Talk:Unidad Popular

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Chile (Rated Stub-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chile, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chile on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Socialism (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Wow, nice context. Plus the word coaleseced goes well with coalition. Please write more like this!! --Uncle Ed 01:13, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Reverted an apparently plagiarized passage[edit]

I have reverted recent [1] extensive additions because they appeared to be plagiarized at least in part. I didn't actually have proper access to one site with similar copy, but found it cached at [2], and the post is dated Mar 27, 2006, so it is pretty clear who copied whom. Also, some of this seems to have come from [3]. - Jmabel | Talk 01:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


Social democrats were initially not member of PU, they joined later, I think it was 1973Constanz - Talk 11:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Definition Problem[edit]

The UP wasn't a Popular Front as Wikipedia define it. It includes only leftist organizations and, his mainly propose wasn't to oppose fascim, but to realize radical tranformations on the social and economic organization of Chile. Also, there were not dissident Christian Democrats in the UP. The Christian Left was an independent organization who openly embrace the theoretical and political marxist principles. Finally, there were not social democrats in the UP coalition. Not by explicit autodefinition, nor by the actual meaning of the concept.

I wish to edit this article according with these problems. I'll wait some days to do so in expect of any discussion.

IsmaelPR 20:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I seriously question the claim that there were no social democrats in the Popular Unity coalition. What about the Partido Radical and MAPU? - Jmabel | Talk 07:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, there's a conflictive point in my previous post. But, the Partido Radical wasn't then the "Partido Radical Social Democracia de Chile". In fact, the "Partido Social Democracia de Chile" split from the "Partido Radical" and join the UP, but quickly retires from the coalition and becomes opposition of the government. By the other side, the "Partido Radical" was a very little force in the UP and wasn't "social democrat", was instead a liberal and "desarrollista" party who allies with the UP to oppose the Christian Demochracy. The MAPU, by his side, wasn't a social democrat organization, as the IC, MAPU embrace a marxist approach and see himself like a "radicalized little bourgueis" ally to the proletarians forces in class struggle.
All parties in the UP but the socialist party signed for a democrathic process from capitalism to socialism, but this doesn`t define the social democrat ideology. All this parties but the Partido Radical claim to be organizations seeking a socialist transformation, while the Wikipedia (and my own) definition of the social democracy involves organizations who "aims to reform capitalism in order to remove its perceived injustices".
I'll remove, for now, the definition of the UP as a Popular Front. IsmaelPR 02:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Move?[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved per discussion. - GTBacchus(talk) 17:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)



Unidad PopularPopular Unity (Chile)

  • English title per naming conventions, "Chile" in order to match the article with Popular Unity (Italy). --Checco (talk) 10:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Checco (talk) 10:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The foreign term is frequently used in English language sources and needs no disambiguator so move is not clearly warranted. To be clear, our use English guideline and common naming policies do not hold that we use the English language term, if one exists, over the foreign. The touchstone is what English language sources use. Here, a quick Google Books search limited to English sources indicates they are about equal in commonality but there's no need for disambiguation with the foreign origin title which is preferred.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, If the non-English term is commonly used in English then it is okay. Marcus Qwertyus 21:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose more known in English sources with its Spanish name. --Soman (talk) 01:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.