Talk:Augusto Pinochet

Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4

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)

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

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)
• 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)
• 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".

---

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.

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.)

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)

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.

Trey Stone

You changed most of the things I added (I don't have a Wiki name yet, so for now I'm my ip address... something like 200.90... call me Matias). We all agree that information on wikipedia must be NEUTRAL AND TRUE. I edited this page because there is information that is not true (Pinochet started a terror campaign??? Come on... This has never been proved. The CIA has some reports about Pinochet's government but the CIA has obvious reasons to hate Pinochet (and even if you based this information on what the CIA has said, this would be an extremely biased article...)). There are trials against Pinochet, but none of them has stated that Pinochet tried to kill everyone that didn't think what he thought, and that makes a huge difference. First because although Pinochet had a lot of power some of his officers abused from their power commiting different kinds of abuses. There's no trial that has said that Pinochet is guilty from any of these crimes. I can backup what I'm saying on different sources (even from some people who declare themselves against Pinochet). I wonder... what are your sources?. I'll wait for an answer until tomorrow or I'll just change everything back. Also note that the comunist party in Chile hates Pinochet because he destroyed their dreams of taking over the power in Chile (I know that this isn't something that should be added to the article). It's strange that some of this party members when they are outside of Chile say strange things such as "Pinochet ordered his soldiers to kill Allende", but when they are back on Chile, everibody agrees that Allende killed himself... Second: total of people who died during Pinochet's government is about 2100, including soldiers who fought for Pinochet and terrorists (terrorist means someone who fights (using violence) against the government) who died while fighting. Why do you keep on moving those numbers up? You had no problems on writting that there is people who say that Allende was murdered (at least, nobody has said it on Chile for more than 5 years... including the comunist and socialist party-members), something that's not true, but when you have the information (you can check the Rettig inform), you change it. You are making a biased article. I don't know if you are a communist, but when you write on wikipedia you must stay neutral.

i am not a communist, quite the opposite actually. J. Parker Stone 6 July 2005 04:37 (UTC)

---

less than 50 militars died during the dictatorship by the hands of terrorist groups (in contrast of the 3200 that pinochet´s regime killed)

the official number is 3200, according the the Rettig inform (people usually raise the number up to 5000, as seen in Bowling for Columbine, but it wasnt THAT much)

as in the matter of wether he killed anyone, all i can say is that he greenlighted each and everyone of the assasination operations.

Communist did not, i say again, DID NOT wanted to take the power, "PLAN Z is a falsified propaganda from the rightists.

and finnally, even though Allende did killed himself. Pinochet DID planned to kill allende. after he (allende) surrendered by putting him on a plane and then shooting that plane down in mid flight. (source: the military radio recordings on september 11, 1973, you can clearly hear Pinochet´s voice there)

certainly there were Communist groups such as the MIR that would've been pleased to establish a "dictatorship of the proletariat," but Allende's problem was that he was accused of flouting the Constitution in favor of his Marxist agenda, not that he intended to become Supreme Leader (although I'm sure such accusations were made) J. Parker Stone 6 July 2005 04:39 (UTC)

---

there were several groups, incluiding MIR, GAP, VOP, etc. MIR was the most violent of these, wich started at the Concepcion university. Mir was mostly a revolutionary group (as their name implies). But they certainly werent a big group, or a well armed group (since all they got was these homemade bombs and a few assault rifles from cuba, the number of rifles was around 400, if i remember correctly).

In response for the original post, there are a few points i missed. "no trial have found pinochet guilty" mainly because no trial on him has ever actually started per se, they all get delayed endlessly. (on another matter, there is a joke here in chile, that Saddam Hussein wanted to be judged here, cos according to him "justice in chile WORKS!")

Communist hated pinochet mostly for the harassment they recieved during the dictatorship (house inpections, encarcelation of relatives, etc), or because of the many members of the communist party that are still missing.

Correcting

Ok. As no one answered to my claims i understand that everybody agrees. I don't want to write everything again because I know that there's a way to revert changes... I just deleted most of the things that are untrue or that where posted as true while they are still under discussion on several trials. I left a message on the article because I would need to rewrite a complete section (that section may be discussed, but I already posted information that shows that Pinochet's regime wasn't trying to destroy left party members). (unsigned comment from 81.178.64.2)

Hello Matias, I reverted your edit because you removed several facts and quotes which are sourced, without providing sources of your own. I'm not trying to prevent you from changing the article, but I don't think that removing sentences like "Some supporters still insist [Allende] was killed by Pinochet's military forces" does anything to make Wikipedia more neutral and true. If you have references to your assertion that Pinochet's forces did not arrest hundreds of members of the left-wing opposition and kill many of them, please post them. I do not think the fact that Pinochet has been cleared of his accused crimes by the same Supreme Court he appointed is reason enough to remove the accusations entirely. Of course it should be mentioned that he has never been found guilty. Eliot 15:10, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hello Eliot. I agree with you about the sources. I'm not very used to wikipedia, but I posted my sources here on the discussion page. I knew that this article needed to be edited (it has to be rewritten in some places) but I did it once I it was reverted. Leaving this article as it was or as it is destroys Pinochet's honor and is against the NPOV (that's what you use for neutrality, don't you?). I posted above about suppression of opposition, and just by posting information of the rettig inform it's obvious that his government wasn't trying to destroy the oppossition (even if those deaths where Pinochet's fault, something that hasn't been proved either). I agree that his trials should be posted, but you can't say that he's guilty for now.

About Allende's death, I also posted above my source: an interview to Allende's daughter (c'mon... her word is enough... maybe you should add that for Allende killing himself wasn't something bad but something brave).

BTW... Would you tell me where can I revert changes? (unsigned comment from 200.90.206.33)

Hi Matias. I'm glad you've decided to contribute to Wikipedia, but I think your contributions will be better received if you read the NPOV article and the policies, and create an account.

I think you have some misunderstandings about NPOV. For instance, you removed the phrase "However, some supporters still insist that he was killed by Pinochet's military forces while defending the palace." I don't see any justification for removing this, as it is true that some supporters claim this. Removing it in support of "Pinochet's honor" is very un-NPOV.

You may view older revisions of the article via the 'Page history' link. Eliot 21:58, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I will surely read the NPOV and the policies. Maybe I will understand better the idea of wikipedia (it's still difficult for me to think about this encyclopedia... It's missing many things). About Allende's death, his own family (inside or outside of Chile) agrees that he killed himself. I don't know what the point is about keeping that. Just because a few guys think something you'll put it on an article? maybe it should be posted at the very end, but I don't think that it's good for Allende's memory to say that he was murdered. I don't agree with his vission of the world, but he thought that killing himself was something good.

About Pinochet's honor, I referred to the part of suppression of opposition. I posted above here on the discussion page death tolls according to the Rettig inform. You can check it for yourself. Look at those numbers and please answer: Can you state that Pinochet wanted to suppress opposition? The comunist party at that time had some 1500 people and the socialist party had some 5000-7000 people (not sure about those numbers). The CUT (central unitaria de trabajadores - not a political party but definately oposition) had about 1 million of people (that number is tricky though, because workers where forced to join). At least the suppression of oposition should be posted as "some people say that Pinochet tried to eliminate oposition...". (Even though it's (very) probably untrue that Pinochet gave an order to kill someone). I agree to continue disscusing this. What do you think about adding a disscusion tag to the article?

Just wanted to say good bye. I'm leaving the Wikipedia project (I give up. Some articles are just way to biased, and what's worst, saying anything against what most people whant to think means a npov message). Eliot: I left some data here (some posts above, specially the one with the death toll). I'm not working here anymore. I hope that what you write about Pinochet is the truth and not what most would like to read (this encyclopedia is converting on a CNN info source...).

Matias, I have no interest in doing your editing for you. You say you have the facts right here. Nobody is stopping you from putting them in. You have no one to blame but yourself if you see problems in the article. Eliot 15:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

I answered several of Matias points, turns out he is one biased rightist.

He speaks of the honor of General Pinochet, when in fact today he is seen in Chile as a thief, mainly for the Riggs bank scandal (most dictators steal money from their countries, good example of this is cuban dictator Fidel Castro, who´s wealth is about 150 million dollars today)

Any source? Did you make a poll? Given what you've said, I'm sure you haven't.

NPOV dispute

I have tagged the neutrality as disputed for the simple reason that the article at present makes no mention whatsoever of the United States role in the 1973 coup and its support for Pinochet's government. Given that it previously did so, I have no doubt that this is the result of edit warring and POV pushing over the past months. This information is now spread in sub-sub-articles and meta-articles such as U.S. intervention in Chile and Chilean coup of 1973#U.S. role in 1973 coup. This includes the massive economic sanctions against Chile before Pinochet, combined with the massive military aid ("U.S. military aid was raised dramatically between the coming to power of Allende in 1970, when it amounted to USD $800,000 annually, to $10.9 million in 1972"), and the admission by Kissinger that the USG had "created the conditions as great as possible" for a coup. It also includes at least a brief summary of the previous CIA and USG support for a coup in Chile. The nature of the USG relationship with Pinochet's government should also be discussed.--Eloquence* June 29, 2005 13:40 (UTC)

This article is primarily about Pinochet, not about Chile's relationship with the US. TDC June 29, 2005 13:56 (UTC)

Pinochet was the military leader of Chile, and as such, key government relationships which he pursued or which were related to his rise to power have a place in his biography. In summarized form, sure, but omitting them entirely reveals bias, hence the NPOV tag.--Eloquence* June 29, 2005 14:22 (UTC)

There was a similar issue with the Fidel Castro article, and the bulk of the information was redirected to the article on Cuba’s foreign relations. I would assume that this would be appropriate in this case as well. TDC June 29, 2005 19:21 (UTC)

If you want to bring up precedent as an argument, please try to find precise diffs for the incident in question.--Eloquence*

Ummm, Ok. All the following information [1] was removed from the Fidel Castro Article and placed in the Revolutionary government of Cuba article because it had to do more with the workings of the government of Cuba rather than the personal actions or life of Castro. TDC June 29, 2005 20:05 (UTC)

The analogy is inapplicable -- I am asking for a summary of information which already exists elsewhere, rather than a long section of duplicating or original material.--Eloquence* June 29, 2005 20:07 (UTC)

It is completely applicable, this article is about Pinochet's life primarily, and not about the government of Chile. TDC June 29, 2005 20:24 (UTC)

I refer you to my comments above in response to this earlier assertion from you.--Eloquence*

I would propose the following summary of the pre-coup relationship:

"Before Pinochet seized power, the U.S. government under Richard Nixon had established a strong CIA presence in Chile and had made several attempts to instigate a military coup against Allende (Project FUBELT). In addition, the U.S. had imposed economic sanctions on Chile, while increasing military aid from $800,000 anually in 1970 to $10.9 million by 1972. This combined strategy, as Nixon's advisor Henry Kissinger acknowledged privately days after Pinochet seized power, had "created the conditions as great as possible" for a military coup. While Nixon's government strongly supported Pinochet, there is no evidence that U.S. intelligence was directly involved in the preparations or execution of the September 11, 1973 coup."

I think briefly outlining that the U.S. government pursued a combined strategy of military aid, economic sanctions and direct support for potential coup leaders is important. Pinochet certainly benefited from this strategy. Therefore, a neutral biography that describes his rise to power should include it.--Eloquence* June 29, 2005 18:58 (UTC)

Remove Tag?

This article seems accurate and reasonable. I'm impressed by the compromises that have been made and I think it is as NPOV as can be expected. It seems like it's been well-tended by responsible wikians. Does it still need the disputed neutrality tag? What's the procedure for removing one of those. --Camipco 05:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The tag was added by User:Mtad on 18 June. You can see my discussion with him down the page. He has since quit the project since he feels that it is "more biased than CNN." I am removing the tag for now. Eliot 16:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Eliot. I'm a pretty passionate hater of Pinochet, I don't understand what Mtad has against this article. It says he killed 3,000 people right there in the 2nd paragraph. My general feeling is that the use of these tags should be minimal, so I'm glad to see this one go. Next planned change is to add something about the CIA involvement ... Camipco 19:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

... So this is what wikipedia defines as non-biased........ great source of information... There lots (and it's not just a 1 or 2% of the population) of people in Chile that would fight for General Pinochet... "more biased than CNN"... it really depends on who posts it... generally, I agree with that statement...

The old bastard can go to hell, along with Mtad.

And I suppose that this is what Wikipedia understands for "open minds"... (no more comments on this one)

Why just not be honest

What cant we just be honest with the fact that the story of Pinochet is quite complex? Salvador Allende was on his way to start a civil wat within Chile. Even the lower class was starting to turn on him with the turnaround of the March of Pots. The military intervened to keep the country from turning into a giant warzone. Pinochet was not a dictator, he was an autoritarian ruler with a military cabinet(junta). Most of the dissaperences attributed to this regime were guerillas, soviet and Cuban mercenaries, and youths involved in planning Marxist events. I AM NOT trying to appologize for the crimes commited, but with the exception of the one American journalist before the Coup of '73, Pinochet killed no one that didnt belong to the opposition. And usually the opposition were involved in terrorist activities. He still deserves a trial but under a less bias judge and international court. - ANON

"In contrast to most other nations in Latin America, Chile had, prior to the coup, a long tradition of civilian democratic rule; military intervention in politics had been rare. Some political scientists have ascribed the bloodiness of the coup to the stability of the existing democratic system, which required extreme action to overturn."

This isnt totally accurate. Even from the start Chile had an authoritarian ruler with Bernard O'Higgins, then after O'Higgins was disposed ultra-conservatives exiled him for being too Liberal! Chile has always had a rather right wing British style government. I am Chilean and before Allende was around, Chile usually kept a rather conservative past. Pinochet is more popular than you would expect.

Also I have to add, why is Noam Chomsky cited in the Economic chapter? Chomsky is a Linguistics professor, not an economist. Get an economist to doubt the Miracle of Chile, even though I doubt that you will find one because most agree that Chile is an economic success. Anyone who visits Chile will surely find out so. - Anon

Obviously not written by Chileans!

This entry is mainly western leftist propaganda. While sanitized to remove obvious lies, it cleverly removes Pinochet's career from its context: It simply doesn't wash from a Chilean POV.

The Pinochet story (and his name is pronounced "pino-CHET" with the T, not "pino-SHAY") is very complex -- like a dead mackeral by moonlight, he both shines and stinks. Of course he is a killer, but remember, he prevented Allende -- who was NOT elected! -- from creating a communist dictatorship, which would have meant many, many more deaths.

And who gives a flying leap over non-Chilean, hair-splitting definitions of Socialism and Communism? In Allende's day, the Chilean Communists were far more moderate than Allende's "Socialists." Allende lied his way into his appointment as President after a near three-way tie. He then proceded to subvert the constitution he was sworn to uphold. That's all that matters.

Pinochet's story becomes far more complex when Allende is stripped of his halo -- a lying, anti-constitutional, would-be dictator. In other words, tyrant vs. tyrant.

---

Im from Chile, and i can say that you know probably nothing about Pinochet or Allende. Your comments hurt my sensibility as you clearly are nothing but a chauvinist. Allende was elected, he had the grand mayority of the election. Back then, the president was elected and then rectified by the senate, it wasnt a case of something that hasnt been seen before, as all presidents went through there. There was a great panic when he won the elections, as for believed that a socialist leader would bring what happened in Russia or in Cuba. The truth could not be further from that, as Allende never used force to accomplish anything. He gave back to Chile what it was being stolen by american corporations (all minerals, more imporatantly the cooper, all of them in hands of American corporations, who made a whoopin 80 billion dollars in profits, as they had held the mines for a long time). As all chauvinists, i see that you have just a convenient part of the story, not the whole story of Allende, a man that won democraticlly, who upheld his views until a massive boicot by the united states brought chaos to Chile. The great masterminds of the coup was Leighton and Merino, Pinochet just happend to be around and decided to go in the coup only 2 days before it happened. If you have any doubts, please, submit them as ill be happy to answer anything you might have a doubt on.

Incredibly POV, Poor Quality and Long Winded

The article has an incredibly anti-Pinochet and left-wing POV. IMHO there is abosolutely no need for phrases such as "campaign of terror" which is a POV judgement. One could also view Pinochet's campaign as a campaign against disorder or against communism. Also the use of term neoliberal is POV as a google search will confirm that only left-wing websites use it. Furthermore there is a lot of info that should be in another article like for instance a description of Chilean history or human rights abuse under Pinochet. The article is also extremely repetitive althought this seems to be the case for all wikipedia articles.

Please compare the article on Pinochet to the article on Stalin or even Hitler. Both these articles are far less biased then this one is. In fact it is easily possible to get the impression that Pinochet is worse than Stalin if you read the two articles. I find it hard to believe that even the most crazed left-wing loon could make that kind of an argument. Even Chomsky would be hard pressed to argue that.

I made a series of edits under the IP below. I think they succeeded into totally removing the left-wing POV, making the article far more readable and less long-winded and generally better focussed. My revisions have been reverted. I was asked to explain my revisions and I have. Now will somebody explain what was unacceptable with the revisions I made. Some may object that I removed large paragraphs. This is true but I think many of the paragraphs were way to detailed and long winded. Take for instance the following:

• According to the transitional provisions of the 1980 constitution, approved in a tightly-controlled plebiscite by 75% of voters, a plebiscite was scheduled for October 5, 1988, to vote on a new eight-year presidential term for Pinochet. The Constitutional Tribunal ruled that the plebiscite should be organized according to all the disposition of the Law of Elections. That included an "Electoral Space" during which all positions, in this case two, the Sí, and the No, would have two free slots of equal and uninterrupted TV time, simultaneously broadcasted by all TV channels, and no political propaganda could be made outside those spots. The allotment was scheduled in two off-prime time slots: one before the afternoon news and the other before the late-night news, from 22:45 to 23:15 each night (evening news were from 20:30 to 21:30, and prime time from 21:30 to 22:30). The opposition, headed by Ricardo Lagos, took full advantage, producing colorful, upbeat advertisements, telling the Chilean people to vote "No". Lagos, in an interview, boldly called out Pinochet to account for all the "disappeared" persons. The Sí, spots, instead, were dark, and tried to instill fear of a return to the chaos of the UP government, telling citizens that voting "no" was equivalent to voting for a return to those days. In the plebiscite, the advocates of a "No" vote won, with a 55% versus 42% from the "Sí" option, and, again according to the provisions of the constitution, open presidential elections were held the next year, at the same time as the election of the congress, that would have happened in either case. Pinochet left the presidency on March 11, 1990.

I changed it to the following:

• According to the transitional provisions of the 1980 constitution, approved in a tightly-controlled plebiscite by 75% of voters, a plebiscite was scheduled for October 5, 1988, to vote on a new eight-year presidential term for Pinochet. In the plebiscite, the advocates of a "No" vote won, with a 55% versus 42% from the "Sí" option. Pinochet left the presidency on March 11, 1990.

I think my version is easier to read and filled with way fewer irrelevant details. The information contained in the previous version should be moved to a separate article on the Chilean election or its history. This much detail about one election does not belong in an article on Pinochet. Also the sentence about how the Si spots were dark and tried to instill fear is POV. Again saying the Si spots were dark is the authors judgement. Anyways the whole paragraph belongs in a separate article.

Another example of a change I made is as follows:

• Original: In addition, it embarked on a campaign of terror against leftist elements in the country. As a result, approximately 3,000 Chileans were executed or disappeared, more than 27,000 Administrator note were imprisoned or tortured, and many were exiled and received abroad as political refugees.

• Revised: Approximately 3,000 Chileans were executed or disappeared, more than 27,000 Administrator note were imprisoned or tortured, and many were exiled and received abroad as political refugees. Most of those persecuted by the regime were affiliated with left-wing political parties.

My version is less POV. Saying that Pinochet embarked on a campaign of terror is pure POV. Even if what Pinochet did was a "campaign of terror" it is still unacceptable for the author to state this since that is a judgement. Either the author must state the facts or quote someone else's judgement of the regime. Neither is done.

Wow this article keeps on getting more and more POV every time I read it. This article is absolutely disgusting and the leftists editors driven by their blind rage against Pinochet are only managing to make it worse. --142.151.171.71 17:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok some edits were made and I am satisfied with current version of article

--142.151.171.71 16:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

---

I shall edit this, you americans have played long enough with this. Not even bothering to question the original spanish page of Pinochet.

Coup edited

I translated the coup as it is best written, wich is the spanish wikipedia page of Pinochet. I took several other things from there and Allende's page, were the Coup is much better told. But everything is exactly as it is in both of those pages. It is better told, it explains more and more than anything, it is completely true to the history facts. A few corrections are needed, as i am from Chile and english is not my native language. I will try to correct a few sappy parts, that might upset rightists who will yell "POV!!". Before making any radical change, take in consideration that it took me about 2 hours to make, and to translate properly:

Hmmm, do you know what, we can add a subsection like ===Timeline of coup=== where that would be better placed. Sasquatcht|c 06:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Perhaps, i keep getting messages about that its vandalism, i just made it wider and truthful, as i spend hours translating it. You people either give a good reasson for it or just try to make it better. As it is how its written in both Allende's and Pinochet's wikipedia in spanish

Also, why is this that it does not appear as him being a dictator??, General Pinochet is responsible for Operacion Condor, Caravana de la Muerte, a rather ambiguous first plebicit (as it is questioned today for the legitimacy of it, as several meassurements were taken to assure victory, such as changing the voting age to 18, wich was the age of conscripts, for them to vote for Pinochet). He has also stole 27 million dollars, according to the last count. This page is seriously too damn edited, Pinochet is a very ambiguous character, as he was no Tito, but more of a Franco

Military coup of 1973

Main article: Chilean coup of 1973.

File:Pinochetjunta.jpg

Pinochet (sitting) as head of the newly established military junta.

On september 10, Pinochet sends his wife and kids to the Alta Montaña School, in Rio Blanco, Los Andes, wich was directed by one of Pinochet's friends. After that, he goes home, and according to his memoirs, he spent the longest night of his life.

The next day, at 7:40 am, Pinochet arrives to the Comunications Command of the Army, where he would stay for the remainning of the coup d'état. There, all communication networks with the remainning military forces, specially with Gustavo Leigh, who was in the Aereal War Academy, and with Patricio Carvajal, who would be the coordinator of the coup d'état.

During the course of these events, Pinochet shows himself as a swift authoritary leader, a face of him not seen before publicly. During the radio transmitions, all of them caught and recorded by civilians, it is observed that Pinochet overshadows both Leigh and Carvajal. Even though Leigh was one of the igniters of the coup, and considering how Pinochet was the last one to join in the Coup's plan.

In a united effort by both the Unite States and the oposition, the Coup starts in the city of Valparaiso, at dawn, the army takes over the city.

A so called "democratic chain" by oposition radios Mineria & Agricultura, broadcasts the army's ultimatum: Allende must leave his charge and give control to the military forces. As a last point, the ultimatum stated that if Allende did not leave La Moneda by 11:00 am, La Moneda would be attacked by both land and air.

The military forces contact La Moneda, but Allende's resolution is clear, he would not surrender. Pinochet contacts Carvajal, who indicates him the president's denial in surrendering.

Carvajal: I spoke with him personally, i let him know he must surrender to the commanding chiefs. Eh... Answered with a series of cuss words, no more.

Pinochet: So, that means that at 11, when the first "parrots" arrive... you'll see what'll happend. AT 11 O CLOCK WE BOMBARD!

Carvajal: When La Moneda is evacuated, it will be much easier to assault it.

Pinochet: One it's bombarded we assault it with the Buin and the Infantry School. We gotta tell brady

Carvajal: Agreed. Lets wait till the helpers and Carabineros evacuate.

Pinochet: Agreed.

At 9:15 am the tanks from General Palacio arrive at the perimeter of La Moneda. Shooters placed on adjecent buildings try to get them back, the shootout begins. At 10:15, through radio Magallanes, the only loyal radio to the goverment, Allende speaks the last time to the nation.

At 10:30, the tanks open fire against La Moneda, closely followed by soldiers and tankettes, fire wich is replied by the members of GAP (Popular Action Group) and shooters placed on adjecent buildings, who were inferior in number and strenght.

Carvajal communicates again with pinochet, asking him of a posibility of of another parle:

Carvajal: Ive just been informed of a possibility of parle

Pinochet: no, he must leave La Moneda with a small amount of people

Carvajal: ...they've retreated, but there...

Pinochet: ...to the ministry, to the ministry...

Carvajal: he is offering parle.

Pinochet: inconditional surrender, no parle!, inconditional surrender!

Carvajal: well, agreed, inconditional surrender, and we take him prisoner, offering no more than respect his life, shall we say.

Pinochet: Life and physical integrity, and next we send him elsewhere

Carvajal: Agreed... that means we keep the offering of taking him away from the country

Pinochet: We uphold our offering of taking him out of the country. But that plane falls, man, when its fliying.

Carvajal: Agreed... agreed. Lets propose that parle goes on.

Pinochet is heard during the rest of the coup using phrases like this:

"Give him more machinegun 'till the end and that his fire dont stop, man"

"its better to kill the bitch and the Levée en masse stops"

"This are not bullets, nothing more... that egghead wont shoot a rubber pill" (in Chile, Egghead is a mayor insult)

Such use of phrases are not unusual, as Pinochet is not known for being a culturized man. However he was very efficient with the coup, something that both Leigh and Merino perhaps didnt expect.

Pinochet also shows compassion, as he offers the women to be taken out of La Moneda (something that Leigh objected to).

At 11:52 am, Hawker Haunter planes start their attack on La Moneda, shooting rockets in four oportunities over the Goverment's House, the damage was devastating. Other 2 planes bombard the presidential residence of Tomas Moro, wich was defended by members of GAP, who didnt made it to be with Allende.

The attack continues with the use of tear gas, but as no one in La Moneda was surrendering, General Palacios decides to take it and sends a group of soldiers to bring down the palace door, it was 14:30 pm.

Inside, they yell to Allende: President!, the first floor has been taken by the militars!, they say you must go down and surrender!

The President surrenders: Everyone go downstairs!, leave all weapons and go downstairs!, ill be the last to do so.

And so, according to the testimony of one of his doctors, Patricio Gijón, a loud noise was heard, Allende went back to his office and commited suicide. With the machinegun given to him by Fidel Castro.

Palacios enters and sees Allende dead, to wich he says "Mission Accomplished, Palace Taken, President Dead". A phrase that sparked much controversy, as some may believe that Allende was assasinated directly by the militars.

At 14:38 PM, Carvajal informs in english to Pinochet that Allende has commited suicide. At 18:00 pm, all the army chiefs gathered and hugged in the Military School, they were the new Junta.

---

its a better version of it, it has all things from the other spanish pages of both Pinochet and Allende. Yet, all we have is that rather criptic and overly short version, made by an annonimous IP number. The coup there looks like bland fact and figures, as today it is still a fervent issue in Chile.