Talk:Jaime Guzmán

Assassination

In the paragraph: "assassinated in 1991 allegedly by members of the Manuel Rodríguez Patriotic Front, a left-wing paramilitary organization". I fail to see the rationale behind the use of the "allegedly". The FPMR recognized their involvement, organization and responsability for this murder. Active members of the FPMR were tried, sentenced and subsequently escaped from prison (all under democratic rule). What else is needed to make it certain? Mel Romero 05:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

There are mayor doubts about who exactly in the FPMR actually carried out the assassination. The Argentineans refused to extradite the alleged killer precisely because of these doubts. Moreover the FPRM was infiltrate by the DINA and it is also alleged that Contreras´s men (major enemies of Guzmán who openly feared for his life after confronting the DINA chief) might have carried out the attack. All the above may be false but at least merits the word allegedly.

Patria y Libertad

Someone has inserted the misinformation that Guzman was a co-founder of the far-right paramilitary organization Patria y Libertad. That is definitely an outright mistake. He was never a founder, member or apologist of that group. In fact, he was the force behind the Gremialista group, which was oppossed to Allende, but not by violent means. Mel Romero 05:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Guzmán was originally on the Political Committee of Patria y Libertad. He later distanced himself from the group. As for Guzmán´s attitude to violence, supporting a military coup against a democratic government is pretty much an acceptance of political violence and Guzmán is quite clear in his letters that he was openly calling for the Armed Forces to intervene (see his Escritos Personales) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.246.73.247 (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Both the Chilean Supreme Court and the Chilean congress voted to ask the military to intervene to depose President Salvador Allende, who had repeatedly violated the Chilean constitution, as well as a list of agreements that he had signed before they would vote to allow him to become president after he failed to receive enough votes for election. Someone calling for the military to intervene at that time was in no way an ipso facto call for violence. Once the judicial and legislative branches voted to oust Allende, the only way that there would have been violence is if Allende refused to step down, which he did. This entry about Jaime Guzman has no place in the article about his life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hondo55 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

NPOV dispute over the section "Under Allende's government"

There are strong statements such as "Jaime Guzmán...refused to recognize the legitimacy and constitutionality of the democratically elected Popular Unity government in 1970," or "Guzmán was central in creating the ideological and legal basis to support the overthrow of Salvador Allende" which simply cannot stand unsourced without breeching the NPoV principle.--Darius (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Professor of Constitutional Law

This is an oxymoron, since he supported a dictatorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.191.182.155 (talk) 19:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The 1980 constitution was not 'imposed' but was voted in a referendum which international observers agree was fair and clean. Guzman was also a Lawyer before the military regime took power, and if you read the 1980 Constitution, Pinochet was to stay in power for 8 years, at which point a referendum would be held asking the people for another 8 years in office if he won, or an all party election be called if he lost, which is exactly what happened. Both the 1980 and 1988 referendums were fair, open and clean, and the constitution is still in effect today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.105.86.78 (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)