while not a negative word, was the word used by the military Junta to refer to any and all leftists in Chile during that time because it was an important part of their "marxist cancer is going to destroy the country" speech. therefore, to call Allende a Marxist may relate to this instead of correct political definitions. 2) He was one of the founders of the Socialist Party in Chile and is still considered a Socialist in everyday political activities in Chile (the logo used for the Socialist Party during the propaganda of the upcoming Chilean presidential election is and image of Allende's eyeglasses). And 3) RapaNui's argument is mistaken: he claims that "he clearly acted and stated towards an autoritarian state like his friend Fidel Castro with Cuba", but one of the main reasons why his government failed is that he never went against democracy (in fact, in Patricio Guzmán's documentary "Salvador Allende, Soviet political figures of the time appear criticizing Allende precisely for his commitment to democracy). Jjatria
• Marxist and Socialist
  • This is my attempted compromise version. —Cantus…☎ 00:13, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree. The standard way in many works for describing someone who different groups attach different terms to, is to say, applying the same standard here, "variously described as a Marxist or a Socialist". The problem, a little over a decade after the fall of communism, is that words like marxist carry implicit negative meanings. Unless the word is strictly defined in a totally neutral, objective manner it carries baggage that may distort his political viewpoint or push the agenda of the writer of the article. BTW, Daniel, a marxist and a communist are different terms, like say Catholic, Anglo-Catholic and Roman Catholic, Anglican and High Church Anglican and Low Church Anglican. In all of these, like marxism and communism, there is a degree of overlap, but they are not identical. FearÉIREANN 01:10, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

    I realize that. I wasn't proposing that we call him a communist. I think Marxist is the most accurate term or I wouldn't be proposing it. Daniel Quinlan 07:24, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

  • He was both! He belonged to the Socialist Party of Chile, but the party in his time defined itself as Marxist-leninist, and was partidary of revolucionary violence. In the UP coalition, it was even to the left of the Comunist Party of Chile. So, if you just say "socialist", it may be mistaken by the tame Socialists of today. --AstroNomer 11:08, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

    Well, I guess it all depends on your perspective. Allende's nephew, Andrés Pascal Allende, who was a leading figure in the avowedly Leninist Movimiento de Izquierda Revolucionaria (MIR), criticized his uncle's government as "timid and reformist".

  • He's a Socialist who believed in Marxist dogma -- the proleteriat will soon triumph, all that. Dr. Trey 08:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

---

No he wasnt up for violence, it has all been so god damn biased through your eyes. Allende was going to make up a plebicit to vote if he should stay in power or not. You words are completely chauvinism, as he never EVER considered to use strenght. The MIR and the GAP sympathized with him, but he was in no way in control of neither of them.

---

> "No he wasnt up for violence" --? That is simply nonsense, as Allende was certainly up to having imported Cuban enforcers terrorize the country.--Mike18xx 04:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Vote: Referendum quote

• Reference inline
  • I think this works best. Daniel Quinlan 09:43, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Reference via footnote
  • This is the standard way to quote sources in scholarly articles. There are even special tags on wiki to use when quoting sources, which I did not use this time. (See 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake.) —Cantus…☎ 00:13, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think footnotes should be used rather than in-line references where possible. That is the standard academic and encyclopaedic notation. FearÉIREANN 01:15, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Inline external references are considered undesirable (see: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)). Ideally, we should be using the citation guidelines and templates described on Wikipedia:Cite sources. -- Viajero 11:29, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for voting. Daniel Quinlan

Capitalisation

From Wikipedia:Manual of Style:

Philosophies, doctrines, and systems of economic thought do not begin with a capital letter, unless the name is derived from a proper noun: lowercase republican refers to a system of political thought; uppercase Republican refers to a specific Republican Party.

Thus: Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, Luddism; but capitalism, neoliberalism, fascism. "Socialist" appears with a cap in the article, because Allende was a member of a specific Socialist Party (and perhaps that word should link to the Chilean Socialist Party, if we have such an article, and not to "socialism" in general). It's not an expression of bias, and writing Neoliberal with a capital letter Just Looks Unprofessional. Leaving the other disputes to one side, can we at least follow these grammatical rules? –Hajor 01:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

relationship between Allende and Pinochet

Can the article shed some light on this relationship? I am just curious, because was Pinochet pretending to be Allende's loyal counterpart, and acting all along to become head of the Army, or was he once genuinely a friend, was it a betrayal, change of mind? What exactly happened to the relationship between the appointment in August and the coup in September, I'm just curious and thought the article should shed some light on this. -- Natalinasmpf 21:19, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From what I understand, Pinochet was an anti-Communist who was concerned over the unrest occurring in the country during the UP's tenure. Chilean military officials have said that he didn't plan the coup, but that when it came, he essentially decided to go along with it.

I seriously doubt they were friends. Allende was extremely concerned about a coup long before it occurred, and asked Prats for reassurance that Pinochet would stay loyal. J. Parker Stone 08:04, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

What the hell

happened to the Marxism article? J. Parker Stone 07:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

---

jesus christ, saying marxist is too ambiguous, saying it means that Allende agreed with taking the power violently, something that he did not agreed with. The best description for him is socialist

not true numbers

"As a result, approximately 3,000 Chileans were executed or disappeared, more than 27,000[2] were imprisoned or tortured, and many were exiled and received abroad as political refugees." The numbers that say the highest amount never go over 2500 people dead or disappeared, including the people who died during Allende's government, and including people who died on combat (i.e. terrorists who attacked Chilean soldiers. As a result of these battles, lots of terrorists AND soldiers died). Soldiers are also counted on these figures. A better approach would be "about 1500 people", and I still think that it's just too high. There are lots of people known to be living outside of Chile that are also added to this numbers.

The Rettig Commission verifies about 2000 dead and 1000 disappeared. The issue of whether these people were dissidents or "subversives" as the junta called them is addressed in the article. J. Parker Stone 04:15, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I checked the inform and you are right here. But checking the inform allows me to say that the "brutal repression against leftist parties" is not true. Here I go with the dead numbers divided on political parties (I'll put political party names in spanish... "-" means leftist and "+" means right. (some parties ahve changed from side, I'll put - or + according to those times).

P. Socialista -: 405

M.I.R.* -:384

P. Comunista -:353

M.A.P.U.* -:24

Frente Patriótico Manuel Rodriguez* -:19

P. Radical (centre):15

D. Cristiana +:7

I. Cristiana -:5

P. Nacional +:4

Other political parties:15

NO POLITICAL PARTY:1048

This information was extracted from the Rettig inform. Using this I demand that the part of "brutal repression against left-pary members..." (something like that) is removed and never again written.

x* means that they are not political parties. Those are terrorists (because they where fighting (with violence) against the government) groups.

So I guess according your definition (fighting with violence against governments), the American forefathers were "terrorists", any independence movement that uses armed resistance is a "Terrorist", and in fact anyone who resists state coercion through non-state approved apparatus, is a "terrorist". You should try looking up the very long and complicated Wikipedia definition of terrorism, and realize that it is not merely limited to non-governmental actors. Also its ridiculous for you to be making "demands" upon anyone on Wikipedia, since you are in no place to "demand" anything of anyone.SiberioS 23:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

That is a stupid assertion Siberio. The Pinochet government was keeping stability after the former Marxist Allende was ready to turn Chile into a Soviet client state, with the help of Castro as a medium. Pinochet issues a reform platform that would have him as ruler for an X amount of time before he decided to step down from power. From there there were thousands of people engaging in anti-government violence, terrorist acts, political assinations, radicalizing the college youth. I doubt that the founding fathers killed people with car bombs, killed civilians, had massacres out in the street, radicalized the youth at the college and planned guerillas style tactics against the Redcoats. They were open and honest about thier longing for independence and made an accord with other colonies, held town meetings, and reported thier results to the throne of England. - ANON

---

I am very sorry to say that... its ambiguous. The Official numbers are 3200, but the true number is around the 5000. The Rettig report was made just as best as it could be made, it had no help by the militars whatsoever. I guess we will never really know the true numbers, since Rettig is made by the testimonies of relatives or church reports or other sources.

I have a question: how do you think that a campaign against Communist subversion should be run in a free country? (In Chile, it wasn't a free country, because they had a military junta.) But, what do you think? Should Pinochet have called for free elections? What if the people had elected the Communists again? A legally-elected Communist is still a Communist. (Communists don't believe in, or practice, free elections, or run free countries, or believe in freedom at all, for that matter. Under a Communist government, there is tyranny enough for everybody. The only shortages are in commodities, gas and food. Oh, and also in freedom. In Soviet Russia, everyone, except for Communist Party members, stood in lines for seventy-five years, and the stores were empty. If you complained, they took you out and shot you. Or sent you away to slave labor camps in Siberia, for "re-education". Look at the former Soviet Union, the proto-type of a Communist government: they ran the military, the secret police, who were as bad or worse than the Gestapo; the Communist party apparatus, the only allowed party in the country; they controlled all the food supplies, and the people they didn't like starved to death; transportation and the newspapers, schools and radio stations, which all taught Marxism: where was the freedom there? Also, in the Soviet Union, millions of people disappeared! Not just thousands. How many people disappeared in Castro's Cuba after the Communist revolution there?) Perhaps at the beginning, Allende was giving away free government money or jobs to the poor people, in order to buy their votes. But, free government money doesn't last forever. Americans are largely ignorant about how bad Communist tyrannies are, having never lived under one of them. What do you think was going to happen to all of the various capitalistic businesses in the country, such as the banks, the copper mines, oil fields, plantations, etc.? And what do you think was going to happen to the military (whose leadership had been trained in the U.S.-run School of the America's? These people are not idiots, just because they are South Americans. Do you think they wanted what happened in Cuba to happen there in Chile? No. They saw what was going to happen to them, and the military stepped in, and took decisive action. By nature, a Communist revolution is a declaration of war against the middle class (which Karl Marx called the bourgeiousie), the intelligentsia, the entrepreneurs, business-owners, mayors, teachers, the literati, the clergy, foreign Christian missionaries, and against all those who own private property, as well as foreign investors (such as the United States), whom Marxists view as being "enemies of the state". Communist theology states, "These institutions will either give way, or be destroyed." Pinochet and his men saw all this coming, and they stopped it. They used sufficient force to do so. If they had been kinder and gentler, they might have lost. The Communists play for keeps. Now, the Communists, who are the world's most brutal mass-murderers and torturers, are crying that Pinochet and his men played too rough. As far as American journalists, or Spaniards who were in Chile and got killed, were they Communists? What were they doing there, if things were so bad? Aside from torture, which I don't agree with, any Communist or terrorist in a war zone is a fair target for the military. As far as the American Revolution goes, I think that is a fair question. What if there had been an inquiry made into the guerilla war tactics carried out by the Americans against the British? Was any torture or terrorism carried out? As an American, I like to hope not. But, there was a war going on at the time! I read that some of the mobs tarred-and-feathered some British Loyalists, or rode them out of town on a rail. Some Americans were hanged by the British for treason against Parliament. Washington and his men were all in uniform at the time, I believe; unlike some guerillas, who pose as ordinary peasants or workers. But there was no such thing as the "Geneva Convention" yet, not 'til around eighty years later. In war-time, you were taking your chances back then. I don't believe that all of the American colonists would have come out smelling like roses. Also, native-American Indian war parties fought on both sides during the Revolutionary War, taking scalps as they went. Most of Washington's colonial army fought partly in the native American style. The British burned several towns in New England during the war. Is that terrorism? Would it terrify you? The British believed they were fighting a lawful war, over Parliament's lawful debt claims in New England, tariffs, taxes and smuggling. Washington and his officers were also educated, religious men, as were the British; not Socialist revolutionaries, who tend to be atheists (if God is not watching you, then "anything goes"). No one has asked what the Communist revolutionaries in Chile were doing. How many atrocities were committed by them? (Sept.)

ok, answers to all questions (or most)

1-"Should Pinochet have called for free elections?", he did, first in the 80s and then in 89, the first one was a fraud, as there were not even records of the votings (plus it is unexplained how it was so successful considering it took place after the most violent years of the dictatorship), in the second one Pinochet lost properly by mayority.

2-"What if the people had elected the Communists again?", dont people have the right to elect the goverment that suits them the best?, if they choose communism they probably do have strong reassons for it, and Allendes goverment was socialist, not communist.

3-"(Communists don't believe in, or practice, free elections, or run free countries, or believe in freedom at all, for that matter. Under a Communist government, there is tyranny enough for everybody. The only shortages are in commodities, gas and food. Oh, and also in freedom. In Soviet Russia, everyone, except for Communist Party members, stood in lines for seventy-five years, and the stores were empty. If you complained, they took you out and shot you. Or sent you away to slave labor camps in Siberia, for "re-education". Look at the former Soviet Union, the proto-type of a Communist government: they ran the military, the secret police, who were as bad or worse than the Gestapo; the Communist party apparatus, the only allowed party in the country; they controlled all the food supplies, and the people they didn't like starved to death; transportation and the newspapers, schools and radio stations, which all taught Marxism: where was the freedom there? Also, in the Soviet Union, millions of people disappeared! Not just thousands. How many people disappeared in Castro's Cuba after the Communist revolution there?)" Im sorry, but... do any of the examples you just gaved have anything to do with Chile?... yes, communism can be bad in other countries, but that can be sayd for pretty much any type of goverment. The goverments you just mentioned went through revolutions before turning to communism, and in most cases Jacobism is justifiable only by history. But that was not chiles' case, there was no "Communist regime" here. All threats about Allendes goverment turning into communism were mainly for propaganda purposes and to justify the coup itself (Plan Z to this day is seen as a lie by all Chilean historians). Goverments like the one of Allende are indeed pretty common today, almost all of Latin America is turning to socialist elected goverments, such as Bolivia, Peru, Venezuela (as Chavez was elected in order to be president). You have no grounds in ever comparing Allendes' goverment with harsh communist regimes, it clearly shows a great deal of ignorance on your behalf, and in the future i suggest you dont confuse them anymore (and im serious here, theres a HUGE difference between communist regimes and democratic socialism).

4-"Perhaps at the beginning, Allende was giving away free government money or jobs to the poor people, in order to buy their votes" , why would he do this in the beginning if he just won the election?. He didnt "bought" their votes, he did something called "doing what he promised", in this case it was socialization of resources and the increase of salaries (that were just insignificant at the time).

5-"But, free government money doesn't last forever": There were numerous other implications for the economical downfall, your view is a little too over simplistic (did i mentioned heavily biased?), the reassons for the economical downfall ranged from the stablishment of the black market, the failure of the agricultural reform (wich was necesary at the time), the numerous strikes supported by the oposition (with money from the US). All these things pointed towards inflation, the first step into taking over any country is to first destabilize it, the economy of a country is important towards the goverment they may have (Hitler might had never shownd up if the economy wouldnt had played a mayor role there)

6- "What do you think was going to happen to all of the various capitalistic businesses in the country, such as the banks, the copper mines, oil fields, plantations, etc.? And what do you think was going to happen to the military (whose leadership had been trained in the U.S.-run School of the America's?": well you just described very well the oposition, indeed, Allendes biggest oposition were business men, who were kind enough to sweep the banks after Allende won (as a way to secure their insterests), later on the same money people would finance most of the economic downfall (with a little help of the U.S. there, nothing like 10 millions to support the oposition there)

7- "Pinochet and his men saw all this coming, and they stopped it.": hehe, you dont know much of what happened there, dont you?. For starters, Pinochet wasnt the mastermind behind the coup, Merino & Leigh were, Pinochet came just in time and later took the power as dictator. Pinochet was more of a Fouché in this case (you do know who Fouché was, right?)

8- " As far as American journalists, or Spaniards who were in Chile and got killed, were they Communists?": actually, most werent even communists there, and not only Spaniards died, a number of other foreigners were killed, mostly europeans (reasson why Pinochet was prosecuted in London to being with). Ill tell you a little story here, 3 priests were assasinated during the dictatorship by the militars, none of them were communist, BUT, they sure got the tag of communist after they got killed, thats for sure.

9- "Aside from torture, which I don't agree with, any Communist or terrorist in a war zone is a fair target for the military": surprisingly most people who were tortured were not communists!

10- "No one has asked what the Communist revolutionaries in Chile were doing. How many atrocities were committed by them? (Sept.)" Skipping through the whole American-revolutionary war mumbo jumbo, lets skip to this issue, how many militars did the FPMR killed during the dictatorship? = less than 50... as oposed to the 3200 that the militars killed. People have asked about things that revolutionary groups (trotskist groups... you do know who trostsky was, do you?)as far as MIR and VOP (who were responsible for the assasination of Edmundo Pérez Zujovic, wich was the cause for the cristian democracy to stop supporting Allende), their tendencies were clearly trostskists and they were mainly aiming to stage a revolution like the cuban one, but not Allende, he had nothing to do with armed ultra-left groups and he even got to agreements with them to stop their acts of terrorism. The only group that was affiliated with the president was GAP, and they never commited any terrorist act, as they functioned as the personal guard of the president. But of course, to say that only leftist trotskist groups were the only ones behind the acts of terrorism is just one deep confirmation bias, there was a facist group called Patria & Libertad, and they had nothing to envy to MIR or VOP in their acts of terrorism.

Bottom line, you are a little too biased there, for some reasson you believe that Allende wanted to turn Chile into a soviet state and for some other reasson you believe that since he was leftist he just HAD to be BAAAAAD. Do a little research, youll see that not all leftist leaders were or are necesarely bad (Gadafi used to be a feared enemy for the U.S. 10 years ago, but now that hes a great leader for Africa, nobody cares about him anymore. Or for example Tito, he was communist and YET managed to keep peace in the Balkans, something monumental for its time, but right after his death the balkans turned to war again... are you aware of Josip Tito?, or you only know the bad communist dictators?), some indeed have been great leaders indeed. Just a hint here, Allende, before the coup, was planning for elections as the state of the nation was indeed critical at the time, the resolution finnally took place on september 10, yet the elections never took place (for obvious reassons, the coup was the day after). But from then on, many historians question what was the real purpose of the coup, as Allende was helding elections to see if he should stay in charge or leave. The day after the coup, numerous oposition newspapers justified the coup by saying that the "marxists were planning a coup for themselves", wich turned out to be not only false, but hardly believable also. But its history, it happened the way it happened and nobody can do anything about it, safe being consequent, tell the story the way it was, and most importantly, to not be biased about it.

At least this is being disputted

"(...)allowed Pinochet to implement profound neoliberal economic reforms while at the same time committing gross human rights violations both at home and abroad." This says that Augusto Pinochet ordered those "gross human rights violations". This is being discussed, and no one has ever proved anything against General Pinochet. This MUST be edited, at least until Pinochet is sown guilty on a trial.

Information must always be neutral. Some sources can't be used for obvious reasons, specially the Valech inform (if you said that you where tortured, then you obtained money... This is true and if you don't believe me, just do a search. President Lagos said that people who where abused would receive money for themselves. The problem is that the people who checked each inform had only 1 minute per person (considering that they worked 12 hours a day)... not a reputable source). The CIA inform shouldn't be used either. The CIA has obvious reasons to be against Pinochet.

...the money is compensation for trauma caused by the torture. And 7000 claims were rejected based on believed shaky evidence/false allegations. J. Parker Stone 04:52, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

"The CIA has obvious reasons to be against Pinochet." On the contrary, the CIA has every reason to downplay just how bad the man they put into power really was. Redxiv 08:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Again: 1. This inform was never made to become a reliable information source (President Lagos (socialist) and bishop Valech already said that). 2. Investigators took less than 3 minutes per claim to check them, and that time is true only if it's correct to say that they worked 12 hours a day including weekends and that every time they went out to investigate different places thay stayed working even more time that day, until they completed 12 hours. 3. There are lots of people that showed lots of evidence and where not believed, while others just said that they where tortured and they got their money. 4. You can't make a reliable inform if you offer money for the rest of your life for everyone who says something credible.

The only (somewhat) reliable information source about deaths and abuses is the rettig inform, and even that inform is not good for this article, because officers and terrorists who died on action are also counted.

So wait a second...if a court rules that you should be compensated for damages, that means your claim MUST of been dishonest, because you got money AFTER the claim was ruled? So the whole entire civil court system is America is full of liars and crooks? Hilarious.

SiberioS 23:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

See the Valech report: financial indemnization is lower than minimal wage. Really harsch conditions

were given to be included in this report. It is a high lack of respect given to the victims to even insinuate that they would have lied for money !!! Beside, as judge Juan Guzman admits it, even though chilean Supreme court will probably always block attempts to convict Pinochet, because three of the judges are "fundamentalists" supporting Pinochet, as Guzman dubbed them, most people, in Chile and abroad, are rightly convinced of Pinochet's culpability. Moreover, why should CIA's report be doubted? CIA has admitted actively supporting Pinochet, not of opposing him!

And this is NOT being disputed

"(about allende's death)(...)The exact circumstances of his death are being disputed" There's NO ONE who still says that Allende was murdered or killed on combat. Even Allende's family agrees that he killed himself.

Where's the damn evidence?

I'll say a book first and then some webpages. I've selected webpages that say that Allende's government was something excellent and other things. You can search for reputable sources for yourself (I wouldn't use the rest of these pages as a source, as they are obviously biased in favor of Allende) (everything is in spanish... I think that I may find some chilean sites that are written in english): Book: "Páginas en blanco. El 11 de septiembre en La Moneda" Webpages: http://www.puntofinal.cl/010915/nactxt.html (they are deffending Allende's legacy saying that suiciding isn't bad at all) http://www.puntofinal.cl/010302/esptxt.html (interview to Luis Fernández Oña, husband of Allende's daughter, saying why did Fidel Castro didn't say anything about the suicide, but then he adds that accordingly to what Allende thought, he had to kill himself before leaving the power to his enemies). Then you have Isabel Allende Bussi (relative to Allende (how do you call your sister's daughter? nephew?)), who said for El Mercurio (biggest and most reliable newspaper in Chile)on august 17, 2003 that she was convinced about Allende's suicide. Also note that Allende's body was unburied a few years ago (2000-2002... I can't remember the year right now) and that the official version was only confirmed with new tests that where made to the body.

---

Isabel Allende Bussi, ´diputada'and former President of the Deputies Chamber, is Salvador Allende's daughter. The Isabel Allende you mean is the world-famous writer (cousin of each other). Baloo rch 22:47, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

• • • • The article says Isabel Allende Bussi (I copy/pasted the name). I confused the names of each other. Either way, it's his daughter who agrees that he killed himself.

Pinochet as a Rotarian

Pinochet is HONORARY member of the Rotary Club Santiago. See Rotary International wiki page and "Famous Rotarians" Rotary site —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.102.229.176 (talk) 12:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• is this that important, what is the significance of this, and that club, does the club have an article?209.129.168.31 23:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It is a fact and that is enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.100.98.127 (talk) 04:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

surprise, surprise, another revert war in the making

And I admit I am guilty of being part of it by making a revert myself, but I felt that Marmaduque's latest revert did more harm than good, and I didn't have time to restore the good. I'll completely assume good faith on the part of Marmaduque, since this is probably the umpteenth content dispute on the page, but I am completely appalled by the lack of discussion on this latest tiff, though I note a good deal of political discussion on the talk pages on the users involved. Marmaduque and the others involved (Tazmaniacs?), could you please discuss the issue here please. In the meanwhile I'll try to address Marmaduque's concerns. Some of the categories do deserve a second looking-over.

I will however say that if Pinochet has been accused of something formally -- like being being indicted, for example, then it deserves to be on the page. How much mention deserves to be on the page (before being shuttled to a subpage) is a legitimate issue to be looked at however. A classic NPOV dispute on this page, plain and simple. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Dictator (again)

Holy moley, I thought this dispute was over with. Now, I see Dictator has been added again. PS- it's also being added at Pervez Musharraf in the form of Military Ruler. When are these emotional spats ever gonna end? GoodDay (talk) 01:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC) :PS- If Dictator is re-added, at least be consistant about it, and add it to the TopInfobox. GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Cant say I am surprised and I believe this is a perennial issue on wikipedia, there were endless problems with this one when he died and it is generally people who do not understand wikipedia policies. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps editors who continue to add Dictator, need to be given a lenghtly block, in order to curb their pushy PoV editing habits. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you somehow feel that whatever constructive edits they may contribute should then be tossed out? Blocks are means of prevention, not punishment. They can simply be RFC'ed, banned from the page, etc.

In any case, when it comes to being NPOV, one should also evaluate de facto status of said politician. "Warlord" isn't a formal title either, yet it is applied neutrally to people such as Duan Qirui who was legally the Chief Executive of the ROC. Should we then remove the warlord title from him? Heaven forbid we call the entire era of Chinese history the warlord era .... because "warlord" didn't exist as an office.

I would like to point out that military dictatorship exists as an article, and that Chile is listed as one of the countries with a legacy with military dictatorship, with one of the periods listed being 1973-1990. Heaven forbid that .... Pinochet led this military dictatorship? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 20:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree we should always avoid blocking editors who also make useful edits. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Could we then have some kinda 'guideline' that would allow or prevent additions of 'politically charged' terms? 'Cause these terms (Dictator, Military Ruler etc) are gonna continue to cause edit fights. A guideline might prevent this. GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a guideline called Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem I see with the word dictator is that it is not neutral in the world as very few people support the concept of a dictatorship. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you think we should refer this to an RFC? I would like to think I don't have any emotion invested to this, unlike someone who would block anyone who would dare describe a certain junta leader as a military ruler (j/k). But anyway, I do not think that simply because he never held the office of "leader of a military dictatorship" that we should be forbidden from applying this title to him. Neutrally. He was President. Lots of people are presidents but don't really hold any real executive power. Titles and actual role are two different things. An NPOV view would describe both. What was his role, being a ceremonial rubber stamp? I think not.

Also, I do not necessarily think the term is "politically charged". What is politically charged about describing someone whose base of power was the military? Is there anything un-neutral in this description? If you take power by military coup, then perhaps you should be known as a military ruler. Oliver Cromwell reads: "Oliver Cromwell (25 April 1599 – 3 September 1658) was an English military and political leader." Ooh, that's so un-neutral. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 20:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, I think intentionally avoiding calling him a military ruler is using a weasel word. There is no bias involved in calling him that. He implemented his new policies by military rule. If not for the military, he wouldn't have accomplished anything. It's just like how Cardinal Richelieu was a clergyman (if not for the Church, it would have been unlikely that he would have become so powerful) and how the current administration of Thailand is under martial law (also a potentially "loaded term"). Currently the administration is saying that military rule is required for democratic reforms. Believe them or not, what they are doing is military rule, and it would be anything but NPOV to try to eschew calling military regimes, military regimes. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 20:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

My major concerns is that Wikipedia guidelines be followed - if they frown on Dictator (for example) being use in the lead? don't use it OR, if they allow such terms in the lead? use it. GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Military ruler sounds fine to me, I certainly disagree that the word dictatorship is not politically charged and that is the problem. Which country's leader in the last 16 years (since the end of the cold war) has said "I am a dictator and that is good". Pinochet's supporters do not take on this term but his opponents do and this is the problem, it becomes a POV pushing term. I hope we can all be much more neutral and dispassionate about Cromwell, Pinochet has had a very real effect on the lives of millions while that isn't the case with Cromwell because he is too historical. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you people decide? I'll go along with it. GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to what GoodDay and Marmaduke repeatedly assert, there are no guidelines in Wikipedia specifying not to use the term dictator. Until the Wikipedia community decides to implement such a guideline, there is no reason not to use the word where it is appropriate. The term "dictator" has very definite sense in political sciences, and no one here, I hope, will argue that there is no difference between a dictatorship & a democracy. Notwithstanding our respective political opinions and, perhaps, feelings about this specific case that we're discussing here — Pinochet, not the general use of "dictator" on Wikipedia; for such a general discussion, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government#Dictators and argue your case there —, clearly reliable sources assert that the Pinochet regime was a dictatorship. To avoid stating this fact for alleged NPOV reasons is clearly POV. Finally, to try to avoid this debate by labelling those who disagree with one's own personal opinions "vandals" having "disruptive behaviour" is nothing else than that, avoidance of the debate and lack of good faith. While it is not true that we can find reliable sources claiming that Bush is a dictator, because, whatever your feelings about him, the United States remain, as far as I know, a liberal democracy, the reverse is true for Pinochet — such sources were included in the article recently, but have been deleted by Marmaduque (who has the honesty of not disguising his personal opinions as shown on his user page). Regards to everybody, let's not transform a political debate into personal bickering, cheers! Tazmaniacs (talk) 15:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, beside objective statements concerning Pinochet's dictatorial rule, himself has recognized it, albeit with his very peculiar sense of humor: ""Esta no es una dictadura, es una dictablanda" ([1], [2], etc. Maybe former President Ricardo Lagos's words while receiving the Valech Report should be recalled here?

"El informe nos hace mirar de frente una realidad insoslayable: la prisión política y las torturas constituyeron una práctica institucional de Estado que es absolutamente inaceptable y ajena a la tradición histórica de Chile. Lagos' speech

And also, in the presentation of the Valech Report, Lagos stated:

¿Cómo pudimos vivir 30 años de silencio? Sabemos que durante la dictadura era consecuencia del miedo... Valech Report, p.6

Henceforth, the Chilean government itself has recognized, through the very official voice of Ricardo Lagos, that Pinochet's regime was indeed a dictatorship. To refuse to insert this claim into Wikipedia is to go against the very official policy of the Chilean state. Tazmaniacs (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Umm.. cant see a problem. A spade is a spade. Pinochet was a dictator - hence why he is being called one. (Likewise, Wikipedia should call Stalin and Hitler dictators. Are they so called? They should be). There's not really much point in right-wing (or left-wing) apologists trying to pretend otherwise. Marcus22 (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

To both sides of the argument: Decide what you'll will, just don't edit war over it. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

He is dictator. edit war huh? well that's the problem. when the pinochet supporters remove dictator, its not an edit war, but when we remove president, or add dictaor it "is". How non-neutral can this get. It should state that some people consider him a legitimate president and why, and that others (most) and thats not an opinion, its just a fact, facts are impartial even if they dont favor pinochet supporters, that he is widely considered to be a dictator, and by whom (the mainstream internation press, velech report, human rights organizations, his oppoants etc.) and why. simple as that. we cant take sides!!!Boomgaylove (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

about the economic policy section

Hi, do you know if www.huppi.com is a reliable source?, new Veritatis splendor (talk · contribs) (see diff here) yesterday removed some content which may lead to controversy, who knows? --Andersmusician VOTE 04:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Should I add it again and place it under  ?--Andersmusician VOTE 01:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

First, there is another source, which is James Petras and Fernando Ignacio Leiva, Democracy and Poverty in Chile: The Limits to Electoral Politics. Second, Veritatis Splendor has deleted it without explaining how it would be unreliable. Third, that Chile witnessed economic growth during the so-called "Miracle of Chile" is not discussed; but that Chile also witnessed a large increase in income inequalities is also not discussed. If someone wants to show that these statistics are lies, he should perhaps provide others; in any ways, NPOV requires various points of views, and not the imposition of one ideological POV over others. Tazmaniacs (talk) 15:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Complaint over article not making unqualified statement that Pinochet was a dictator

Wikipedia supports Pinochet... why you don't call him a dictator? AntiPinoshit (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

no some misguided policy purist administrator supports not using so-called "weasel words" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomgaylove (talk • contribs) 22:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I changed the title. We have a neutrality policy which means we dont call either Pinochet or Castro a dictator. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Have changed title again. See "Keep headings on topics related to the article... Keep headings neutral", Wikipedia policy on talk pages. John Nevard (talk) 03:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you should remove it from the Stalin article too, if it can't say dictator here. Or better still, call all dictators dictators, both left and right wing, regardless of the editors' political preferences. Vints (talk) 06:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

SqueakBox, we went over this in some detail when Pinochet died. You could not produce one single reputable source making the case that Pinochet is not a dictator; I produced a mountain of reputable sources arguing that he was one. "Dictator" is not a POV or weasel word, it is a factual and objective description of what Pinochet was - a military dictator who seized absolute power personally, by force, and maintained it through violence and murder. This is not an opinion; these are well-documented historical facts. I don't understand why you feel the need to whitewash Pinochet's life. If you have any - just one - reputable source that makes the case that he was not a dictator, then let's see it. Otherwise, given the mountain of citations that have been posted here previously, we need to put it back in. Also, why has the text about Operation Condor and the 200+ criminal charges pending in Chile against Pinochet at the time of his death been removed from the intro? This is certainly the best known aspect of his rule worldwide, yet it is not even mentioned. Just because facts are unpleasant does not make them POV. Kwertii (talk) 04:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I support the non-use of the weasel word "Dictator" for this article. Wikipedia should list "verifiable facts" not POVs. User Kwertii wants to include "opinions" to support his point of view. The only verifiable fact is that Pinochet was "President of Chile", position confirmed by at least one election. How he got there, and his legitimacy or lack of is amply described and discussed in the article. The reader should be able to form his/her own opinion without any "help" from biased "editors" with an ideological agenda. --Mel Romero (talk) 07:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that the mountain of reliable sources that call him a dictator are non-neutral? Can you find a reputable source that supports your view that he should not be called dictator? What do you think of the leads in Hitler and Stalin...? Not mentioning the fact that Pinochet was a dictator is much more POV. Vints (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I Support the use of the word 'Dictator' in this article. There are mountains of sources, from all sides of the political spectrum that call him a dictator, and have repaired the article acordingly. Gorgonzola (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a 36 years old CHILEAN, who grow up during this infamous dictatorship of Pinochet, and there is so many things that can be said about it, just because we all have different points of view, specially the ones with that right, (we the Chileans), and dictator or not, somehow in those times we were able to sleep, maybe that's why this presidents that have been ruling Chile are failing to the people, we need a new DICTATOR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Auslander71 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

this is the talk page of an encyclopedic article, and in this section we are discussing the use of a word to describe the role of pinochet in chilean history, in the extent in which this controversy has a real and direct impact on the wording of the article. Please leave your fascist rants to your talk page or somewhere else. Thank you. By the way, i am a chilean too. Gorgonzola (talk) 19:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Last phrase of introduction

I was having a look at the introduction with the purpose of understanding an issue on the french article about Pinochet when I saw this strange last sentence: "Pinochet is a "Famous Rotarian" Honorary Member of the Rotary International."

How come this strange pointless sentence is in the introduction, I do not know. To be more precise, I know how it arrived there (surely thanks to that strange guy who edited the Rotary International article with the sole purpose of pushing his anti Rotary POV - see also this RfA he made that was rejected), but I do not understand how it could be left there.

I could understand that this be mentionned in a "Miscellaneous" section, but there is no such section, and even there I would doubt this information is relevant. So I propose to delete this sentence. Bradipus (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No opposition, I delete the sentence. Bradipus (talk) 09:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Communism? What's wrong with it?

"...saved the country from communism..." ------- saved? Do we ever read Wikipedia articles that read:

  "...saved the country from private enterprise..."
  "...saved the country from unfettered free enterprise..."
  "...saved the country from capitalism..."

Even though we know that the number 1 progenitor of private enterprise in the 20th century was --

-- Adolph Hitler ??

Btw, please spell "Chile" with a capital "C". I see many spellings of "Chile" here which begin the proper noun with a lower case "C". This is extremely disrespectful. Chile is a nation and deserves the utmost respect. Write English properly!

It typifies those who are of the younger generation (Generation_X or Generation_Y or w/e) who seem to be very lazy or very stupid or both. In my day (growing up in the 1960s), if I had spelled like that I would have been smacked on the back of the head by my teacher but then I guess that's another aspect of the younger generation today -- easy life, no physical violence against you by your teachers or parents. Grrrrrr, if I had my way, everybody born after 1980 would get a good spanking once a year.

Just for good measure.

(bunch of spoiled brats that you are...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atikokan (talk • contribs) 06:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

it is not extremely disrespectful especially since chileans refuse to call us americans like we like to be called and insist on calling us north americans. were not canadian or cuban or panamanian, north america is a continant in english, why dont you learn english? also. im chilean and i don't care dont be so uptight y atrasado. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.180.37.2 (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

what are you on mate? are you "american" or chilean? Chile is the name of a country that is in America. America is a continent. The United States of America is a confederation of independent states with no proper geographic name but that wich is given to the continent where it resides. As a Chilean, i'm as entitled to be called American as any resident of the american continent, so the name "american" is of no good use when you want to refer to a citizen of the United States of America, as opposed to an american, wich can reside in any country in that continent.

And chileans can do whatever they like, that doesn't change the fact that country names are capitalized. grow up. Gorgonzola (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Presidency term

He was declared "president of the republic" by the military junta on 16th, december, 1974. His term as president, as pertinent for the info box, starts on this day, consequently. Gorgonzola (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

apparently he took possetion of the presidency the next day, so the term starts on the 17th.Gorgonzola (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Picture

Pinochet is, was, and always will be a military figure in the history of Chile. Presenting a photo of him in civilian suit is misleading, inconsistent with wikipedia use in other articles of similar figures, and plain wrong. He always wore military uniforms, even in his role as president of the republic. His official presidential portrait show him in military uniform, his supporters usually prefer photos with military uniforms (see the galleries at www.fudacionpinochet.cl), etcetera. Gorgonzola (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Human rights violations

He did not "initiated a campaign against polityical opponents that included repression of civil liberties". this is extremely euphemistic an POV, so i reworded said paragraph to be more historically acurate and neutral, trying to stick to "non-morally-charged" words, like "human-rights violations". I also believe that stating clearly that these measures resulted in criminal prosecution until the very end of his life is relevant to put things in context, instead of presenting said measures as minor "repressions of civil liberties", wich is evidently inacurate. Gorgonzola (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent Changes

I have made several edits to the text, mainly traying to give it a little more internal consistency. I have marked several unreferenced claims, and revised up to "Supression of oppossition", which i believe to be in terribly bad form and bad written in general. A rewrite of this section is needed, and although i know that all the claims in that section are true, i doubt we need to list, anecdotically, every notorious victim of the regime (the mentioning of Carmen Gloria Quintana's case, for example, is completely anecdotical and out of context). I have tried to document every change in their respective summary, to the best of my abbilities, i hope this little snippets are self explanatory, but i can elaborate if needed. Gorgonzola (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"Harsh" measures

The first sentence of the introduction said that Pinochet took "harsh measures" against political oppoents. I hope that no-one objects to my removal of this adjective - I think that such an adjective comes across as an editorial judgement and Wikipedia policy expressly forbids editorial opinion whether said opinion is particularly controversial or not. Flonto (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

RESPONSE: HARSH MEASURES? this comment typifies the idiocy of this page, its, comments, and unfortunately, i am beginning to think of Wikipedia in the entire. Only a spinmeister of the extreme right would fail to note in the article that Pinochet was a dictator who took power in a coup that overthrew the elected, socialist (ie social democratic) government (which by the way did not include the MIR) or would remove anything that pointed out that opponents of the regime including the highly dangerous popular singer Victor Jara were rounded up , detained in the stadium, and many shot and or disappeared. Mass graves have been found, quite a few years ago, in the countryside. Letelier and Ronni Moffatt, his aide, were assassinated in DC by Michael Turnley (?) Gen. Prats was assassinated too if i remember correctly, but not in the US. (Argentina?) THe state of the US complicity in this is revelaed by the very sluggish and low key action on the part of the US in response to the murder of an ex-diplomat on US soil.

The vaunted pension reforms needed to be re-reformed under Bachelet and were in fact an issue in the campaign that led to her election. Bachelet's father (?) himself was imprisoned, along with thousands of others. Many years ago the US Congress, those crazy communists, held hearings exposing the US and CIA role in the violent coup. Before that, Kissinger and Nixon decided to embargo Chile; "not one nut or bolt will get through" was, I believe, the tag line. (Kissinger felt that Allende was a bad example for the rest of Latin America.)

El Mercurio, far from being a 'respected' paper,was paid to cry censorship against the Allende regime in the leadup to the coup. Typical CIA disinformation tactics, now in play (via TV) against the nondictator but uncomfortably energetic Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez.

Showing old-man Pinochet in his lovely white uniform is not anywhere near as powerful as it would be to show him and his henchmen in the early days of the coup in the wonderful group portrait the junta released with him front and center scowling at the camera in dark uniforms.

I am not a student in depth of Chilean politics, but you would have to have had your head in a rightwing sandpit since 1973 not to know all of this & much else.

you have managed to turn the english language upside down and created an encyclopedia of eunuch babbles by twisting of "NPOV" rules to drain meaning out of all descriptive terms. If you think Fidel Castro is a dictator (he certainly is) by ll means call him one, but at least acknowledge in the Pinochet pages that not only was Pinochet one as well, the regime came into power by rounding up and KILLING people who were NOT SHOOTING at anyone. Evidently Pinochet allowed the referendum or plebiscite because he believed his own sycophants who told him how beloved he was by his electorate.

Why would anyone seriously consult this sanitized view of history, politics, and theory? Actio (talk) 03:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Just one comment: i put that picture of pinochet, replacing a civilian shot form his older days where he appeared as a kind of tender grandaddy. Unfortunately, looking thru the commons i only found this terrible happy inocent picture, and couldn't find the official junt photo you refer to, and i have been looking for a free copy of this same image since, with no success. I have no idea if it would be proper to take any version of it and put it up, if you think so (or know wp policy in this regard better than me) PLEASE, do. Believe me, the choise might have been bad, but the intention was to show him, at least, in a military uniform, and not hide the fact that he was no political or statesman person, but a military man. i agree with all that you said, and woul like to request for your help in watching and improving this article, i have tried to de my part, but i don't have time to improve, just barely to keep the trolls away. Gorgonzola (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This proves you don't have a neutral POV. Pinochet should not be white-watched but neither should his actions be judged. I don't know how you could agree with what he said. Its correct that we should not use the word harsh. This is a judgment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.186.246 (talk) 03:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Actio (talk • contribs) 03:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

ehem. duh, of course i have an opinion, i am human! Now, if these opinion is contaminating my judgement to watch over this page, please point out how, where and when one of my edits has introduced a clear POV to the article, because that is what WP:NPOV is about, NOT about my right to have an opinion.

About the photo discussion above: whether i am a fascist pinochet lover and fanboi or a raving baby-eating communist, this is an equally true (or untrue) FACT: "he was no political or statesman person, but a military man". Even Pinochet himself always said this of himself, and if we have public photos of him in civilian suit, it was only because during his 1988 referendum campaign his advisors recommended that he presented himself in a more close and familiar aspect. I say the above not because i have any desire to reopen debate on an already closed and agreed issue (we are teh win!), but because your comment it's the essence of an ad-hominem fallacy. Go study some logic or the structure of rational discourse before coming back here to spill your garbage (otherwise welcomed, if exempt of logical holes). Thank you. Gorgonzola (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Nicolas Girala

Nicolas Girala nacio un 29 de julio de 1988, Se cree que le quedan pocos años de vida.. 3 o 4 para ser exactos. Nicolas, de aspecto muy parecido a bilbo del sr del os anillos lleva una vida muy agitada, no por sus actividades, sino porque el pucho le esta consumiendo los pulmones. Nicolas es llamado "hueco" por sus amigos, este singular sobrenombre aparecio hace un largo tiempo en la secundaria, (no tanto tiempo para mi) y se debia a su grupo de amigos, integrado por 3 huecas cuyos nombres no pueden ser relevados.

Nicolas es uno de los prestgiosos dueños de "la Piadina"
una especie de "restaurant"... bastante caro. Hueco es estudiante de Derecho, estudia en la facultad de Mendoza y parece que le va bien....para el orto!

se dice tambien que Nicolas es cantante, realiza covers de Alejandro sanz, Lerner, fito, entre otros..no vallan a pensar que es traviolo, simplemente le gusta esa musica. esta es toda la vida de nicolas girala por el momento —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.48.33.150 (talk) 05:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Pinochet and Rotarian membership

Were is the problem to inform that Pinochet is a member of the Rotary International ? Please reader, see what they've just done on Rotary International for a war (washing Pinochet, as done in the year 2007 on French wikipedia). They are playing you know : once Bradipus wipes-off Rotarian membership, once Bombastus, once Bradipus, etc : well there is NO REASON for that...they PLAY with me and with Wikipedia, why not ? 84.102.229.247 (talk) 04:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you just physically incapable to hold a discussion otherwise than by personally attacking the persons who have another viewpoint than you?

A thread on this was open in February (section"Last phrase of introduction" hereabove). In the absence of opposition, I deleted the sentence a couple of days later. Obviously, no other editor of this article found this really relevant. Somebody picked up on my suggestion of a "trivia" section and created it. But trivia section are not very popular on WP, they are often used, as in this case, to park irrelevant information. Somebody else tagged the newly created trivia section, and somebody else deleted the section a month later.

All in all, until now, nobody bet you seems to think this piece of information is important or relevant. Can you source the fact that this honorary membership is important? Do you have a source mentionning this fact and putting it in perspective in Pinochet's private or public life as something relevant? Bradipus (talk) 09:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This "Talk" is pure wasteoftime with yours, Bradipus. You know where is the source, evidently.

See your arbitration with PierreLarcin on fr.wikipedia. Well, if Rotary places that membership in his FamoustFirst100 site, with Roi Baudouin (your King I guess), everyone here can understand it is important at least for Rotarians....

In a minor way, do not tell us that you wiped that info because nobody answered...

Stop playing, please. You seem rather related to blank that membership with you pen-friend Christophe Arvis...

84.102.229.247 (talk) 12:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Why shouldn't I tell you that I deleted the info because nobody answered? This is the way WP works you know: either direct change, or first a message in the talk page and change if nobody opposes.

Now, please read again what I wrote. I did not ask you to source the fact that Pinochet was a honorary member of the Rotary: I know you found that on a Rotary page. Let us assume, for the need of the discussion, that the fact is established (somebody might argue we need another source than a web page, but let us forget that for the moment as it is not really the point).

What I ask you to source is the fact that this fact would be important to this article.

Here is a hint: a Google search on ""Pinochet Rotary" brings up only your interventions (or a certain "Pierre"'s interventions if you prefer) on blogs and on WP.

In other words, I can see no source at all who discusses the fact that Pinochet was a honorary member of the Rotary and that this is relevant. No author, no historian, nobody seems to think that this fact is important enough to even merely mentionning it.

What we need to accept this on this article is some solid sources who give us the following information:

• that Pinochet was a honorary member of the Rotary,
• that this fact was either an important aspect of the public or private life of Pinochet.

Otherwise, for the moment, this fact is irrelevant in the article, as would be "Pinochet had a big moustache" or "Pinochet had stomach problems each time he ate a chili".

Now, do you have these sources? Bradipus (talk) 13:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, you play...I suppose you couldn't think (Bradipus sense of humor) to place "Pinochet Rotary" in a Google query. Wich such a piece of work (nice, no ?) you find thus

http://www.rotaryfirst100.org/history/famous/honorary.htm#pinochet

AND

http://www.rotary-pattaya.org/Rotary-Englsh.htm

(you recognize that list ? :-)). Bye...

84.102.229.247 (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You are kidding, right? I gave the link to that list in my message hereabove! Please read and answer my message. I do not ask you to source the fact, I ask you to source that it is relevant to Pinochet's life. Please, again, read my previous message, what I ask you is crystal clear. If you are unable to follow a simple discussion, if you cannot provide the requested sources, I will delete the sentence from the article. Bradipus (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem not able to understand (this is your own kind of humor - do you like it ?).

The info is relevant because wiki community likes it. You are the only one who dislikes it, well it's your problem. The info has not to leave. YOU have to leave.

As show by the Rotarian link, of that info is relevant for 1,2 million Rotarians worldwide, well I think it can be relevant for some wikipedians, no ?

Well, you know, it's not because you're a life-term admin on French wiki that everybody as to be compliant with your opinion, you know ?

Bye.

84.102.229.247 (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No, Wiki community does not like it. I proposed to delete it 4 months ago, and nobody came forward to defend it. There is one person who wants this information there, you. That only is a sign that it does not belong here.

Now I have asked you a couple of times to clarify why it should be there, to show us with relevant sources that the information is relevant, but you seem to be unable to do that. I am sorry to say that saying that the info is relevant for 1,2 million Rotarians worldwide is (i) your point of view (ii) irrelevant for Wikipedia, which is not a rotarian encycopedy and (iii) especially irrelevant to this article which is not about Rotary.

I have waited long enough, I delete the information. We can pursue the discussion, but the information should be put back only if you provide some more sources who show that it is relevant to Pinochet's public or private life (see in this thread the questions you never answered). Bradipus (talk) 09:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

We all understand that you are impatient to blank that info. As you had no info back, arguing from that absence that Community does not like it is a bit abusive.

The community is not reserved to the page that you edit.

Our community comprises normal readers, coming from Internet to read any page.

They are not OBLIGED to vote, and not OBLIGED to conform to your positions.

We do not vote on WP, we talk. Nobody, not even you, ever gave an arguement in favour of this information being necessary or usefull on this article. Bradipus (talk)

Of course in your country the interest is evident :

http://www.humanite.fr/1993-09-09_Articles_-Pinochet-ne-regrette-rien

but you do not want to search, yes.

When you saw that your arguments were insufficient,

well you went to a person active in the community, just to lobby for your blankings, no ?

http://www.humanite.fr/1993-09-09_Articles_-Pinochet-ne-regrette-rien

I do not see in that article any information about Pinochet being a member, or about the fact that his membership would be important in his life. It just says that he spoke at a meeting of a Rotary club and that on that occasion he gave his views on his political life. A lot of people talk at Rotary clubs, including unpleasant people, it does not mean they are members, and it does not mean that Rotary has any importance in their life. As a matter of fact, that article shows that Rotary is not important in Pinochet's life. If it had been important, the article would have explained that, saying for instance that Rotary had such or such effect on Pinochet. But no, nothing. Bradipus (talk)

Well, that is not TALKING, BRadipus, it is political assaut...

As you want to restrain info, I restore it. Your behavior should be punished by admins.

84.102.229.247 (talk) 10:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Based on the article's abstract you gave us, we can now conclude that not only there is no source to say that Rotary was important in Pinochet's life, but we have also a source that allows us to demonstrate that Rotary was not important at all. Had it been important, the journalist would have commented about the links between Rotary and Pinochet, but he did not. Bradipus (talk) 11:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

your bia is complete : the source mention on the fact that the conference was held by a chief-of-government, Pinochet, at the Rotary local headquarter.

You seem to be well focused on Rotary, are'nt you ?

84.102.229.247 (talk) 12:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I am focused at the quality of the encyclopedia.

• This article tells us that Mr P hac back pain. It is not mentionned in the article
• This learns us that Pinochet liked scotch and pisco sours. It is not mentionned in the article.
• This tells us that a US bank held an account for Mr P. I cannot see a thing about this in the article.

Well, this is al about relevant information. To be in the article, an information needs to be relevant to its subject.

The fact that Pinochet made an appearance at a Rotary Club or that he was an honorary member of Rotary is not relevant, except if you can show us that this fact had some kind of importance in his life, whether public or pr~ivate, and you haven't showed that yet ! Stop attacking the person who asks you question and answer them. Bradipus (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability is not enough. The IP address needs to show why this bit of trivia is relevant. If the guy was important to Rotary, maybe it could be in the Rotary article. But it sounds like some kind of POV-push, to try to smear Rotary by connecting him with this guy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

1982 crisis mentions in the intro

I removed the last line from the last version by JoeCarson. I agree that the relation of the economic measures to the monetary crisis should be relativized and stated as refered opinion rather than fact to ensure NPOV, but giving extra contextual information exceedes the scope of the article intro; if needed, it could be mentioned in the corresponding section of this article, or even better, thru a link to the 1982 crisis, either in chile or worlwide. Gorgonzola (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: i think i came up with a better wording that keeps all the necessary info. I think the intro is rather long, though. Please comment, or propose improvements. Gorgonzola (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Your update is an improvement. Unfortunately, the article on the 1982 crisis focuses on the United States. JoeCarson (talk) 12:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Human rights abuses sources

Please do not remove the references to the official reports on political prison and torture when discussing human rights abuses, and produce complete references if you want to add sources with different figures (eg using phrases like "others have said..." "some sources put this number up to..." or any other encyclopedic formula). Thanks. Gorgonzola (talk) 20:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Latest changes by Francerec

I have reviewed the recent changes made by the user Francerec, and finished mopping up the remaining unsourced material and POV statements in accordance to consensus reached in this talk page. Francerec: you are welcome to contribute to the article, but please avoid pov statements, add sources for the claims you want to introduce, use an encylopedic language excempt of weasel words, avoid removing referenced sources not in accordance with your own opinions and respect consensus on issues already debated. Thank you.

ps: i am asuming good faith on part of the last two editors, but i must confess that i'am finding it hard to believe so, given 1.- the nature of the edits made by user Francerec and 2.- the sloppines of the "cleaning" made by 82.143.201.125. A traditional vandal tactic implies using one account to introduce vandalism and a second one to "revert" the most blatant parts leaving the rest hidden in the articles. One could think so of these edits, but in honor to WP:AGF, i'm only stating my concerns, so other editors take care in reviewing reverts and edits. please see "sneaky vandalism" in WP:VANDAL. Gorgonzola (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Motion to Archive

This talk page is getting rather long, and i was thinking of archiving it topically as well as chronologically. I am proposing this change and volunteering to do this work, and i ask all lurkers of this talk page to please pronounce their opinion on this issue, and ask any questions you might have with my proposal (e.g. "topically? whatdayamean topically?!?" and the like). Thanks. Gorgonzola (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In Pinochet&redirect=no&oldid=228956141 the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "NYT" :
  • Larry Rohter, Colonel's Death Gives Clues to Pinochet Arms Deals, The New York Times, 19 June 2006 (in English)
  • Larry Rohter, Colonel's Death Gives Clues to Pinochet Arms Deals, The New York Times, 19 June 2006 (in English)

DumZiBoT (talk) 12:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

'El Tata'

I have removed the sentence "Pinochet is known in Chile as "El Tata" (The Grandfather or The Grandpa)" form the abstract beacuse: 1.- it is unencyclopedic and not precise. He is called by that name by very few of his most extreme suporters, and by his detractors when mocking this supporters. He is not generally refered to as "el tata". 2.- it lacks context. without a proper explanation of the (humorous) use of the expression in Chile, its inclusion is confusing and potentially POV, as its meaning is very subtle, even in spanish. 3.- if included, it should not go in the abstract, but in some other part of the article. 4.- is not factually acurate: he is not "known" as "el tata". some people call him like that, and most uses of the phrase in conection with his name are mockingly and humorous. if in disagreemnt, please cite sources.

Until the issues mentioned above have been dealt with (NOT in the abstract), i will keep removing this phrase, as i truly believe that it diminishes the quality of the article, and is misleading.

And since i am not the one including the reference (i wouldn't even mention it) i do not think that i should rewrite it. My rewriting it is its removal. Thank you. Gorgonzola (talk) 22:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Dictator

Disclaimer: I am not Chilean but I have been to Chile. There is also a reasonable possibility that I have a DINA file (secret police file) on me.

Even Hitler's article does not call him a dictator. As a neutral encyclopedia, the lead sentence should mention that he was the President. The second paragraph notes human rights violations. If you prefer to use the word "dictator", it should be moved to the 2nd paragraph. I will do it as an example. 903M (talk) 06:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Pinochet was never elected, so his first role should be the one with which he took power. The title President was stated by a decree by himself one year after the coup. So, he should be first referred to as dictator, and then make some mention to his title, as it is the case in the article before your edit. Maxatl (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's use your logic then. The lead will then be changed to refer to the coup. Not all leaders of coup d'etats are dictators. 903M (talk) 05:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, but a repeat that we had already discussed this issue, that all other right-wing political leaders are called dictators, and that there is wide consensus on his character as such. Since i don't believe that the word dictator is problematic per se, and we have good reasons to keep it, why shoul de we remove it?

Please put up new arguments. !maxat's argument != 903m's argument. There are other arguments that are subsidiary to maxat's that you still haven't contradicted, and i believe that given the consensus already reached on the issue for the last six months or so, the burden of proof is on your side. And please, take the above as an invitation to provide these arguments! if there are good reasons to remove this word, i would not like it to be kept only on the basis of tradition and consistency. If you have good reasons, then please, mention them. Thank you. Gorgonzola (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem with your redaction is that apart from being the leader of a coup d'etat, he seems to have enjoyed a very legitimate office afterwards, quoting a title of "President of the Government Junta", which sounds legal but didn't exist, and then "President of Chile until the return to civilian rule" (note that "civilian rule" here is different than saying "democracy"... what's the problem with saying things as they are instead of whitewashing everything?), besides other ingenious titles like "Supreme Chief" and other inventions, which you don't mention. And I take your words: "Not all leaders of coup d'etats are dictators." Maybe not, but Pinochet was. Finally, you arrive late to an already discussed issue in this talk page, as Gorgonzola stated, regarding the fact of calling a dictator a dictator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.45.79.152 (talk) 12:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

1.- Hitler accessed power through democratic, constitutionally provided, legal means, unlike Pinochet. He actually was president and chancellor in the weimar republic even before his legally sanctioned concentration of power, or the fascist direction of his regime. 1.1.- I call Goodwin on you for Reductio ad Hitlerum. 2.- Consensus on this matter had already been reached (see here, here, and here). 3.- All pages on "Military Rulers" of latinamerican countries call these 'dictators' in their opening paragraphs, with few exceptions. see Batista, Videla, Banzer, Alvarez et al. I have, in consequence, reverted your edits to the previous version. Please point out new elements that should be considered to change the wording of the paragraph if you want to reopen debate on this matter. Thank you. Disclaimer: I am Chilean. Any possible DINA files on me were probably destroyed or are no longer DINA files since its disbandment. Gorgonzola (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

POV

Description of results of Pinochet's economic policy is extremely one sided and possibly factually incorrect. I'm putting NPOV tag up until I, or someone else, manage to address this issue. -- Vision Thing -- 20:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed tag. You need to be more specific about what is POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.186.246 (talk) 03:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Left Wing Bias Has Destroyed This Article: Castro vs Pinochet

Compare the Castro and Pinochet articles. The Pinochet article is very poor. It is very heavily focussed on his human rights abuses and nothing else. The Castro article is far more balanced. I think the reason for this is that the article has been hijaked by left wing editors. Castro committed as many human rights abuses as Pinochet. I don't see why Pinochets article is so focussed on this one thing.

The article is bad because left wingers like Bukharin have destroyed it. This needs to change. I would say over 80% of the article is devoted to human rights abuses.

please leave your personal attacks to my userpage, and don't use ad-hominem arguments in discussions. thank you. Gorgonzola (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

President infobox

Sat macphisto: Wether you (or me, or anyone) like it ot not, the appointment of "President" is a formal category defined only in reference to an organization, like a national state. After the coup of 1973, the Government Junta established an interim government in which they assumed the legislative power, and then used this power to proclaim Pinochet President of the Republic on December 16, 1974. He was swore into exercise the next day, and these are the dates that are reflected in the infobox. In the constitution of 1925, in times of emergency a president could be appointed by a the legislative organ, and it is under this provision that his presidency was, within a (very) broad interpretation of the institutional basis of the chilean state, legally president. This interpretation was later solidified even more when 1.- the 1980 constitution recognized his possition as president and estalished a legal term for his presidency, and particularly 2.- when Chile decided to upheld the legal and institutional consequences of the dictatorship after the return of democracy. So he was, at some point at least, president of chile, although this does not say anything about his condition as Dictator. Gorgonzola (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Funeral Photo

it is a photo a young person saluting a dead guy. To say that this is the salute of a new breed of young far-right is a little overstretched. Gorgonzola (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

AVM's cleanup

Thanks to user AVM for his help. I have changed two small details in his wording:

1.- Pinochet did not "step down to allow for democratic rule". He lost a plebiscite and was forced to resign in accordance to the 1980 constitution. The above sentence implies that he voluntarily ceded power back to civilian rulers, when in fact this was not the case. Actually, on the day of the plebiscite, Pinochet had to acknowledge his defeat only because general Fernando Mathei revealed the results on his own initiative. Until that time, around 8:30 pm, the government had only made public the results of tables in Easter Island and Antartica, that gave a 58% advantage to the "Sí" option (note that in chile, election results are usually nearly 80% complete around 6:30 pm), and precisely at the moment when Mathei made his announcement, Pinochet was in the presidential Bunker pondering whether to accept defeat or not. See General Humberto Gordon's Memoires for info on this.

2.- I personally think that it's irrelevant to put Allende's political affiliation in the abstract, but I won't oppose it in principle. I will oppose, however, the POV designation of Marxist, when discussing the political affiliation of a President of Chile. Marxism is a philosophical perspective, not a political affiliation. Socialist is Allende's political affiliation as a member of the Partido Socialista de Chile. If describing President Bush, for example, would it be proper to say that he is a Christian President? Wouldn't it be more correct to state that he is a Republican President? Using Marxist in the case of Allende, just like christian in the case of Bush, is POV pushing: the POV that "marxist" is a quality of Allende that justifies, explains or compliments the exposition of the events mentioned in the abstract of the article to Pinochet. Again, I wouldn't even mention his political affiliation, and if i were to mention it, I'd leave his political affiliation as recognized officially by the electoral college of Chile, i.e. his political party, not his philosophical views.

Gorgonzola (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Abstract wording

1.- "national security agencies" is misleading because 1.1.- not only national security agencies participated in the imlpementation of repression. 1.2.- the repression was part of a goverment policy of which the DINA and its exceptional powers were only one of many institutional tools used. So the subject should be "the military government", not "National security agencies. Sin the military government is mentioned here in the context of the article on pinochet, it makes sense to say "The military government led by pinochet"...

2.- Criminal processes are not "unsuccessful" or "successful" if prescribed by the death of the accused. This processes are discussed in detail in the article. If the idea that there was never a formal conviction is to be introduced in the abstract (i don't think it should), care should be taken to state an NPOV version of facts: he was prosecuted at the time of his death, this criminal processes were moving forward, and in previous processes he was only spared conviction on humanitarian basis in attention to his health and old-age. no court of justice was ever able to drop the charges brought against him. I personally believe that such detail is unnecessary in the abstract, but if someone wants to include it, please make sure to put a neutral, factually correct version of facts. Gorgonzola (talk) 22:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

As I know it in democratic societies that accused are presumed innocent unless proven guilty, however unsatisfying that may be to those who would like to see a conviction that is precluded by death. I think if there are going to be references made to "criminal processes" then it should be noted that the defendent died unconvicted. The preceding statement that "criminal processes" are not unsucessful or sucessful if prescribed by the death of the accused is itself an opinion that is not shared by many. ([user talk:Parnellg]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parnellg (talk • contribs) 22:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Political opponents

It is not correct to say that the political opponents to the dictatorship of Pinochet were mainly militants of the communist party, nor it is to say that the repressive measures implemented at the beginning of the dictatorship were particularly directed to militants of the communist party.

There are various stages to the implementation of an apparatus of political repression in Chile in the beginning of the dictatorship. Immediately after the coup, the first target of the repressive forces were the officials of allende's government, mainly militants of the socialist party. In the months following, the repressive effort was directed to disarticulate the organic structures of all leftist parties, starting with the socialist party, then following with the communist and MIR party, but eventually targeting the whole spectrum of the militant left in Chile.

This phase of selective persecution of the middle structures of opposing political parties was sructured in cycles, by year, until the end of the first stage of repression in 1975, and the formation of more permanent repressive structures until 1978. In this successive efforts, first the regime focused on the socialist, then the communist, and then the MIR parties.

So it's misleading to say that political opponents against whom the dictatorship implemented repressive measures were mainly communist militants; there were at least two other organic structures that were initially targeted just as strongly, if not so permanently, as later the Socialist party was pretty much dispersed, and the MIR anihilated, but that's only after 1978 or so.

Now on the second round of repression, in the 80's, it is more accurate to say that the communists took most of the heat, mainly because of their ties to the FPMR, particularly after 1986. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bukharin (talk • contribs) 18:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Return to ddemocratic rule

the 1980 plebiscite approved the constitution that called for a plebiscite in 1988 to determine if he would serve another term as president. the 1980 plebiscite had nothing to do with the return to democratic rule, hence the phrase is factually incorrect. He did not stepped down from office "voluntarily", he lost an election, but this details are out of place in the abstract, and are discussed at length in the body of the article. Gorgonzola (talk) 15:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

La Moneda was shelled and Allende perished

In the first paragraph describing the coup, the article contains the phrase "La Moneda was shelled and Allende perished." The implication of the article is that Allende was killed by the shelling (and thereby killed on Pinochet's orders), rather than having committed suicide. As mentioned elsewhere on this Talk page, Allende's suicide is, for better or worse, beyond question. I've looked through the talk page trying to find discussion on this; if this has not otherwise been resolved, I intended to change the article to reflect this.

98.221.157.109 (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC) (Oops, was logged out; the previous comment was mine) Cdecoro (talk) 00:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

archive

This page is getting long, can anyone archive this?--Megaman en m (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

i had the intention of doing that, but wanted to take time to make a thematic archive. Guess a simple chronological archive will have to do... Gorgonzola (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Recent Edits

I have reverted several edits made in the last two days.

1.- Photo: Pinochet is a military figure. picturing him as a civilian in his later years is uncharacteristic, so a photo in military uniform, from the time where he acquired most of his notoriety is preferred. This photo is already linked in the article, and has been removed under allegations of it being "non-free". This is false: under Chilean law, all photos of person acting in official capacity, are free for educational purposes. As this is a photo of a Chilean military officer wearing the official Chilean army uniform, this photo falls in this category, and is thus free for use in a encyclopedia, as it is stated in the photosś fair use rationale.

2.- I'm having a lot of trouble assuming good faith from a streak of edits that tried to remove every mention of human rights abuses in the intro, without even a minor mention in the talk. this section has been thoroughly discussed in this page, and i take it as a disrespect to all the editors who have worked in this article to just come here and make this particular changes without any consideration for prior discussion, WP:BOLD notwithstanding.

In this same vein, the abundance of tags in the article is absurd, and specially in the intro, where all the issues mentioned are discussed at length in rest of the article. I think it is completely unnecessary to include references to facts that are well known and accredited in several books like the suspension of civil liberties and the ban of political parties, but if needed, i can produce the official documents and decrees to support them. In any case, i have removed the tags from the intro, as this references, if needed, must be put in the corresponding at-length section of the article.

3.- I don't think i need to even address to the use of "dictatorship" to allude to his government. This has been already discussed at length. Gorgonzola (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Sharp full color photographs are superior to grainy black and white ones.Luis Napoles (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Not necesarilly. Color and resolution are not always valid criteria for editorial decisions in the context of an encyclopedic article. The subject depicted in the image is a better criteria, and given that this is an article about a Chilean Military officer and dictator that gains notability because of his role as military figure and controversial head of state, a picture that depicts him in this quality is superior from an editorial point of view than a picture of his later years after retirement (inclusion of which, incidentally, could be taken by an external observer as an effort to blank his image and POV pushing, like his advisors did for the 1988 electoral campaign). Similar examples can be seen in the article about a nun pictured as a nun, a US president pictured in a official photo in the oval office, yugoslav marshalls and a british generals pictured in uniform from their time of active military service, etcetera. Gorgonzola (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The image should show facial features so that the person is recognizable.Luis Napoles (talk) 09:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Gorgonzola, this guy was a military man and he should be depicted as such. Luis Napoles again with his biased edits is trying to portray him as sweet old granpa. Sorry Luis, but there's no policy in Wikipedia that states that the image should be in color or show facial features. All Wikipedia cares about is that is free of copyrights.

Likeminas (talk) 23:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletions by user Likeminas

For some unexplained reason, user Likeminas deletes information about his early life and reverts any attempt to organize the text chronologically.

I suggest that we include information about his early life, organize the lead and the article chronologically so that it follows a clear order, and have high-quality color image of him so readers can identify the person.Luis Napoles (talk) 09:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with you re-organizing information, but unfortunately, you are here not to benefit or improve Wikipedia, You're here to carry on with your propagandist agenda of demonizing left-wing politicians and sanctifying right-wing dictators.

If that's not the case, could explain why are you deleting referenced material such as this[3]

From the beginning, the government led by Pinochet implemented harsh measures against its political opponents. These included; Banning of any political opposition, arrests of trade unionists, controls on speech and the media and forced exile of thousands.He faced several criminal indictments beginning in 1990 until his death in 2006. At the time of his death, he had not been convicted of any crimes, although investigations were ongoing.

Likeminas (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It's well-explained, his crimes are detailed in the Rettig Report and Valech Report paragraph, and his investigations in the last paragraph of the lead.

I strongly advise you to read no personal attacks. Luis Napoles (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure but you're deleting sourced material. Likeminas (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Not from the article, only a duplicate from the lead. You are deletion any citations to his early life. The lead must adhere to WP:LEAD, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article.".Luis Napoles (talk) 18:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

some much pro-Pinochet, pro-USA/UK bias

This article is awful. It should make clear from the first paragraph what kind of person Pinochet was - a monster. It should also make clear his connections with western governments especially the UK which kept him in power for so long. I know that Wikipedia articles for other madmen and dictators (Hitler, Stalin, George W Bush, Amin, etc.) also don t emphasize the most obvious necessity but that's no excuse. Who the hell controls Wikipedia? It's the very small number (relative to number of users) of admins who control and decide everything and the influence of these people is destroying so many Wikipedia articles and making this into an encyclopedia that nobody will trust.--217.203.185.53 (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Fascist?

Pinochet was not a fascist. He was a right-wing dictator, but not a fascist, contrary to what the cited sources say. Most people these days throw around "fascist" like a swear word, without having any idea what fascism exactly is or what it entails. Pinochet did not set up a corporatist state, seek a revolutionary transformation of society, or establish a single-party state. His regime was conservative, not fascist. I am not arguing the fact that he was a dictator - an exceptionally brutal and venal one - but he was not a fascist. It's entirely possible to be an anti-communist tyrant without being a fascist. Josh (talk) 08:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Wells, John C. (1990). Longman pronunciation dictionary. Harlow, England: Longman. p. 537. ISBN 0582053838. entry "Pinochet"

Thanks for your opinion Josh, but saying contrary to what the sources say doesn’t work very well in Wikipedia, as it relies heavily on verifiability, not opinions from editors. You’re right, however, that Pinochet did not set up a one party state. He actually shut down congress. Likeminas (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Did Pinochet consider himself a fascist? Did he actually implement fascist policies? No, he did not. Francisco Franco was a fascist; Antonio de Oliveira Salazar was a fascist; Benito Mussolini was a fascist; Adolf Hitler was a fascist; Antonescu and Pavelic were fascists; Getulio Vargas was a fascist. Do any of the sources listed provide any evidence of Pinochet's "fascism?" Wikipedia's own article on fascism:

Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, comprises a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology[1][2][3][4] and a corporatist economic ideology developed in Italy.[5] Fascists believe that nations and/or races are in perpetual conflict whereby only the strong can survive by being healthy, vital, and by asserting themselves in conflict against the weak.[6]

Fascists advocate the creation of a single-party state.[7] Fascist governments forbid and suppress openness and opposition to the government and the fascist movement.[8] Fascism opposes class conflict, blames capitalist liberal democracies for its creation and communists for exploiting the concept.[9]

Pinochet did not advocate a single-party state. He was not anti-capitalist. He did not believe in the national/racial "perpetual conflict." He opposed class conflict (as can be seen in the original version of the 1980 Constitution) and forbade and suppressed openness and opposition to the government, but the latter is a hallmark of all (or almost all) dictatorships, not just fascist ones.

Calling someone a "fascist" does not make it so. Many radical libertarians call Barack Obama a "fascist," and likewise, many on the left (and a few on the right) called George W. Bush a "fascist," as well.

While some have called Pinochet a fascist, have they provided any evidence of him subscribing to fascist ideology or implementing fascist policies? Josh (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Request

{{|editprotected}} Please remove the line <ref name="fascist">{{cite web|url=http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/pinochet-was-a-vile-fascist-but-allende-was-no-hero-1179768.html|title=Pinochet was a vile Fascist...|publisher=The Independent|accessdate=2009-09-21}}<br/> from the references section, because that reference is already brought inside the article, and with its present formatting it causes an error message. Debresser (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I've moved it to the line discussing Pinochet's purported fascism for now.  Skomorokh  21:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Thanks for fixing the error message. But you missed the point that we have that reference already in the article. Just that it is not called name="fascist" there. So it would have been better to give that unnamed reference the name "fascist" and remove the above mentioned reference altogether, so as not to introduce unusual (and in this case unneeded) forms of references. Debresser (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Not quite; the citation named "fascist" contains eight different references, of which The Independent is only one. I have removed the second reference to that particular article, as it was cited in the same line. It's an unusual style because it's just been implemented. Regards,  Skomorokh  22:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 10:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Two more questions

Why is Pinochet in the categories "Generalissimos" and "Anti-intellectualists"? Has he ever been referred to as "Generalissimo," and did he ever display anti-intellectualist tendencies? I'm not arguing for or against inclusion in these categories, it's just that this is news to me. I thought Pinochet only went by "Captain General." Josh (talk) 01:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

No, and I have removed it. There has been previous talk of making him look exclusively like a military man, even going so far as to remove his official presidential portiat and replacing it with one in which his is authoaratatively gesticulating. I have also moved the fascist side bar.--Die4Dixie (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Unprotect request

As per this request Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Unprotect_Pinochet_request I have unprotected this article. If this unprotection causes further disruption, please alert the admin team via AN/I. Manning (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

So well referenced for fascist

A so well referenced fascist needs to be part of the Fascist portal. Please do not remove with out s\discussion and consensus and reason for not including it in such a well referenced article.--Die4Dixie (talk) 13:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Please do not disrupt Wikipedia in order to try to make a point.Likeminas (talk) 13:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to add Pinochet and all the sources into the portal under the subsection people but not into this article. Otherwise seek consensus for it here.Likeminas (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If that square of portal info is going to remain, I'll suggest it should be put underneath the photo / personal info of Pinochet. It's not too aesthetically pleasing as it is right now (and it is overlapped with some text from the article). Frank Pais (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Frank, I'm afraid he's not doing that in good faith, but rather to make a point. Likeminas (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Going to keep an eye on this article for a while. See if we can keep things WP:CIVIL as we get the article on this notable fascist dictator up to snuff.Simonm223 (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Die4Dixie (talk · contribs) is now claiming it is my responsability to find references claiming Pinochet is considered a fascist. As this was already done by others a while ago I will disregard his request. Simonm223 (talk) 14:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I am requesting evidence to have the portal section remain. Please familiarize yourself with the request for comment below. I have taken this to the greater community for their input. Specious use of "fascist" as a pejorative should not take the place of scholarly evaluations. All I have asked for is some scholarly sources for such a inane position----Die4Dixie (talk) 21:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Side Bar

As I had previously mentioned, I had removed the inappropriate side bar. Anyone wanting to reinsert, please discuss.--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

How is the side-bar inappropriate? As has already been demonstrated, there is a wealth of discussion on fascism being present within the Pinochet regime in Chile. You added the side-bar. Unless you added it in bad faith, I see no reason to remove it. It is highly pertinent to the subject matter at hand. Frank Pais (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely added it in bad faith. Where were you? That is why Likeminas removed so many times. >He recognized the inappropriateness of the sidebar, but seems unwilling to contradict you directly. Let´s try to be a little more intellectually honest. Or point to the massive amounts of academic literature that establish the corporatist nature of the regime. As a political scientist, you should have no problem substantiating this. It was you above who said this was a textbook erxample of what he did. if he did, and you can show it, I wont have any problems conceding the point.--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I would refer you to WP:POINT. Simonm223 (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Err, this is a moot issue now. Please review the history, and if you don´t understand it, I would be happy to explain the point Now if you have any information to support the other prongs other than authoritarian, to support the side bar, we would welcome your constructive additions.--Die4Dixie (talk) 06:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Fascist referencing

I'm agnostic regarding whether Pinochet was a fascist, I'm merely (at the moment) interested in improving the appearance. An editor asked (Help desk) if there was a way to improve the appearance when there are multiple references for a single word (e.g. fascist). The answer given at the help desk was that it couldn't be done, but I found a way to do it.

I could be bold and just do it, but I want some feedback first.

Here's an example I just worked with the first paragraph of the Pinochet article. The word "fascist" had eight references. I used the new citation style as documented in wp:LDR, and separated each of the references by a line feed. (I also converted the website references to the proper citation style, although I don't know whether the publisher of Google Books references should be Google Book or the publisher of the book).

It isn't beautiful, but it removes the ugliness from the main text, and makes it reasonably clear that the citation is made up of multiple references.

I also added bullet points—does that add or detract?

If there's no objection, I can make the change to the article, but again, I'd like to hear opinions whether this is an improvement.--SPhilbrickT 13:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I actually implemented the changes already as it seems like good improvement. But all the credit goes to you, thanks again. Likeminas (talk) 13:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I had just decided to be bold and implement it, but I see you did. Unfortunately, as you know, it isn't working quite right, so I won't take any credit until it is fixed. Will keep looking until it is resolved.--SPhilbrickT 13:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Pheww, found it.--SPhilbrickT 13:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Great work Sphilbrick, thank you for your time. Likeminas (talk) 13:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks well sourced. Should stay in this time. Simonm223 (talk) 20:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

RfC:Is the use of the fascism portal and templates appropriate in the Pinochet article

Is the use of the fascism portal and tags appropriate in the Pinochet article? Die4Dixie (talk) 07:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not appropriate. Scholars of fascism don't consider him a fascist. For example, Walter Laqueur in Fascism: Past, Present, Future when talking about Chile under Pinochet says this: "they were updated versions of traditional military dictatorships, reprehensible and reactionary but not fascist." -- Vision Thing -- 08:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with Vision Thing, Augusto Pinochet's Chile would clearly not fit under Fascism, although possibly Neo-fascism --- similar to Franquist Spain and Alfredo Stroessner's Paraguay. Regardless of what is decided, I would recommend that Laqueur's remarks be cited in the article on the matter.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 09:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well...I've never heard Franco called "neo-fascist" before but yes, Laqueur's remarks should be cited. On the other hand, there's a wide range of scholarly opinion on the matter. I think Paxton doesn't call Pinochet fascist but says he drew on fascist elements. On the other hand, I can probably find left writers who'd gladly describe him as fascist. We should be inclusive. On the question of the template...probably it shouldn't be here. --Killing Vector (talk) 22:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No. In modern scholarship the term fascist is not applied to any government or political party after 1945. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Not fascist in any form. Praetorianism/Military-led Conservativism. Pinochet runs roughly synonymous to the likes of Miguel Primo de Rivera. - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It isnt appropriate, Pinochet is not associated with fascism. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 15:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll chime in with the others. Pinochet was a military dictator, not a fascist. Fascism implies totalitarianism, state control over the economy, etc. Many of the hallmarks of such ideologies are clearly missing in his regime. If "fascist" has been used to describe him, it's only in the pejorative, reflexive sense in which it is used for all disliked right-wing regimes. Such a usage is inappropriate for a serious encyclopedia. Ray^Talk 13:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The use of the Fascist portal was obviously inappropriate and that shows how an edit based on bad faith can backfire sometimes. But removing the sub-section on his alleged fascism and deleting all of the sources that go with it is a violation of NPOV. I have re-inserted it as a sub-section. Please discuss before attempting to remove it. Likeminas (talk) 21:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This has been dealt with. You are breaking a concensus here. Please self revert.--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The concensus was that Pinochet was not a fascist but that does not mean that there is concensus to exclude from the article comparisons of his regime with fascism or to state that he has been considered fascist. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Please review the edits and the last version by vision thing. He has used the headline for the reference. Fascist doesn't even appear inn the article. --Die4Dixie (talk) 02:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I see there’s consensus in regards to the inappropriate usage of the Fascism portal in the article, which may I add, I pointed out from the beginning.

But see no consensus in reference to the section. I would even argue there's consensus to include all well-referenced content.

Needless to say that I see any compelling reason to remove authoritative sources such as; Word Fascism: A Historical Encyclopedia.Likeminas (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Vision and I support his version. Who supports yours? Why is it so important for you to have such an unflattering picture? This is not bringing balance to the article. The article should not say that he was good or bad, but what he did. It shouldn´t be necessary to spoon feed readers "bad,bad bad. Just look at the picture. Bad!" The picture,as it stands, is propoganda, and is being exploied for that purpose.--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS support the inclusion of my version. As for users please read above. The Four Deuces, Killing Victor and Redthoreau all seem to be inclining on touching the subject.

As for the picture, I know you have sympathy for Pinochet and that's ok with me. But putting a picture of him in the decadence of his life where he looks like a sweet old granpa is not well representative of his persona. The current picture was taken at the peak of his worldwide spotlight, Right after the coup. Something for which is most known for. Thus, is a better depiction of him. Likeminas (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you arguing that he had that expression on his face for his entire presidency? Is it that representative? Is there true abitrariness or an attempt to meld signifier and sign to make a point? Sure I´m sympathetic, and you have a strong antipathy. I´m very symapathetic towards Franco, but I would not argue the fascism point there. Fascism is being used as a pejoritive rather than as a descriptor and tries to draw a link to Adolf Hitler by association (To whom I am unsympathetic). There is plenty of room for criticism for his life, but let´s not play loose with facts. The category of leaders who came to power by coup is also loose. He came to supreme executive power through the decision of the Junta, so there was a period of time between the events. The toture section is lunacy. That report says that any detainee who was forced to strip was totured, and counts every one of them as a victim. If that is torture, then every prison in the US torures all day long,. Strip searhes is a SOP every where. Do you really think that he was a fascist? Or does it just have a nice ring to it or is a good euphamism for a really, really bad thing? I would be willing to work in a truly collegial way now, and put the Frank Pais deal behind us. If you doubt this, ask anyone with whom I have had problems with in the past. --Die4Dixie (talk) 01:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Likeminas, I also think that the subject should be touched but I just don't think it justifies its own section. -- Vision Thing -- 11:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Fascism is a loaded term. Pinochet definitely was closer to fascist ideology than he was to communist ideology, but we should only reliably categorize him as a fascist if the preponderance of the sources do so. If a minority of sources categorize him, we describe their characterizations and rationale in relation to how prominent those characterizations are. A single section dealing with comparisons may not be problematic as long as there are sources which are of high quality that we can use to support the prose in such a section. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing people using Scholarly sources other than Laqueur. Second ScienceApologist. Oh look at that jstor has J Grugel "Nationalist Movements and Fascist Ideology in Chile" Bulletin of Latin American Research, 1985 particularly at 118, claiming the Chicago Boys forced out the fascists per se. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Since they didn´t force Pinochet out per se, then he must not have been a fascist, per se. I think that this is important, thanks for drawing it to our attention.--Die4Dixie (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

That does not to me seem to be a logically consistent conclusion, Die4Dixie. We cannot use the source to label Pinochet either way since the source does not say that they forced out every single fascist, nor does it say that everyone that they didn't force out was not a fascist. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The article clearly describes the typology of Chilean fascism according to the definition given in the first couple of paragraphs. It does not include Pinochet within that typology. You can say Grugel 1985 does not consider Pinochet within his typology of Chilean fascism. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's probably good. You could be a little less interpretative and simply say that Grugel 1985 does not include Pinochet within the typology of Chilean fascism. I'm still uncomfortable as to the conclusions such a statement might ask the reader to draw (since Grugel doesn't include Pinochet it is hard to know what his opinion is), but it is undeniable fact at least. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

: Pinochet was definitely a fascist, he represented the corporate interests of the elites. Not the military, the fact that he used the military shows that democratic means were not likely to result in a election in favour of the capitalist parties. He crushed labour unions, closed public schools, bulldozed the houses of the poorest in Chile, tortured and detained communists and social democrats. He represented an open terrorist dictatorship of big business. His government was made up of representative of corporations not of the citizens of Chile. The fact that there was no elections represents the fact that the government did not have wide spread democratic support to win the elections. Fascism has never meant state control of the economy anyone who believes this has a philistine knowledge of fascism. Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, eastern european fascists all privatized the economy with exceptions to certain arms industries but this didn't mean that arms production was solely public in this regard. It is a widely accepted fact across the world that Pinochet is a fascist. If you go in the streets of any latin american city, and the choices are describe Pinochet using one of the following terms "Fascist, Capitalist, Communist, Socialist, Democrat" Everyone would say fascist, the only people who reject the use of the term fascist are those who's agenda is to convert Pinochet's government into some sort of wide spread public acceptance by covering up the facts, mostly those who benefited from it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CmrdMariategui (talk • contribs) 15:09, 17 October 2009

There are several reliable sources that claim Pinochet was a fascist, now that some editors don’t consider them “scholarly” is another debate. I guess at this point we could all agree (and according to the majority of sources) that Pinochet was not a fascist in the classical sense. That is not to say; however, that his dictatorship did not implemented at least some elements of fascism such a strong authoritarian rule, brutal suppression of the opposition and shut down of congress among other things…

I think Word fascism: a Historical encyclopedia has the best explanation on this issue thus far. Likeminas (talk) 20:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

1945 is the cut-off. If you were in power in 1945 you might be a fascist. If you came to power later you were not a fascist. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Legacy

ETREMELY BIASED. Although Pinochet is widely viewed as a tyrant, and from any objective measure was a dictator, having led a military junta that ruled Chile for two decades, of the 248 words written in the "Legacy" section only 5 express such a viewpoint, the rest extoll his contributions to Chilean "democracy". Not only is this Orwellian nonsense, but a clear, glaring violation of both wikipedia's NPOV standards, as well as common-sense, drawing the legacy of a dictator's biography into a hagiography of a "defender of democracy". So until someone wants to write a neutral and accurate assesment of Pinochet, I have removed the fascist apologia of the Legacy section in its entirety, quoted below--

"Pinochet's legacy has been debated continuously. Some view him as a brutal dictator while others credit him for saving Chile from communism, recovering political and economical stability, and implementing bold economic reforms that brought unprecedented prosperity.

After the 1973 coup, Pinochet said, “We only set ourselves the task of transforming Chile into a democratic society of free men and women." His supporters made similar claims. Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, for example, thanked the General for "bringing democracy to Chile".[54] Historian James Whelan, writing in the May 2007 edition of the American Spectator also praised Pinochet for bringing economic progress to Chile.[55] When in power, Pinochet gave a series of speeches that indicate that the 1973 coup targeted not only Allende's Popular Unity government, but Chilean democracy itself, which the General saw as hopelessly flawed. In wording that Pinochet repeated several times in various speeches, he claimed that Chile had been “slave and victim of the Congress since 1925, and slave and victim of the political parties.” Arguing for an "organic" type of democracy, Pinochet contended that “Merely formal democracy dissolves itself, victim of a demagogy that substitutes simple, unattainable promises for social justice and economic prosperity.” That form of democracy would inevitably result in a Marxist dictatorship, according to his analysis. Chilean democracy, therefore, was “progressively socializing in its economic experiments.... Those who thought they could detain or control this evolution... were given proof under the Marxist regime of their impotence and incomprehensible lack of vision.”" --Die4Dixie (talk) 19:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)== Return to Democracy ==

This is not NPOV wording., especially in view of the electorate voting for him before the plebiscite. Please do not reinsert this language--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Diexie you're entitled to your opinion no to your facts. I will shortly be posting a list of mainstream sources that clearly and explicitly say that 1989-1990 were the years in which democracy was reinstated in Chile. Likeminas (talk) 19:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, you're clearly deleting sourced content, as you probably know that amounts to vandalism. Please stop. Likeminas (talk) 19:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Please read mainstream sources:

• NY times: Chileans Reach Accords That Smooth the Road to Democracy (1989)

• The Sun: Clinton salutes Chile's return to democracy, prods region; He calls nation `a shining star' (Apr 18, 1998)

• The Age: Opposition leads on eve of Chile's return to democracy. (December 1989)

• Los Angeles times: 80,000 Chileans Cheer Return of Democracy in `Stadium of Pain' (March 1990)

• Deseret News: Bush praises revival of democracy in Chile (Dec 6, 1990)

Need I post more? There's plenty where those came from. This is the mainstream view on the Chilean transition to democracy, so please do not add minority views on the lead as they clearlt violate WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. Needless is to say that deleting sourced content as you did here amount to vandalism and might be reported to an administrator for review. Likeminas (talk) 20:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Please find some reliable sources for fascist. Mainstream, please. I missed the Italian WW2 connection. Natioanl socialist? Pinochet? No, sir, it is you who play loose with facts. An election in which all could participate is not Democracy? Facts are facts, regardless of what leftist propoganda says.--68.35.239.206 (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)--Die4Dixie (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, first, "Die4Dixie", turn spell-check on in your browser. Second, your name leaves little to be guessed at in terms of your politics. "Fascist" does not necessitate a connected with Italy or National Socialism. As per the lead sentence in the Wikipedia entry, "Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, comprises a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology and a corporatist economic ideology..." This is practically a picture perfect description of what existed in Chile under Pinochet. Now please stop removing sourced content. This has nothing to do with bias. A Google search for "Pinochet" and "fascist" brings back 2,960,000 results. Would you like me to add more of those to the article to please you? Frank Pais (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I´m not sure what economic school you ascribe to, but please point out the corporatism that Pinochet advocated, the second prong of fascism. He also does not appear in the article on fascism. Glaring omission no?--Die4Dixie (talk) 03:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Obama and monkey[4] as search terms for google give over 6,000,000 hits. So what is your point? should we call Obama a monkey in his article. 2,000,000 is a paltry number, infact, a minority and fringe view.--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Die4Dixie deleting sources such as the The Irish Times and dismissing others as leftist propaganda while at the same time labeling them as unreliable would be laughable if the accusations weren't so baseless and ignorant of the facts.

Please read some more mainstream sources

• The Toronto Star: Chile has supplanted Marxism with fascism

This is not a RS for calling the man a Facist. It is a nothing source. Did you even follow the link? Laughable. You need a little stronger and more reliable sources.--Die4Dixie (talk) 03:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• The Independent (UK):Pinochet was a vile Fascist but Allende was no hero

This is only in the title. Which is ascribed by editor, n ot article writer? Are you advocating using headlines as RS?--Die4Dixie (talk) 03:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Blackshirts & reds: rational fascism & the overthrow of communism By Michael Parenti "The economic policies of the fascist Pinochet regime in Chile were openly admired by the newly installed capitalist government in Hungary" (page 96)

This is the regime, and not Pinochet particularlly. Tjis is an OR violation.--Die4Dixie (talk) 03:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• World fascism: a historical encyclopedia, Volume 1 By Cyprian Blamires, Paul Jackson "Although he was authoritarian and ruled dictatorially, Pinochet's support of neoliberal economic policies and his unwillingness to support national businesses distinguished him from classical fascists"

Does not explicitly call him a fascist. Your extrapolation is again, a vio or OR.--Die4Dixie (talk) 03:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Need I keep posting?

By the way, as you have been told before, deleting sourced content as you did here is vandalism, so please stop. See WP:VANDAL for more info. Likeminas (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Also , you confuse the pinochet regime with the man, and when you do, you commit OR violations. The regime is one thing, the man another. You are misrepresenting the sources.--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The Irish Times piece is a book review, not a jornalistic piece. It is OPINION, and needs to be inline cited to the autor to the author. In fact, it is not usble at all. It will be shortly removed.

On the other two, please show where there is direct language that says Pinochet himself was a fascist.(Not the regime)--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Die4Dixie, I've listed more sources besides the ones already in the article. Did you read them? I hope you did, because not only I posted some mainstream sources such as The Independent (which unambiguously calls him a vile fascist) but also a book and even an encyclopedia. Those, whether you like them or not are reliable sources. Now in regards to your claim of OR I'd suggest that you first read it yourself since you don't seem to be aware what it means.

As you have seem from the links I've posted above I haven't added anything that is not supported by a reliable source. I'm not here to add my opinion, but to mirror what the sources say. I'd suggest you do the same. Likeminas (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Then use your sources that are relaible rather than hinging the label on a book review.--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. By the way, I didn't add the ones that were there before. Likeminas (talk) 23:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Much better.--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed the book report.--Die4Dixie (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Nonesense, if you claim them to be unreliable take it to RSN. Let me know what they tell you. Likeminas (talk) 03:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

These sites: [Pinochet 1] , [Pinochet 2] and [Pinochet 3] have some parts with support to Pinochet.Agre22 (talk) 02:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)agre22