 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
I corrected the date in the timeline which originally said he was President in 1891. As the article states, he was president from 1886 until 1891.--Syd Henderson 23:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
"The death of Balmaceda finished all cause of contention in Chile, and was the closing act of the most severe and bloodiest struggle that the country had ever witnessed."
What about Salvador Allende and Augusto Pinochet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.141.119 (talk) 06:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
To the previous comment: the statement about "...bloodiest struggle that the country had ever witnessed." is simply to be taken literally in the historical context of this article, i.e. by the year 1891 Chile had not seen an internal conflict of that magnitude since its establishment as an independent republic.146.115.147.137 (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
This page needs additional historical context, especially regarding the aftermath of the crisis and its consequences for the future political development of Chilean society. Also, it lacks an explanation for the causes leading to the future rehabilitation of the memory of president Balmaceda, who now has a big statue and a park in his name in Chile's capital, Santiago.146.115.147.137 (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
This article lacks objectivity. Many value judgements which are subjective are stated as if objective fact. For example describing him as vain, without providing background. This article needs work to be objective. Balmaceda was highly popular and the reasons for his popularity are not clear in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aligzanduh (talk • contribs) 07:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
The following statement is problematic:
The oligarchy composed of the great landowners had always been an important factor in the political life of the republic; when President Balmaceda found himself outside this circle he endeavored to govern without their support, and to bring into the administration a group of people outside the inner circles of political power, whom he could easily control.
To bring in others than the powerful oligarchs could have motivations other than "to easily control". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aligzanduh (talk • contribs) 07:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)