Talk:Augusto Pinochet

Photo not Fair Use, Violation

There are lie two or three photos of Pinochet in Commons tha are in the public domain, so there is no need for this photos here. I think that the ones editing this article dosen't use them just because they aren't in black, with and evil face, but in colors and smiling. Strange do, is this a neutral article? Not surprise here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.21.200.86 (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Not neutral

This post has been hijacked by market theocrats. I think we need to dispute the nuetrality of this article. 71.252.208.46 (talk) 09:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Lack of NPOV in Economic Policy Section

Many of the statements in this section are hardly NPOV. For example- "Indeed, the harsh measures against Chile's entrenched, violent, and heavily Cuban- and Soviet-connected Left were probably necessary to allow market economics a chance to gain a foothold in Chile, and bring prosperity to that nation." While controversial, this may be a valid statement, but lacks citation. The section continues to talk about Allende and "misrepresentation" of Pinochet in the press, hardly relevant to a discussion about the economic policy of Pinochet in particular. It seems to me that a NPOV discussion of economic policies would not simply bash "the left" for being short-sighted, which is what this section does.

Uruloki 16:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandals

Somebody changed his picture to "Testiclesinscrotum.jpg" I removed it, but seeing how I don' t know what the orginal picture is could somebody fix it? 71.75.109.20 00:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That was fast. Thanks! 71.75.109.20 00:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I am glad that was reverted, but half tongue in cheek, an image titled 'testicles in scrotum' is almost certainly better than the evil bastard deserved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RichGibson (talk • contribs) 04:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

He saved Chile you ungrateful leftist. --Blue Spider (talk) 06:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

At what price?Boris Crépeau (talk) 07:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Heart attack

link "AUGUSTO PINOCHET has been given the last rites after a massive heart attack left the former Chilean strongman clinging to life.

“His fate is in the hands of God and his doctors,” the former dictator’s son Marco Antonio Pinochet Hiriart said yesterday as his father remained conscious and in a stable condition.

Juan Ignacio Vergara, a doctor treating the retired general, said 91-year-old Pinochet’s life was “in danger”. State television later reported that doctors had decided to carry out heart bypass surgery."

someone should add a mention of this in the article and add the 'current event' tag.

I'm Catholic, and I suppose I should hope that God forgave Gen. Pinochet, despite the bad things he did. I guess none of us believers will ever know. The man caused so much pain though, on so many innocent people simply because they were not right wing. So sad to have lived his life that way.

==Pinochet's 91st birthday statement to the World

Why did Pinochet take full responsibility for his actions now at 91, its as if his offsprings made him write that so as to absolve all of them of their complicity in his crimes. What about that 3cubic meters of gold that was supposedly deposited in Hong Kong? How many tons of Gold did Pinochet deposit there? What was he trying to do? What is this guy doing writing statements now at 91 wasn't he declared unfit to stand trial about 6 years; didn't he have dementia.

Well my deer friend you are a complete ignorant. You can take the title. The gold that was deposited in Hong Kong was proven false and it was a plan to try and frame Pinochet. It was recognized and shown that he never deposited those gold bars. Pinochet saved Chile and my family from communism. Maybe you have never lived in a communist country but I ll tell you ask anyone in Eastern Europe, Cuba, Venezuela, or Chile you will see its nothing pretty when you have nothing to eat while your leaders travel around in luxury like Allende did. Hopefully I have enlighten you into this subject and I do recommend people from other countries to really inform themselves on the economic progress that Chile made and the hardships endured during the Allende government.

London, England, The United Kingdom

Come on, this just looks silly: "London, England, the United Kingdom" Apologies to Americans who dont know where London and/or England are, but can we not just say "London"? It's not like it's ambiguous as to what it could be referring to. Praetonia 08:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If you see the opportunity to improve an article, then do it, but please don't seize every opportunity to insult the citizens of the nation where Wikipedia was created. How pathetic!

England.

Does anyone have cites for where Pinochet was held in the UK, and the clinic he attended? Rich Farmbrough 14:27 6 May 2006 (UTC).

he spent a lot of time in a rented mansion somehwere in the home counties, SqueakBox 17:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Eliminating Information in Order to Create Consensus

The latests edit, made by CieloEstrellado eliminating huge swathes of pertinent information about the Pinochet dictatorship, are clearly passive POV edits.

CieloEstrellado has systematically eliminated any and all statements of fact about the Pinochet Dictatorship that s/he considers either positive of the regime, non-negative of the regime, or which cast any negative light on the preceding regime, that of Salvador Allende.

Note that CieloEstrellado's edits have cut out unindisputed statements of fact, not opinion. For instance, the AFP private pension fund system in fact was implemented by the Pinochet dictatorship, it is in effect today, was considered the model for Social Security reform in the US, and is widely considered to have been the most important measure in terms of increasing the Chilean capital markets, minimizing foreign debt and creating the conditions of economic growth that have held over the past twenty years.

This issue — used here only as an example to show the scope of CieloEstrellado's cuts — is undisputed fact, key to understanding the Pinochet dictatorship, and worthy of future development. I had planned on creating an article specifically devoted to the AFP pension system, which is a topic not only worthy of knowing, but vital, considering the havoc currently involving the US Social Security system. Yet CieloEstrellado is wont to cut it, for reason best known to herself or himself.

Pinochet clearly raises tremendous passions. However, by narrowing and eliminating facts so as to paint as dark a picture of the Pinochet dictatorship as possible, CieloEstrellado is doing THE supreme disservice to the Wikipedia community — creating consensus by eliminating information.

One may not like the Devil, one may in fact hate him — but the Devil still has to get his due. And one has to know all facets of the Devil, however distasteful, in order to fully understand him.

I invite members of the community to compare the last versions of the Pinochet article and discuss it on this page.

--MILH 12:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The AFP system has been so successful in Chile, that the first thing president Bachelet has done is to set up a commission to reform it. You edits are so lacking of any neutrality that it is almost impossible to rescue anything worthwhile out of them. It really is frustrating to remove everything you have contributed because of this reason. I advise that you don't make such sweeping edits to this article. As you can see from the Talk archives it has been very difficult to achieve some sort of concensus for the current version of the article. Please try making smaller edits so it is easier to de-POV them. ☆ CieloEstrellado 04:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I hate it when people straddle fences when discussing history. Pinochet KIDNAPPED AND KILLED THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE. If you want to discuss Pinochet's place in world systems theory then that's fine. You can use Adam Smith and Sam Huntington and I'll use Gramsci and Wallerstein. However, don't ever attempt to sugarcoat Pinochet's deeds and couch it in this bullshit "I'm just telling it like it is" attitude. History is political and will always be political, if you can't handle it then get a new profession. I don't know where you studied, but where I come from there is no straddling of fences... ---Matt R.

It is true that Pinochet killed some 3000 people and tortured many others but what must be considered is that a very big part of the Chilean society supported him. Maybe instead of blaming just one man we should blame half a country, but then what's the point of doing that? The fact that Pinochet killed all these people doesn't mean that everything he did was bad. His dictatorship also brought stability to a country which, according to some, was on the verge of experiencing a leftist revolution. Things are just not black or white. ---Santiago Aldecoa Avellaneda, San Sebastián, Spain

Absolutely right. If we buy into the arguments of either side we merely display POV, our duty as an encyclopedia is to remain neutral given Pinochet is far from universally hated, SqueakBox 21:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's the fact be presented. Just the facts. Your hatress is understandable but are not facts. Pinochet was not a devil but a man who took control of a country unwillingly under special circunstances. One should be afraid that what happened to Pinochet (became a dictator) can again happen to many men driven by hate and fear. Please show that one can learn, understand from the errors of the others. Please learn... Let's the facts show us the way. Thucydides100 17:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree violently, with SqueakBox and the other guy. It is totally untrue that "a very big part of Chilean society supported him". I'm sure maybe a few right-wing civillians actually agreed with him on many of his policies, however "a very big part of Chilean society" was forced to grin and bear the old [CENSORED] wether they wanted to or not (from what I've heard, they didn't). And we should not blame "half a country" just because they were taken over by a brutal and merciless butcher without any choice in the matter. Do you actually think the fact that the first time they got a democratic vote the Chileans decided to kick him out was a coincidence? Furthermore, do you think we should blame the Germans that they were taken over by Adolf Hitler, blame the Iraqis for being taken over by Saddam Hussein, etc? And to adress SqueakBox, it is not "displaying" POV to admit that torturing and murdering people is wrong. I'm surprised you honestly consider that to be one man's Point of View. That is far from the case. It's time to make some significant edits and make this article totally neutral, give statistics, get the real numbers, y'know? Just 'cos a couple of right-wingers believe Pinochet brought "Democracy to Chile" (by driving the poor into the dirt and slaughtering is own people as well as gassing them in football stadiums. Some friggin' democracy), doesn't mean everyone will. Time for some big edits. 172.202.151.97 20:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Pinochet is an asshole. With that said, I spent a year in Chile from Feb 1980-Feb 1981. I was there during the Plebescite. I knew a family whose husband/father was murdered by the regime, and had the cremated remains of their husband and father on the mantle. I spent time in Santiago, Concepcion, and Angol. I have to say that I saw 'a big part of Chilean Society' supporting him. I saw many many people who very actively supported him. It was not 'grin and bear it' for them.

While being a dictator, he was certainly not a 'brutal and merciless butcher' by any modern standard. He was not, for example, kin to the Argentinian Generals. And let us be at least a little bit honest here, there was a real near civil war going on. There was the US interference, there was Soviet Influence, there was a big ass mess in the offing. And again, to be clear: 6 1/2 years after the coup I saw a prosperous developing country where a _lot_ of people supported Pinochet. During the plebescite I collected clippings of the (rather scant) coverage of opponents, like 'the afair of Frei' and I was against Pinochet, but a lot of people supported him.

RichGibson (talk) 04:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit War

Unfortunately, and irrespective of my best efforts at arriving at a modus vivendi, CieloEstrellado and I are involved in an edit war.

From my point of view, these are the issues at stake:

1. Objecting to information because it does not square with one's preconceptions.
2. Eliminating facts in order to passively cement a particular POV.
3. Calling someone's facts biased when they are accurate.
4. Calling someone's conclusions biased even when they are arrived at by sound logic, and are deduced or inferred from undisputed fact.

The Pinochet article has been improved in terms of providing greater context, more information, and better organization. Yet CieloEstrellado has repeatedly blanket reverted it.

It is unfortunate that Allende commited suicide. But though that fact is unfortunate, it is undisputed. To call something disputed — or to outright negate it — when it is known to be true by all concerned, is morally wrong. This goes not only for the Allende suicide issue, but for every other fact that CielEstrellado so cavalierly negates, reverts and discounts as "biased" just because he doesn't like it.

I have researched CieloEstrellado's attitude in other articles: He has a habit of flagging things he doesn't like, or eliminating undisputed facts he doesn't happen to agree with. See the history pages of HIV, Machuca, Juntas de Abastecimientos y Precios or Michelle Bachelet to see what I mean. The Bachelet example is the most egregious case — deleting the fact that Bachelet speaks some Russian and reads Cyrillic, and calling such information "irrelevant for an encyclopedia article" (see his edit summary for his deletion and this statement).

I for one will not accept the elimination of information in order to advance a POV. Clearly users such as CieloEstrella are worse than vandals: Vandals are just an annoyance. Eliminating information to advance an agenda is an attack on us all.

--MILH 03:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure you don't have a agenda too??? It seems like you have, and with a stronger bias than StarrySky... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.19.133.25 (talk) 02:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Presidency table

In the final table he is named president from 1974 to 1990. That's false, first, there is still controversy in the country and history books about the 1980 plebiscite validity. Well, I don't want to enter in a edit war. So for the supporters, who claims him president, if you want to keep that table it must say from 1980 to 1990, before that he was dictator, after that... also, but with another title. I'm going to edit it keeping the president table, but from 1980.

NOt true. He had the "President" tittle before the constitution (NOT sure, but I think that it was in 1976)

YES but he was self declared president, he was never elected, the article is misleading if it says he came to power in a coup detat and that he had a regime and there was return to democracy in 1990 if he was really president all along, he is widely regarded as a dictator except by his cronies and supporters. he was never elected. stop the misleading.qrc2006/email 23:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

He was never president of anything. He took power illegally, not according to the Constitution, and his claim to the presidency was always illegitimate. He was never Head of State of Chile either. Grassynoel (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Cocaine Business

The latest news is that Pinochet has been accused of dealing with black cocaine, also known as Russian cocain, which is difficult to detect. Apearently the origin's of his secret fortune are in the drug trade as was reported by The New York Times: Former Aide Says Pinochet and a Son Dealt in Drugs.--tequendamia 10:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That link is not working, but try this one: [1]

By the way the famous gold never existed see what the HKB has to say about it. But I do believe that he stole the Chritsmas once. Didn't He?

• Of course that's what the bank said; that way THEY get to keep the gold. Use your head! Ghost of starman 22:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Vatican not Pope urged Pinochet release

This article names John Paul II as urging the release of Pinochet, however it was a senior vatican official not the pope. BBC article--155.198.63.111 17:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The Vatican can't make such annoucements, without the Pope's consent. The senior official was acting on the Pope instructions. GoodDay 14:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

That is very ironic, too, because Pope John Paul II and Gen. Pinochet did not exactly see eye to eye.

Sweeping the CoD's Resolution under the rug

Mingus ah um, if you had wanted to discuss something in Talk and actually had a credible reason for removing reference to the CoD Resolution, you might have taken it upon yourself to get in the first word rather than issuing threats in article comments. -- I earnestly await your logical explanation as to why a few sentences detailing a stage-setting landmark event are not appropriate to a Wiki article concerning a (in)famous person who expediently capitalized upon said event.--01:25, 20 July 2006 Mike18xx

Mike, I stated early on that I had no problem with this paragraph being reinstated in another section of the article, but that it did not belong as the second paragraph of a biography. Introductions are supposed to be concise. You know that... We all know that. Instead of focusing on the fact that Pinochet violated the Consititution of Chile with his violent (you tried to play that down too) coup, you are attempting to somehow justify his actions by referencing a failed resolution (we've been over this, it failed in the senate) which had nothing to do with Pinochet or his decision to break the law and instill a rightwing totalitarian government. Wiki is a collaboration, and, yes, sometimes you do have to negotiate over how an article should be properly built. Both suggestions (either reinstate the article somewhere or discuss here) were merely intended to promote a democratic atmosphere. Please abandon your autocratic additude towards wiki and try to work toward a consensus. --(Mingus ah um 07:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC))

Your earnest obsession over Pinochet's "violation(s) of the Constitution of Chile", "violen(ce)" and "totalitarianism" stand in stark contrast to your indifference to the Chilean Legislature's condemnation of Allende for precisely those things. The Resolution belongs exactly where I've placed it, because regardless of it failing to pass Allende's stuffed Senate (an event I gather the curious impression that you're pleased to equate with an exoneration of Allende), its overwhelming passage in the CoD was a pivotal moment in Chilean history with the Army capitalizing upon it within weeks as implored to. Regards "autocracy" and "consensus" on Wiki: (1) You were the one who threatened to run off crying to the moderators; (2) you and I are the only two people talking right now; and (3), Regardless of the structure of Wiki, I intensely dislike the assumption that history must properly be subject to a vote of the ignorant then buried in "fine print" when it is begrudgingly choked down with a held nose -- and will never entertain such arguments to that regard as logical rejoinders. Lastly, (4) Allende was a Leninist crumb who turned the MIR loose to bully and murder the countryside, and you should get over it.--Mike18xx 09:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Mike, I have never encountered an history (that is, a secondary source published in English--the only language I can read quickly and comfortably) which has argued that Allende was the source of any violence during his short rule. If you have a single source (which falls into both of these categories, i.e., English and secondary) to recommend, I would be interested to know the title and author. Indeed, it is well known that Allende's Marxists were the most conservative of the broad MIR lead leftist coallition; the socialist and anarchist unions were allegedly involvedin local level violence after they (the socialists and the anarchists) expropriated private land/factories ahead of schedule (without Allende's directive or consent). However, this violence would have been essentially defensive, for the expropriations took place peacefully, if only for the fact that they were not considered imminent by the land owners themselves. On the other hand, over three thousand people dissapeared in the first decade of Pinochet's rule, over a thousand of them immediately after the coup. Your attempts to equate Pinochet and Allende are simply baffling.

Your believe that the resolutions "overwhelming passage in the CoD was a pivotal moment in Chilean history with the Army capitalizing upon it within weeks as implored to" ignores the fact that René Schneider's (the Commander in Chief of the Chilean army) virulent oppositon to military coups would have stopped any rebellion if the US endorsed and financed assassination had not allowed a right wing thug like Pinochet to breed insurrection within the army's ranks. You and I both know that contemporary histories state that the two monumental events of the age, the two which destroyed a democracy, were the assassination of the Commander in Chief of of the Chilean army and the violation of the Constitution by a would-be Caudillo, not a resolution which failed to make its way through half of the nation's legislative body.

Regarding your four points:

"(1) You were the one who threatened to run off crying to the moderators;" Of course I did; the moderators exist to keep wiki healthy and functioning; at times, this means keeping the peace. Knowing your wiki rep., it is clear that you have knocked heads with a moderator or two in your day.

"(2) you and I are the only two people talking right now;" We're the only people talking, but there is another user reverting your edits on the Allende page...

"3), Regardless of the structure of Wiki, I intensely dislike the assumption that history must properly be subject to a vote of the ignorant then buried in "fine print" when it is begrudgingly choked down with a held nose -- and will never entertain such arguments to that regard as logical rejoinders." If you were as superior an historian as you clearly believe yourself to be, you wouldn't waste your time on an open source form of media. Drop the elitist shtick. If you want to play on wiki, you have to deal with people who actually disagree with you. If you do not want to do that... Get off the internet and write a book.

(4) Allende was a Leninist crumb who turned the MIR loose to bully and murder the countryside, and you should get over it. Actually, no. 1) He was not a Leninist; he pursued Marxism democratically; 2) he was not a crumb, he was democratically elected; 3) he never "turned the MIR loose," and he never endorsed or advocated bullying or murder.

I don't care how long you are willing to dedicate to this attempt to recast history; at some point, you will give up and another individual will revert your edit (if only to reinstate it in the body of the article, as I have repeatedly suggested). --(Mingus ah um 20:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC))

Mingus: I have never encountered an history (that is, a secondary source published in English--the only language I can read quickly and comfortably) which has argued that Allende was the source of any violence during his short rule.

-- That wouldn't surprise me in the least, especially given that most published material on the subject written in English is the product of American socialist academics. (E.g., movie critic Roger Ebert is still under the impression that the CIA murdered Allende, a tidbit he imparted in email to me last year after I critiqued his moronic review of the propaganda film "The Motorcycle Diaries".) Nevertheless, cyberspace is overflowing with information now, and you'd do well to brush up. You may even encounter wonderful quotations like this one: "Santiago will be painted red with blood if I am not ratified as President!" -- Salvadore Allende. Say, I really ought to find room in his Wiki entry for that...whaddya you think? ;-) --Mike18xx 20:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry? There are plenty of conservative critics of leftist politics in Latin America; just look at the volume of material which has been produced to challenge the Sandinistas, the Zapitistas and Chavez's Bolivarian revolution. If you truly believe that "most published material on the subject written in English is the product of American socialist academics" (emphasis mine), than you clearly have spent too much time watching Fox news and too little time on an actual campus. The History department, is, by and large, the second most conservative social science department on a public school campus (far to the right of Anthropology, Sociology, Political Science, International Studies, etc, etc), and, I hate to break it to you, but there are less socialists in America than there are in any other Western nation. If such a small cadre of ideologues are able to dominate the discussion, what does that say about the rest of the English speaking world? Furthermore, what does Roger Ebert have to do with anything!?!? The man sits on his ass all day and watches films; why on earth is he your reference point? Furthermore, do you really suggest that I abandon histories which cite the primary sources that they reference and trust the bloody internet? Is your quote ("Santiago will be painted red with blood if I am not ratified as President!" -- Salvadore Allende.) intended to be controversial? Would anyone remotely familiar with Latin American politics be shocked to hear such a statement from a politician who was: a) democratically elected; and b) keenly aware that, as the conservative face of the left, the more radical factions of the MIR lead coallition (the socialists, the anarchists) would take action into their own hands if he was denied the office he legally won? Your quote is not just irrelevant, it is certifiably banal.

Let's leave it to posterity to judge whether or not a threat of civil war and terrorism issued by the candidate who let the MIR do all the dirty work for him once elected is in fact "irrelevant" and "banal".--Mike18xx 06:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is it so hard for you to work with other contributors?--(Mingus ah um 21:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC))

"Work" is just your euphemism for "concede".--Mike18xx 06:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Copper

President Allende's economic policy had involved nationalizations of many key companies, notably U.S.-owned copper mines. This had been a significant reason behind the United States opposition to Allende's reformist socialist government, in addition to his establishing diplomatic relations and cooperation agreements with Cuba and the Soviet Union. Much of the internal opposition to Allende's policies came from business sector, and recently-released U.S. government documents confirm that the U.S. funded the lorry drivers' strike, that had exacerbated the already chaotic economic situation prior to the coup.

Did Pinochet actually "denationalize" the copper mines to U.S. companies? If so, it should be clarified, if not then this seems unrelated to Pinochet's economic policies and should be removed from that section. CJK 15:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. Vast, heaping mounds of all these Chile-related entries are just desperate excuses to indulge in Marxist class-warfare propaganda (eg., claiming the "business sector" constituted "much" of Allende's oppostion, as opposed to, one wonders, the Chamber of Deputes asking the military to kick him in the nads) and yammer on about the US & CIA (and basically bloat out the piece in the hope that the few sentences mentioning the CoD Resolution are overlooked).--Mike18xx 10:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Double spaces?

This edit summary says that the article is filled with double spaces. I've scanned through the article using my eyes and a software tool and didn't find any- has anyone found any of these double spaces? Captainktainer * Talk 10:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I nailed out several just in one paragraph I was working on. I submit it's possible those were the only in the entire article, in which case it's a fluke of coincidence.--Mike18xx 11:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The header/ intro is too long

The header/ intro is too long, this reduces usability, the table of contents buried deep into the article. I suggest reorganizing so that the table of contents is above the fold. Most of the contents should be moved into different sections of the article.

Additionally the economic transformation of Chile from one of Latin America's poorest countries to one of it's richest (GDP-PPP per capita), during his rule deserves a mention.

Also for an article about such an important and controvertial historical figure, it is stangely lacking sources.VirafPatel 05:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Go for it, baby; I hate doing all the work around here! ;-P --Mike18xx 09:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits by POV-pushing anon

This edit broke a reference; I'm going to have to revert and try to incorporate whatever is not blatant POV-pushing from the anon's edits.Captainktainer * Talk 17:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Article quality and cleanup

This article is generally pretty bad. Because of a very strong desire to crucify Pinochet within this article it has become long and bloated. A lot of the material should be moved to separate articles. For instance the article on the election is way too detailed and should just be put in a separate article. A lot of the article consists of unfounded opinions which are not attributed to anyone e.g. 1) Pinochet coup was done so he could implement neoliberal reforms, 2) All doubts about human right abuses have been stilled due to detailed reports etc. These types of things are stated in such a way that they have become opinions. Opinions cannot be original in an encyclopedia. They must be attributed to someone.

Ok I think Melromero has basically fixed this article up. It is very nice now. Thanks Melromero!

This article should remove text such as "took office", which implies attaining office via a democratic election. Such text should be replaced with a more accurate statement such as "seized office" or "seized power".

Lies About "Expanded Economy"

Pinochet did not a thing for the economy. Chile already had good living standards relative to other Latin American countries before 1973. Just go to undp.org to look at Chilean (and other) statistics. Pinochet policies resulted in massive impoverishment. By 1987, 40% of Chilean population lived in poverty. Economic growth in Pinochet years was also mediocre (alternating periods of strong growth with the devastating recession of early 80´s). Chile had the second worse levels of unequality in LA (first is Brazil). Much of the gains in Human development actually happened AFTER Pinochet, under the coalition of Christian democrats and socialists (this was really a period of strong growth and improvement in living conditions, althought unequality remained untouched). On the other hand, it could be said that Pinochet´s economic policies were kept by those parties. Nowadays, Chile still is growing, but at relatively small rates, while unemployment is growing and the absence of a public social security system threatens the future of many people (social security in Chile was privatized, and has universal coverage, but only 50% of the population is adding money to their individual accounts.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-chichile.htm

Shouldn't the reference to "disastrous" unemployment be eliminated nonetheless? Isn't that an inherently POV term in that regard? I'm no fan of Pinochet in that I believe that an objective study of his time in office shows plenty of wrongdoing, but doesn't his record nonetheless need to be described in as neutral of a langauge as possible? Rlquall 15:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted text

In this edit [2] by anonymous user [[::User:200.27.31.129|200.27.31.129]] ([[::User talk:200.27.31.129|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/200.27.31.129|contribs]]), much text was deleted. Maybe it should be reverted. Vints 07:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Another text problem is in the section about the plebiscite. Whoever wrote this keeps changing between calling it a plebiscite and a referendum. It's either one or the other, it can't be both. Some one should change it so it doesn't wrongly keep changing between the two. Owen214 23:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Potential Reversion

IMO this article has deteriorated very significantly in the last six months. I remember reading it early this year and getting a lot of good content out of it. Now there is just very little left; it's like the skeleton of a good article.

I'd like to revert to the way the page was six months back and see if we can't work from that basis, because right now this article is really in terrible shape and tweaks aren't what is necessary.

Thoughts? --WillMagic 11:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Augusto"

The correct IPA representation of the "au" of Augusto in Spanish is "aʊ" not "aw" or "a". This should be rectified. AussieBoy 08:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• how that sound is pronouned in spanish is irrelvant, in chile they say Awwgusto Pino-chett

The fact that his last name is pronounced "pee-no-CHETT", and not "pee-no-SHAY" as is commonly believed should be noted.

School of the Americas/WHISC

There is evidence of Pinochet's spending time at the school of the America's. Many who oppose the school cite his involvement as a reason to be against the school. I believe therefore that something should be mentioned.----georgiew

Clogs popped

BBC News are reporting his death. I suggest the article is locked down until it's confirmed. Wikipedia isn't a news service and there will be loads of idiots swarming all over this page trying to have it updated as soon as possible, which in my experience results in a terrible mess of an article. On another matter, why does the first footnote take the reader to information about pronunciation that claims his name is pronounced /pino'ʧεt/ or /pino'ʧε/, only to follow it immediately with "i.e. 'Pih-noh-CHET' is correct rather than the common mispronunciation 'Pih-noh-SHAY'." This is contradictory. Is the /pino'ʧε/ pronunciation acceptable or not? 89.240.193.45 17:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a link to that effect in the article at the moment, only problem is that it's in spanish. Anyone got an english language link we can replace it with. --Charlesknight 17:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Not yet; the English-language sources are still catching up.Mackensen (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

SProtect

Please sprotect. This is going to be chaotic. ☆ CieloEstrellado 18:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It has already been protected. I am not sure we should protect as a preventive measure for future changes when nothing serious has happened in the near past, so it may be unprotected soon. Also, note that the article is in the Main Page right now, which would be a reason for unprotecting (to invite new users to edit here). -- ReyBrujo 18:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Augusto Pinochet official portrait in Commons

Please place that image in Commons to avoid the other wikipedia to each upload it. thx. 216.86.113.16 19:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

I have just removed abusive trash from "Early Career" section. If such edits occur more often. IMO this page should be locked to prevent it.--Volphy 21:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course it should, but sadly that is not the Wikipedia way. This community would rather have its most viewed articles messed about with by multiple editors working at odds with each other and submitting changes seconds apart while vandalism and POV-pushing slips under the radar. Why the article can't be locked for a few days while a few knowledgeable editors work in collaboration to produce something of genuine value which can go live after a slight delay I don't understand. There is no need for this encyclopaedia to turn itself into a poor parody of a 24-hour news channel doing an anything goes phone-in slot. Wikipedia is growing much faster than it is maturing. 89.240.193.45 22:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It should absolutely not be locked, now is the time when people want to edit and to prevent them is to weaken the article and wikipedia as a whole, SqueakBox 23:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This article really should be locked for several days until media frenzy about Pinochet's death washes out a bit. In the meantime it can be cleared out and stabilized a bit. It's almost impossible to track good edits if there are four bad edits and one good and still unsourced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pethr (talk • contribs) 04:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Arrest and traial

The lack of any info about this is POV and I have thus added the tag, we need to treat this issue here, SqueakBox 23:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

See Augusto Pinochet#Arrest and trial --Yakoo 23:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Dictator

Pinochet was and will always be a dictator. No one can take that away. He was also a general. There is no reason why he shouldn't be called a general and dictator of Chile. Pinochet was not a president he was a dictator. Chileans for the 70s and most of the 80s didn't approve Pinochet's dictatorship. He didn't restored democracy until 1989. That some idiots from foreign countries try and put their stupidity on this topic is ridiculous, they never had to live through a military regime. Allende still lives in our spirits and guides us to a better Chile. SqueakBox 23:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It is unacceptable that the introduction notes him as "a general and President of Chile", later "President of the Republic", with no mentioning of his dictatorship, countless human rights abuses and mass murder committed under his regime. These facts, above else, define the man and his legacy. I am stunned to find an article like this on Wikipedia. 81.1.99.200 01:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

See my above comment, it ius unacceptable to just reflect the views of the anti Pinochet side in the debate, and what is undeniable is that here are 2 sides to this argument. see WP:NPOV SqueakBox 01:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want to call him a dictator in Wikipedia, then you should call scumbags like Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez dictators as well in their respective Wikipedia pages. Lenineleal 05:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Fidel Castro is a dictator so was Pinochet, now Hugo Chávez is not, the former two were never elected, chavez was elected several times now, even the opposition admits the a fair loss, so does the carter center, the eu, the u.n. CNN the BBC all media around the world announced 'FORMER DICTATOR AUGUSTO PINOCHET DIES" last week, i wonder why... maybe cuz he was a DICTATOR!!!qrc2006/email 23:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This man is being called a dictator by newspapers, so why is Wikipedia calling him a president? http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/11/world/americas/11pinochet.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin http://www.nydailynews.com/front/covers/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/10/AR2006121000302.html

This is to name of a few. These guy was in fact a dictator - this has nothing to do with point of view. It is fact. He was not elected. He came to power through a coup.

Wikipedia itself says that "Dictator was the title of a magistrate in ancient Rome appointed by the Senate to rule the state in times of emergency." Isn´t this an accurate description of what Pinochet was after Allende was expelled from the government? Please watch the documentary "The Battle of Chile" for more info.

Wikipedia's definition of "dictator" seems to preclude the term's use in any situation but the description of ancient Rome. As I read it, Wikipedia's "dictator" can never take power in countries that do not have a "Senate", perhaps either because the word doesn't exist in the language of the country, or perhaps because they have a unicameral legislative body. <begin sarcasm>"I don't have to worry about living in 1920s Germany. A dictatorship can never occur here because we have a Reichstag and not a Senate."<end sarcasm> I refer to the very well-sourced and therefore in my opinion also very authoritative (not, however, on pronunciation) full version of the Oxford English Dictionary which lists as its primary definition as 1. A ruler or governor whose word is law; an absolute ruler of a state. a. orig. The appellation of a chief magistrate invested with absolute authority, elected in seasons of emergency by the Romans, and by other Italian states. b. A person exercising similar authority in a mediæval or modern state; esp. one who attains to such a position in a republic. By this definition: Castro is a Dictator, So was Hitler, and Pinochet and Mao and Saddam Hussein and so is Kim Jong-Il. Hugo Chávez is a populist and also in my opinion not doing very well for his country, but he was elected and re-elected. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also doesn't likely fit the definition in what is probably more properly termed an oligarchy--Damon Erickson

The reason we dont use dictator is it is not impartial and especially in the case of someone like Pinochet who has supporters as well as detractors. it is wrong to side with either faction, and calling him a dictator would be to side with the anti pinochet faction, SqueakBox 17:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Surely the fact that someone has supporters does not mean he cannot be a dictator by definition. When it is consensus amongst historians that Pinochet was a dictator (do I have to give sources?), not using this description here is clear POV. 81.1.107.12 16:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I know that you have probably been through this a million times, but by not mentioning the facts of the style of Chile's government during the 17 years of the regime, i.e. calling a spade a spade and a dictatorship a dictatorship, aren't you siding with one of the factions, and in this case, the one that does not have either the truth or the English language on its side? Would a dictatorship by any other name smell as sour? 200.113.151.46 20:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Damon Erickson

Our duty as an encyclopedia is to remain impartial, and given we dont call Hitler a dictator or fidel a dictator it would clearly be siding with the opponent of Pinochet to label him with this. Your argument is essntially if you are not for us you are against us, which I dont at all agree with. We have to remain neutral, and as someone who has never been to Chile but lives in a country not my own I have learnt the importance of that respect and neutrality first hand, SqueakBox 03:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

CALLING HIM A PRESIDENT SIDES WITH THE PRO-PINOCHET SIDE, CALLING HIM A DICTATOR IS NEUTRAL, ITS REALISTIC, IT CAN BE WELL REFERANECD, IT IS WIDELY THE CONSESUS ON WHAT HIS TIME IN POWER WAS, A DICTATORSHIP, ITS THE TRUTH, ITS WHAT HE IS REPORTED AS ON THE OVERWEALMING CONSENSUS OF INTERNATION NEWS OUTLETS. HE IS WIDELY AND MOST NOTABLE AS "THE FORMER CHILEAN DICTATOR, GENERAL PINOCHET" CALLING HIM PRESIDENT SIDES WITH THE PRO PINOCHET SIDE AND IS UTTER AND TOTAL BULLSHIT, IT IS SIMPLY FALSE. CALLING HIM PRESIDENT OF THE MILITARY JUNTA IS NOT FALSE, THATS THE TRUTH, IT SHOULD BE MENTIONED AND IT SHOULD ALSO SAY HE WAS A GENERAL, AND THAT THE OVERWEALMING CONSENSUS HAS AGREED THAT HE WAS A DICTATOR ALLTHOUGH THE FEELING IS NOT UNIVERSAL AMOUNGST HIS SUPPORTERS, I THINK SUCH A DESCRIPTION IS FAR MORE WELL ROUNDED, TRUE, AND NEUTRAL, ITS ALSO EASYLY CITEABLE, NOT MANY OUTLETS OUTSIDE OF CHILE SAY THE FORMER PRESIDENT DIED OF.... IN FACT IN CHILE THEY DIDNT EVEN SAY THAT THEY AVOID CALLING HIM A DICTATOR IN FAVOR OR NATIONAL RECONCILIATION AND ALSO DO NOT MENTION HE WAS A PRESIDENT EITHER IN ORDER NOT TO OFFEND THE SURVIVORS OF HIS BRUTAL GENOCIDE. PRESIDENTS DONT KILL AND TORTURE THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE. EVEN IF YOU LOVE PINOCHET HE WAS A DICTATOR, YOU LOVE THE PRESIDENT OF THE JUNTA NOT THE PRESIDENT OF CHILE, YOU LOVE A GENERAL, AND A DICTATOR, ITS OK, THATS THE TRUTH, IF YOU LOVE HIM OR HATE HIM ITS SIMPLY WHAT HE IS/WAS AND WHAT/WHO YOU LOVE OR HATE, OR MOST IMPORTANTLY ARE TRYING TO IMPARTIALLY READ ABOUT FROM AN ACADEMIC SOURCE, AN ENCYCLOPEDIA. LETS FIND A BETTER OPENING, MORE REALISTIC AND TRUTHFUL AND ACCURATE OPENING SENTANCE, PARAGRAPH. qrc2006/email 01:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"PLEASE, LETS FIND A BETTER OPENING" I agree completely, we should call him DICTATOR: HE WAS AND WILL ALWAYS BE REMEMBER AS A DICTATOR, NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS. By the way, that assertion about: "Our duty as an encyclopedia is to remain impartial" is the most misleading commentary you can hear about a historical process. Are you telling me that we should also call Mussolini "Great Dux of Italy" just because he and his followers thought so? No man, that is not impartiality, but acritical blindness.

If we're to start Pinochet's page with dictator let's start Allende's page with dictator as well considering that Allende violated the Constitution on twenty different occasions out of which included torture and he also violated the statue of democratic guarantees which made him and his term illegitimate as a President because of his continued land reforms. This was declared so by the House of Deputies in 1973. Now Pinochet can be so considered elected because of his 1980 Plebiscite therefor he would be considered President of the Junta from 1973-1980 and President of Chile from 1980-1990. This is the historical truth. The Plebiscite of 1980 concluded that his Constitution (declaring him President) was passed with 67.04% of the votes (note twice as much votes as Allende) therefor he was President of the country whether leftist extremist wish to accept it or not. Secondly human rights should not be included in the opening paragraph as they are not included in Allende's opening paragraph (he tortured and killed his opponents). Fair is fair. Also we then must also reform every single page in Wikipedia with leaders who have been responsible for a death. Have fun with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.41.65 (talk) 05:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

Don't know if I can do this on this page but I would like to thank the administrator for doing a good job being impartial. Such as by not labelling Pinochet as a dictator but a head of military junta. If left wing strongmen like Castro are not labelled dictators than neither should right wing strongmen. Previously I noticed this trend (which was biased) in wikipedia but now it seems to have improved.

Comment: According to the Wikipedia definition of a dictator, Fidel Castro shouldn´t be called so because he wasn´t appointed by the senate or other government institution to take the place of head of state during a crisis. He actually took over the government and dissolved its institutions.

I went to the dictator page and Castro is listed as a benevolent dictator. Most dictators come to power due to putches and revolutions. Saddam Hussein came to power in this way and everyone calls him a dictator. So are Pinochet and Castro. But since the word, 'dictator' is so taboo better not to label anyone a dictator rather than just labeling right wing strongmen as such.

Freemason?

The article claims that Pinochet was a Freemason. As I remember, he was a practicing Catholic, which makes Masonic affiliation unlikely, IMO. Can anybody provide a source? David Cannon 23:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

External Links

Does someone want to pare down the external links section? Drcwright 04:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Please Observe Proper Flag Etiquette in Articles

Flag Etiquette:

A flag is flown on a STAFF when on land.

A flag is flown on a MAST when on a ship.

When a flag is lowered in mourning on land, it is flown at HALF STAFF.

When a flag is lowered in mourning on a ship, it is flown at HALF MAST.

Thank you . . .

Neutrality of Library Of Congress Country Report

This report: [3] is cited as a source. I question whether it is neutral. Can anyone with a better knowledge of the commissioning and authorship processes of such reports comment on whether it can be considered objective? I fully appreciate that given the subject matter, it may be near impossible to achieve neutrality. DavidFarmbrough 12:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Freemason

According to this Pinochet was a member of a freemason logia (for a very short time)--Dolichocephalus 12:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Strange sentence

"Some political scientists have ascribed the relative bloodiness of the coup to the stability of the existing democratic system, which required extreme action to overturn." Seems to contraict itself. Rich Farmbrough, 13:48 11 December 2006 (GMT).

Pronunciation of Pinochet

^ Pronunciation (IPA): /aw'gusto/ or a'gusto/, /pino'ʧεt/ or /pino'ʧε/. (i.e. "Pih-noh-CHET" is correct rather than the common mispronunciation "Pih-noh-SHAY").

On NPR this morning they played a recording of Pinochet's supporters singing where they were pronouncing it Pih-noh-SHAY. Also, the reporter specifically talked about the pronouciation and said that most everyone in Chile says Pih-noh-SHAY and that only English speakers say Pih-nih-CHET. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.134.136.5 (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Can we have a written source for that. The English mispronunciation of Pinochet is one of the first things I learnt in Spanish (equal to the mispronunciation of Chavez) and I have never heard any Spanish speakers pronounce it in the French way, either with Pinochet or Chavez, and it strikes me as English imperialism/ignorance, not knowing the difference between Spanish and French, SqueakBox 17:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Oh please, get a life. ^^^^What the heck does this have to do with anything? So easy to blame the English/French Imperialism for everything? People ahev different wasy of pronouncing things that are the same, its the way of humans, not "ignorance". My girlfriend is from Peru and she pronounces it "Pinochè" Remember they have Chilean TV in Peru. 74.101.223.160 04:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Can we get a written source for Pih-noh-CHET? If not, the unsourced assertation that Pih-noh-CHET should be deleted.

Absolutely not, it is the French pronunciation that needs a written source. Pih-noh-CHET merely follows Spanish pronunciation rules and thus doesnt need sourcing. Given that sh doesnt exist in Spanish and that according to Spanish written rules the lasty bit would be pronounced Pinochey it is clearly for those who argue the Spanish in Chile ignore the basic rules of pronunciation who need to source their claims, SqueakBox 19:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice. You need no source because you know you are right despite a resounding lack of evidence. Pinochet is a French surname. Surely you wouldn't default the pronounciation of all words to that of the country they are used in despite their origin? Or do I need to tell my friend with the surname Pimont to start pronouncing the "nt" in his name since he lives in America? I invite you to listen to the NPR story at: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6607666. In particular pay attention to the Chilean chant at 0:17 to 0:22 and the discussion from 2:00 - 2:15 and note that Nathan Crooks actually lives in Chile and presumably knows much better that you how the Chileans pronunce the word.

Please sign your comments with ~~~~ oir thety are in danger of being ignored, thanks, SqueakBox 20:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Why assume I dont live there? I will listen this evening (working right now) and feedback, I will also look for an internet radio/tv for the pronunciation in the non french style, SqueakBox 20:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

another reference: http://www.slate.com/id/1001989/ looks like Pih-noh-CHAY is the actual pronounciation in Chile (which jibes with the audio chant). I assumed you are a British ex-pat living on the edge of a Caribbean city in Latin America. My point isn't that I know definitively how it is pronounced. My point is simply that the assertation that Pih-noh-CHET is correct has no factual basis. ~~~~ whatever that means. I find it humorous that someone would ignore rational thought simply because some trival rule wasn't followed.

(edit conflict) Yes okay, Chile isnt on the Caribbean coast, so fair assumption. I will lopok into this one, I know I pronounce my surname in the german nopt the English way so I cant discount what you say, SqueakBox 20:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I have lived in Chile for 11 years now and can vouch for the fact that the pronounciation is certainly Pih-noh-CHET. The "SHAY" pronounciation used in foreign non-Spanish media is often a source of amusement to Chileans. The name certainly has French origins but it is common for names that are passed down to the descendants of immigrants to adapt to the norms of the new homeland's language. GringoInChile 20:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting and certainly confirms what I have been told and what I hear myself in the admittedly non-Chilean Latin American tv (telesur, CNN etc), SqueakBox 20:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/magazinemonitor/how_to_say/ It seems within Chile there is a variation in pronounciation. Unless someone can find a reference as to how Augusto Pinochet pronounced it himself any reference what is the correct pronounciation is bogus. Perhaps a note that Pinochet is pronounced in various ways even within Chile is apppropriate.

Well you definitely cant say "Pinochet is pronounced in various ways even within Chile is apppropriate" without sourcing it. I didnt think much of the BBC article, I am afraid. Why she would think ch (originally an es leter) is difficult for Spanish speakers to pronounce and not Sh is beyond me, and while it is on a bbc site its clearly very bloggy and so doesnt merit being a source, SqueakBox 21:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Then simply remove the unsourced "(i.e. "Pih-noh-CHET" is correct rather than the common mispronunciation "Pih-noh-SHAY"

The common "English" mispronunciation you mean? SqueakBox 21:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No, footnote one should simply say ^ Pronunciation (IPA): /aw'gusto/ or a'gusto/, /pino'ʧεt/ or /pino'ʧε/"

I'm chilean. I think both IPA transcriptions are correct... Well, maybe I'd put a voiced velar fricative instead of an occlusive, so It should look like /aw'ɣusto/ or a'ɣusto/. It doesn't matter if the guy's name is french, Pinochet himself pronounced his name as the average chilean does.. Who are you to tell the man how to pronounce his own name?--Dolichocephalus 01:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this could work as a source... you can listen to the chilean reporter saying /a'ɣusto pino'ʧεt/ --Dolichocephalus 01:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that the vast majority of the country says -Chet, but a large minority especially those with a great deal of formal education say -Shay. So both pronunctiations would be correct. TheDeadlyShoe 09:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

On tv last night (telesur and cnn) nobody said shay and everyone, Chilean or otherwise, said chet or che, so no problem sourcing that this is used, SqueakBox 17:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The assertation that CHET is the only correct pronounciation was challenged. No citiation has been made which supports it. Indeed, several sources have been cited to indicate that within Chile both CHET and CHAY are common. Please do not re-add the challenged information unless a source can be added. Bcostley 17:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Totally untrue. I just gave a source, ie telesur, it may not be a written source but it is a verifiable source. Even the daughter of Pinochet referred to him as Pinoche, and it looks to me like English language POV pushing to claim it was shay, SqueakBox 18:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is a source making it clear how to and not to pronounce his name, SqueakBox 18:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

which is contridicted by the same source: [4] plus you just said his daughter uses CHAY, why assert that she is incorrect? To be very clear - I am not pushing to say shay is correct, only that CHET and CHAY are commonly used. Bcostley 18:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No I said his daughter said che not chay (chey in spanish to rhyme with ley or rey), the difference being there is not dipthong in che, so I argue that che and chet are correct but chey is incorrect (this dipthong is quite subtle but very clear), SqueakBox 18:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you put che, chet, and chey into IPA so we can be clear on what you mean by each? Bcostley 19:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm reluctant as I dont read IPA but it should be done, if you need more clarity from me as to exactly what I mean I am happy to do that, listening to Spanish is one thing, IPA is another, SqueakBox 19:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

chet is probably pretty clear. I suspect what you call che is what I've been calling chay which is why the IPA would help. But it isn't necessary as long as the footnote doesn't identify the chet as the only one correct pronounciation.

The most comprehensive source appears to be this one, and it includes a video of Pinochet pronouncing his own name. Apparently, there's dispute as to how it's pronounced in his family as well. And it's clear that no one form predominates in Chile. I'll change the footnote soon. --Xiaopo (Talk) 08:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a blogsite, and so is unacceptable as a source. The sound on the video is of very poor quality, as is noted on the site. There are many other videos on YouTube/Google Video where Pinochet can be heard (use "Pinochet" as the search term) spoken by a large variety of speakers with varying degrees of clarity. Most educated South American (including Chilean) Spanish speakers I have met say pino'ʧεt, although other variants certainly exist, particularly in lower speech registers. My own Spanish teacher, a Chilean, says pino'ʧεt, as do all of the many South American expatriates (including Chileans) my daughter has met in Geneva. My daughter speaks South American Spanish at essentially native level, interacts extensively with South American expatriates and is doing a Master of Applied Linguistics degree. The current form of the footnote is, in my view, a reasonable representation of the situation. In Australia, where I live, most English speakers say pino'ʃe. As pointed out by others, the IPA transcription of Augusto should be au'ɣusto/a'ɣusto rather than au'gusto/a'gusto, and I would support this change being made, with an indication of the value of ɣ for those unfamiliar with the IPA/Spanish phonetics. AussieBoy 02:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I was born in Chile, and lived here all my live, I've always heard /pino'ʧεt/ in the media, at home, at school, in the street... and no, there's no reputable source because here the pronunciation is not an issue, you just read it as it is spelt. In chilean spanish the [ʃ] sound is an allophone of the phoneme /ʧ/ and there's a lot of people who can't even tell the difference between those two (mainly the uneducated who tend to use [ʃ]). Also, many people ommit final plosives(in this case, the final t), just because it's easier to pronunce. Many wikipedians seem to seek verification instead of truth. It's like not being able to write that water is wet unless you can cite a reputable source which has expressed this. Too much tacit knowledge is lost because some people in the community take the verification requirement to an unproductive extreme. --Dolichocephalus 20:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, and this is a trend that needs challenging, SqueakBox 20:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

"President de facto" or "dictator"?

Which of these is better, "President de facto" or "Dictator"? First, it was written "President de facto" but -afterwards- somebody changed it to "Dictator". Both mean basically the same. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.33.91.50 (talk) 10:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

That's easy. Try editing tha article on Fidel Castro and state that he is (or was?) a dictator. Such statement will be reversed in five (5) minutes at most. The truth is obviously secondary to personal beliefs. AVM 13:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The truth is we must remain impartial recognising both Fidel and Pinochet have detractors and supporters, SqueakBox 23:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC) [ After the ratification of the 1980 constitution, he was the President of Chile. Before, we has just the president of the Junta. You can call it a dictator. Not after 1980, however.

Best to just call it the president of the Junta, SqueakBox 03:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC) ]All major news agencies, AFP , AP (and White House spokesman), Reuters (CNN), call him dictator. Vints 07:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

What you mean is all major US news agencies which isnt the same thing at all when we are dealiong with a non US citizen but even if all news agencies everywhere were to call him that we still dont because we are an encyclopedia with a duty to fulfill WP:NPOV and not a news agency, SqueakBox 16:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

"all major US news agencies"!? Reuters and AFP are not american news agencies. History books also call him dictator. You need to find a reliable source which explicitly says he was not a dictator.Vints 07:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The status of the Fidel Castro article is irrelevant to whether Pinochet should be described as a "dictator"; that should be taken up at Talk:Fidel Castro. List of military dictators by rank includes Pinochet; Military dictatorship includes Chile (1973-1990); List of dictators includes Pinochet (and Castro, incidentally).. Despite its frequent use as a polemical term, the word "dictator" does in fact have an NPOV definition, which clearly applies to Pinochet and his rule. Kwertii 04:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes but wikipedia policy on weasel words is relevant. "Dictator", like "terrorist", needs to be used carefully as in a case like this it will just provoke long and drawn out edit wars, SqueakBox 04:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I have long since noted my objections to the "weasel words" policy in great detail on that policy article's talk page, and many other editors agreed with me. He was not elected; he seized and maintained control through the use of military force; and there was no meaningful opposition permitted under his rule. His word was law. This is a perfectly NPOV instance of a "dictator" - and, as noted, many other Wikipedia articles describe him as such. Even Pinochet's supporters don't generally deny that he was a dictator, they rationalize his actions as being necessary to halt the spread of Communism. Kwertii 04:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

If describing someone as a "dictator" is forbidden, then List of dictators and List of military dictators by rank and all of the content of military dictatorship that makes reference to specific countries, among many other articles, need to be deleted in order to be consistent. I don't think you're seriously suggesting that that should be done. Kwertii 04:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I much prefer "He was not elected; he seized and maintained control through the use of military force; and there was no meaningful opposition permitted under his rule. His word was law." to Military dictator as it actually gives readers an idea of his rule (assuming you source it) whereas the oproblem with a word like dictator is that it is very vague and generalised, part of its weasel quality, and I personally would rather not call any modern or controversial politician a dictator on wikipedia, arguing that to an extent the weasel word policy is to prevent edit warring in ana open source encyclopedia, SqueakBox 04:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe you are seriously arguing that Pinochet was not a dictator. Even his supporters don't argue that point. Point me to one published source where an academic or other authority, even a major news agency, from anywhere in the world, makes the case that Pinochet was not a dictator. Kwertii 04:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Or rather, you aren't even arguing that Pinochet wasn't a dictator, since you support including the definition of a dictator attached to Pinochet's name. You are arguing that someone out there might argue that Pinochet was not a dictator, and so we have to accomodate them proactively. As I said, let's see one reputable source that argues that he was not a dictator (in contrast to the mountain of reputable sources, along with his own supporters, who don't dispute that point.) Kwertii 04:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is a BBC (very leftist public service broadcasting) profile of Pinochet that doesnt mention the word dictator, so this is a reputable source that doesnt argue that he was a dictator. Clearly we dont have to find a source that argues he is not a dictator in order to not call him a dictator, sourcing and citing doesnt work like that and the fact that reliable sources are not all labelling him a dictator is in itself sufficient, SqueakBox 15:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

And here are some BBC articles that call him a dictator. With your way of arguing, if we find an article that doesn't explicitly mentions e.g. that he was Army Commander in Chief then we can't write in Wikipedia that he was Army Commander in Chief. Vints 18:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually I am arguing that we should stick to policy and not use weasel words like dictator. Kwertii implied that everyone is calling him a dictator and I gave that ref to show that this is not true. What I dont need to do is find an article saying he wasnt a dictator, that misunmderstands what sourcing is all about, SqueakBox 18:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Firstly, I didn't say "show me a reputable source that does not specifically use the word 'dictator' to describe Pinochet", I said "show me a reputable source that argues (actively) that Pinochet was not a dictator." I am pretty sure you won't find one, as even his supporters don't seriously argue that point.
• Secondly there is not, and has never been, consensus around the so-called "weasel words" policy; see Wikipedia talk:Avoid weasel words.
• Thirdly, the "weasel words" policy is not even applicable in this case. As the opening sentence of Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words says, "Weasel words are words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources." There are plenty of reputable and verifiable sources that describe Pinochet as a "dictator" (and none that I have seen that argue that he is not.) Go read Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words again. Kwertii 23:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I certainly dont need to provide a source actively saying he isnt a dictator in order to justify not calling him one, as I said before that isnt how sourcing works, one uses sourcing to prove something not to disprove it. The WP:AWW also says "The main problem with weasel words is that they interfere with Wikipedia's neutral point of view." which is where I am coming from with this, it just shows an anti Pinochet viewpoint and that must be avoided at all costs, ie taking sides around a highly contrioversial figure, SqueakBox 23:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to grasp what a "weasel word" is. The "weasel word" policy refers to making unsourced statements such as "Many people say that Pinochet is a dictator". The "weasel words" are "many people say...", not "is a dictator." It is meant to encourage people to source the statements that they use, not to prevent people from using unpleasant, yet accurate, descriptions. We already have tons of reputable and verifiable sources that say Pinochet was a dictator. Kwertii 04:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I also dont think we should call Allende a marxist even though this is also true, SqueakBox 22:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That is patently absurd. Kwertii 23:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

"Marxist" is not a perjorative term outside the context of right-wing politics. Allende was a self-described Marxist. He was head of the Socialist Party of Chile. I'm not sure at this point if you actually believe this or if you're simply trolling. Kwertii 23:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Its the wikipedia way, avoid contention and make WP:NPOV along with verifiability as the guiiding lights of the project, SqueakBox 23:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

"The Wikipedia way" also entails using the talk page to discuss disputes, rather than using it to hide behind policy. So far, you have not responded to any of the points I raised. He was verifiably and in a perfectly NPOV sense of the word a "dictator". Kwertii 04:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no doubt he was president, he self appointed himself to that position. It's hard to argue otherwise. I came up with compromise wording:

(November 25 1915 – December 10 2006) was a general and President of Chile. He led a military junta to power in 1973 through a U.S.-backed coup d'état, deposing the democratically elected president Salvador Allende. In 1974, Pinochet appointed himself president [5][6] and assumed power for 17 years without elections. He implemented economic reforms which his supporters credit with the development of the robust modern Chilean economy. Pinochet's government also implemented the anti-dissident campaign called "Operation Condor", during which around 3,000 suspects were murdered and around 30,000 more were tortured. He stepped down from power in 1990, after losing a national plebiscite in 1988. At the time of his death in 2006, Pinochet was facing around 300 criminal charges in Chile for human rights abuses committed under his rule and embezzlement.

I will improve it if some form of consensus is reached.--Pethr 02:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Problem is, there were elections, three in fact. They were referendums on his presidency and were held on 1978, 1981, and 1988. There is of course doubt about the fairness of the first two, in which Pinochet won overwhelmingly, but still I don't think it is correct to say there were no elections. The 1981 plebiscite is particularly important because it also approved the current Chilean Constitution. Marmaduque 16:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

One reason why I'd rather just call him by the most succinct and accurate English word available to describe what Pinochet was - a "dictator" - than muddling around with "unelected" vs. "elected in rigged elections" vs. whatever other bizarre and indirect way some of our editors would have him described. The Economist, incidentally a pretty far right magazine, has the subheadline "Augusto Pinochet Ugarte, dictator of Chile, died on December 10th, aged 91" in his obituary in the Dec 16th issue. Kwertii 20:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The Economist is FAR-RIGHT??!!! They are centrists for goodness sake. They even supported Kerry in the 2004 US elections. They oppose the right-wing former Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi. It SUPPORTS gay marriage, gun control, and the abolition of gay marriage. See The Economist editorial stance. Marmaduque 17:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Here in Chile, members of the Communist Party call him a Tyrant (El tirano Pinochet) or a Murderer, right wing supporters call him Former president of the Republic and in the media and those who try to sound neutral just say dictator or former ruler. --Dolichocephalus 20:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The two most important serios newspapers in Chile, El Mercurio and La Tercera, both refer to him as former president or at least former ruler, but I've yet to see dictator. Marmaduque 17:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain this, this? Look at this one--Dolichocephalus 06:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes after 1980 you can, he was never elected, not democratically. He was the president after 1980 only by the definition of president created by himself, but not in the common sense definition of the word, before him or after him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.129.168.31 (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

If you put the pov tag back on the article this is the place to give your reasons. if you dont give any rerasons here I will remove it as we cant make this article more NPOV unless we know what is POV. It doesnt appear POV but instead balanced to me, SqueakBox 23:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

POV editors

Please be familiar with WP:NPOV before editing. I dont particularly like Pinochet but find myself defending him against editors who are filled with hatred towards him and appear not to care about our POV policy but only about putting their own anti Pinochet views in the article, SqueakBox 16:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Quotes

I'd like to see references on all Pinochet's quotes. I didn't search for every single one of them but I couldn't find those I searched for. I don't think it's appropriete to have unsourced quotes here, not to mention there is Wikiquote for those things!--Pethr 01:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed and removed, SqueakBox 01:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it's the right thing to do. I would copy it to wikiquotes if it had any sense of credibility but I rather think that someone completely made it up to cast negative light on A.P. Well if the light can be any more negative - Pinochet is one of the creatures where I have really hard time reverting edits which reflect more the bad side. Anyway, it survived too long! We have to be more careful about additions to this article.--Pethr 02:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they were made up, I recognized a few of them. The quote about Human Rights being a Marxist invention was given in a CNN en Español interview in 90s, for example. They're probably hard to find because they were given in Spanish originally. However, I also agree with their removal. Maybe a link to WikiQuotes should be included instead; I havent checked but I'm sure there will be some quotes of his there. GringoInChile 02:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

They seem to be a translated version of a selection of quotes from this page in the Spanish Wikiquote. GringoInChile 02:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Great work, It would still be good to source them and then put them on Wikiquotes. I don't understand a word in Spanish, so may be someone else will volunteer. May be it will be pretty easy to find sources to most of them in Spanish language media.--Pethr 02:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I was the editor who added the quotes. They were all from one source: La Nación newspaper. A single reference for every quote was added after the last quote, because I didn't want to clutter the article with "a,b,c,d,e,f,g,,,etc [reference]." I will put them on Wikiquote. It brings a smile to my face to know that some of you thought they were fake. ☆ CieloEstrellado 04:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I didnt think they were fake, just inappropriate to have so many though one or 2 would do no harm, SqueakBox 15:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The grandson

Is Augusto Pinochet Molina, a grandson, not relevant to be included in the See also section? -- Zorro CX 12:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

"to save the country from communism"

It does not advance NPOV to present this claim as base fact, particularly when it is done by misrepresenting a source.

• The cited article does not say that the purpose of Condor was to save the country from communism
• It does not explain how Condor might have advanced that goal.
• With regard to what the article says, it is the opinion of one reporter.
• If people want to learn about Condor and whom it targeted, they can follow the link to its Wikipedia article.

Gazpacho 18:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the opening isnt POV, by all means remove this if you replace it with other pro Pinochet POV but we cannot just have lots of criticism anmd no positive stuff as that violates the WP:NPOV which is at the heart of our work. Please address the issue of POV, SqueakBox 19:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Condor was only added to the opening lately and if we are incapable of describing it from an NPOV point of view we need to not mention it in the opening, SqueakBox 19:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop just adding anti Pinochet material without any balance. That breaks POV, if you want to add lots of negative stuff do a POV check (your responsibility) or it will look like POV pushing, SqueakBox 20:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with leaving Condor out of the intro. However, there is no more obligation under WP:NPOV to say that Pinochet had people killed and tortured to save the nation, than there is to say that Hitler killed Jews to save the nation. If Pinochet said it, then quote him. It's far too controversial to present as an uncontested fact. Gazpacho 20:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

We would have to be careful to NPOV Hitler too, however unpleasant that may be. This isnt the most pleasant article to work on but we must stick to NPOV. By sticking to NPOV we can create a credible article and what we say in the opening is critical, SqueakBox 20:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

"Sticking to NPOV" does not mean presenting controversial claims as if they were uncontroversial. The NPOV policy page and the NPOV tutorial both discuss this in detail. Gazpacho 20:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I second that. "NPOV" does not mean "uncontroversial", and it doesn't mean "avoid unpleasant details" either. We are not writing an encyclopedia for kindergarteners who need to be shielded from unpleasantness. Pinochet is best known for the well-attested Operation Condor, mass killings, and mass torture in most of the world. This is not even particularly controversial. There are plenty of sources on this cited already, and there are plenty more available if you type "augusto pinochet" into Google. The intro needs to reflect this rather than try to whitewash his reputation. As I said before, SqueakBox, present just one reputable source that argues that Pinochet was not a dictator or that his regime did not conduct mass murder and torture. (But you won't find any, because even his staunchest supporters don't argue those points; they try to justify his actions as unpleasant but necessary instead, which the intro does mention, in the interests of NPOV.) Also, you keep referencing other articles as though their content was somehow directly relevant to what we ought to include in this article. If you have an issue with Adolf Hitler, take it up at Talk:Adolf Hitler, not here. Kwertii 21:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Why would I wish to take issues about Pinochet to Adolf Hitler? Remeber we are writing an encyclopedia not an isolated article on Pinochet and mentioning other articles is normal practice in wikipedia. NPOV means presenting both sides of the argument and just before my recent edit that clearly was not happening in the opening, it came across as being written by some POV pushing Pinochet haters who are happy to source his every bad act but delete good things said about him. That is the recipe for a POV article, SqueakBox 22:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with SqueakBox. Walton monarchist89 16:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

whether or not your agree with the statement that he saved chile from a communist threat, which would presume it was under one, the fact remains that this was an often cited justification and rationale for his actions begining in 1973 (the year the coup d'état took place) and is very notable.Cholga 00:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Concentration camps?

The unsourced statement that Pinochet left behind...concentration camps seems to me to be POV, unless a source for it can be obtained. Although it can obviously be proven that Pinochet had detention camps/prisons for political prisoners, the phrase "concentration camps" is specific and pejorative, due to its associations with Nazism and genocide. For all his faults, Pinochet did not commit genocide - his regime executed less than 3,000, and did not single out any specific ethnic group. So it seems to be left-wing POV to deliberately use a phrase with Nazi connotations in relation to Pinochet. If no one comes up with a citation for the statement, I will delete it outright. Walton monarchist89 16:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Marmaduque 17:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, some user seems to think it's OK for them to revert this edit without discussing it on the talk page. I will continue to change "concentration camps" to "prison camps" until they provide explanation and/or a source. Walton monarchist89 18:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree too. This article has persistent problems from lefty POV pushers and this appears to be another example. Some people seem unable to aaccept that the rules of sourcing and NPOV also ap[ply here, SqueakBox 18:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, plenty of people, such as those involved with the documentary The War on Democracy, have referred to them as "concentration camps". It is not POV. 172.213.50.232 (talk) 13:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

What political ideology was he?

Daft question to most probably, but anyone?

Right-wing, anti-communist, SqueakBox 16:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Hard to say. Pinochet was a soldier who did not care much for politics right until the coup. He can be considered anti-communist. In the end he was an economic libertarian, but during the economic crisis in 1981 he briefly employed Keynesian economics. His governemnt was definitely authoritarian at first in the sense that it restricted some personal liberties, bu by the end of his government I'd say 1987-1990, there gradually was more free speech and other such liberties. Pinochet manained he supported democracy but that the economic ruin brought about by Allende's government meant that it had to be suspended until the country could recover. So, yes, in the end, he was a right-winger. Marmaduque 17:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The definitive answer would have to come from Spanish-language sources, but what is in English suggests that he was a Chilean nationalist and determined not to have Chile depend entirely on either superpower. It was typical throughout the Cold War for the left to describe any anti-communist leader as a fascist (e.g. Chomsky, The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism). However Pinochet himself didn't come from any ideology of national supremacy akin to Nazism or Italian Fascism, even if he made use of people like Paul Schäfer and Alfredo Stroessner. Gazpacho 18:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I recall visiting http://www.okcupid.com and taking their political quiz. The chart they use to map your political ideology also had a chart graphing the ideologies of famous people. General Pinochet can be found in the "Fascist" region, but then again John Kerry is in the dead center of the graph, so there may be a margin of error.

Fascist, mass-murderer, tyrant, supported by the US...you know the deal. 172.213.50.232 (talk) 13:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

New constitution in 1980

Who approved this new constitution? I don't understand why Pinochet, alleged dictator would allow a new constitution which would threaten his continued control of power. The article doesn't seem to explain this bit well.. --Rebroad 20:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

One possibility is that international parties demanded that he demonstrate his intent to restore civilian rule before they would deal with him. Another possibility is that he wasn't lying about his reasons for taking power in the first place.

Also see Gustavo Leigh. Gazpacho 07:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Dissolution of Congress in September 1973 after the coup

The congress WAS dissolved in 1973 immediately after the coup. This is history, you can see http://www.bcn.cl/pags/legislacion/leyes/resena_const.htm (National Congress Library) a brief history of the congress, where you can see:

"el 11 de septiembre de 1973, se produce un golpe de estado que significa el quiebre institucional de Chile, estableciéndose una Junta Militar encabezada por el general Augusto Pinochet, quién suspende las garantías individuales contenidas en la Constitución del 25, aún cuando se declara que ésta continua vigente, por otra parte, se disuelve el Congreso Nacional."

(im working on a translation)

Specifically, under the decree number 27 dated september 21 1973 (published officially september 24 1973), the congress was dissolved.

Only one more thing: According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictator, "[...]In modern usage, the term "dictator" is generally used to describe a leader who holds an extraordinary amount of personal power, especially the power to make laws without effective restraint by a legislative assembly[...]". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.73.59.100 (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

• I agree with Pethr. Also, if we go according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictator, "[...]In modern usage, the term "dictator" is generally used to describe a leader who holds an extraordinary amount of personal power, especially the power to make laws without effective restraint by a legislative assembly[...]". In that case then he was NOT a dictator, since he DID NOT hold ANY power to make laws, because that power was radicated into the Military Junta, of which he was not a member. Granted, he could influence the outcome of the Junta's resolutions, he held extraordinary amount of personal power, etc, etc, but then that would not agree with the definition. I don't see a point in making an edit war over this AGAIN. Mel Romero 04:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• The dissolution of the congress must be mentioned in the article because is not a minor fact under the regime on Mr. Pinochet. Why edit war?

I agree on this one. Usually it goes like this: 1) Find credible source preferably at least one in English 2) write paragraph about your subject in appropriate section of the article 3) if it is important enough mention it in article summary/introduction. Thank you.--Pethr 04:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

THE OPENING SENTENCE SHOULD BE MORE ACCURATE, TRUE

CALLING HIM A PRESIDENT SIDES WITH THE PRO-PINOCHET SIDE, CALLING HIM A DICTATOR IS NEUTRAL, ITS REALISTIC, IT CAN BE WELL REFERANECD, IT IS WIDELY THE CONSESUS ON WHAT HIS TIME IN POWER WAS, A DICTATORSHIP, ITS THE TRUTH, ITS WHAT HE IS REPORTED AS ON THE OVERWEALMING CONSENSUS OF INTERNATION NEWS OUTLETS. HE IS WIDELY AND MOST NOTABLE AS "THE FORMER CHILEAN DICTATOR, GENERAL PINOCHET" CALLING HIM PRESIDENT SIDES WITH THE PRO PINOCHET SIDE AND IS UTTER AND TOTAL BULLSHIT, IT IS SIMPLY FALSE. CALLING HIM PRESIDENT OF THE MILITARY JUNTA IS NOT FALSE, THATS THE TRUTH, IT SHOULD BE MENTIONED AND IT SHOULD ALSO SAY HE WAS A GENERAL, AND THAT THE OVERWEALMING CONSENSUS HAS AGREED THAT HE WAS A DICTATOR ALLTHOUGH THE FEELING IS NOT UNIVERSAL AMOUNGST HIS SUPPORTERS, I THINK SUCH A DESCRIPTION IS FAR MORE WELL ROUNDED, TRUE, AND NEUTRAL, ITS ALSO EASYLY CITEABLE, NOT MANY OUTLETS OUTSIDE OF CHILE SAY THE FORMER PRESIDENT DIED OF.... IN FACT IN CHILE THEY DIDNT EVEN SAY THAT THEY AVOID CALLING HIM A DICTATOR IN FAVOR OR NATIONAL RECONCILIATION AND ALSO DO NOT MENTION HE WAS A PRESIDENT EITHER IN ORDER NOT TO OFFEND THE SURVIVORS OF HIS BRUTAL GENOCIDE. PRESIDENTS DONT KILL AND TORTURE THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE. EVEN IF YOU LOVE PINOCHET HE WAS A DICTATOR, YOU LOVE THE PRESIDENT OF THE JUNTA NOT THE PRESIDENT OF CHILE, YOU LOVE A GENERAL, AND A DICTATOR, ITS OK, THATS THE TRUTH, IF YOU LOVE HIM OR HATE HIM ITS SIMPLY WHAT HE IS/WAS AND WHAT/WHO YOU LOVE OR HATE, OR MOST IMPORTANTLY ARE TRYING TO IMPARTIALLY READ ABOUT FROM AN ACADEMIC SOURCE, A ENCYCLOPEDIA. LETS FIND A BETTER OPENING, MORE REALISTIC AND TRUTHFUL AND ACCURATE OPENING SENTANCE, PARAGRAPH —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qrc2006 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

sssh... could you please tone your voice down?--CSTAR 19:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Dictator is a POV term, due to its negative connotations. As you say, the most accurate term for Pinochet is 'President of the Military Junta' as this was his official title, and he also held the rank of General in the Chilean armed forces. Calling him 'President' signifies that he was the de facto head of state of Chile, but I agree that 'President of the Military Junta' is more accurate. Although it may be true that many people consider him a 'dictator', this doesn't mean that the article can reject the point of view of his supporters. The fact is that the word 'dictator' is, in modern English usage, usually used as a pejorative label by a leader's political opponents. See the discussion at Josef Stalin for further dispute on the use of the term. (Not that I'm comparing Pinochet to Stalin - they were opposites - but in both cases, the term 'dictator' is subjective.) Walton monarchist89 09:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

So the BBC, ABC, the AP and Reuters are Pinochet Opponets and POV pushers? They call him a dictator when announcing his death. Its not POV its the prevailing assessment, its not favorable or neglagable its the truth. Calling Jack the Ripper a murderer is not a POV, just because the word murderer has a bad connotation since most people view murder negatively. Calling George W Bush a Conservative is not POV either, even though many people find the term conservative to be perjorative as many people would find the word communist perjorative. Calling Jane Doe, who works for the IRS a tax collector is not POV, EVERYONE HATES THEM!, but its still descriptive, accurate and an honest potrayal of her profession. An article that mentions someone that "came to power" "wasnt elected" though a "coup detat" who had a "regime" rather than an administration and was sought to be tried for "human rights violations" and is reported as a dictator by the overwealming total of the world media should at least mention the word dictator or this prevailing opinion, it is notable-even if we dont say PINOCHET WAS A DICTATOR which is by no means a strech, it should definatly say PINOCHET IS WIDELY REGARDED AS A DICTATOR BY THE WORLD MEDIA AND PUBLIC ALLTHOUGH THIS IS CONTROVERSIAL AMOUNSGT SOME and lets put this silly discussion to a rest. this is embarassing for an encyclopediaqrc2006/email 23:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Calling him President reflects the truth. Calling him dictator is whta is taking sides, besides it is a weasel word andf should be avoided everywhere other than dictator on wikipedia, SqueakBox 00:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The main problems with "dictator" are:

• It's not very informative, because it means different things in different contexts. We can't just label someone and expect readers to understand what the person did to earn that label. The current intro explains: he came to power in a coup, made himself president, ruled without elections, and had people killed. That's more informative than label.
• While some instances are easy, others are widely questioned, and allowing the term in the easy cases would encourage people to fight over the others. Examples of questionable cases: Chavez, Mugabe, leaders of communist China, Fujimori, Musharraf, Ali Khamenei, etc., etc. The only stable way to resolve the question of dictatorship is to let the readers answer it themselves.

Gazpacho 00:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it goes without saying, that I'm with SqueakBox and Gazpacho on this one. Wikipedia doesn't call anyone names but rather carefully describes what happened letting every individual reader to make his own mind. Fabrication of ready-to-consume opinions is domain of mass media (POV). There'd be no reason of having Wikipedia if we were unable to enforce WP:NPOV, it's core policy.--Pethr 01:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

calling him president is truth!!!!??? cite that! what truth, when was he elected? what party was he a member of? what percentage of the vote did he receieve. in this case dictator is not a point of view. its the truth, no one denies he was a dictator besides pinochets cronies. the word president is inaccurate, false, and misleading. if it cant say dictator is shouldnt say president, thats taking the pinochetistas' side its a point of view. Pinochet and the word dictator and the term "PINOCHET DICTATORSHIP" go hand in hand, they are always mentioned together. i dont care about ahmadinejad or chavez or mugabe, this is about this article. it should at least be mentioned. someone with no knowledge of the subject wrongfully think he was never a dictator, and that he was elected. this is a place or learning, all viewpoints need to be included. especially an overwealming position such as him being a dictator. A dictator is an asshole who seizes power and doesnt let go and rules with an iron fist and silences the opposition with violance and fear. hows that for a definition?qrc2006/email 03:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia cannot take a point of view on whether or not he is a dictator, the reader must, if it is a point of view as you say, why is the only point of view being used is that of his so-called presidency?qrc2006/email 03:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

pinochet tortured and killed and had my family beaten and raped! hes an asshole, but thats my point of view. he IS a former dictator. thats neautral, he simply is, look up dictator in the dictionary, or in the wiktionary for crying outloud, you know exactly what it means!!

this one is pure logic if the chile coup article says "General Augusto Pinochet exploited the situation to seize total power and establish an anti-communist military dictatorship which lasted until 1990." why is it that during a dictatorship, the dictatorships leader isnt called a dictator?

iran venezuela and zibabwe all have functioning assemblies so does cuba, pinochet dissolved this, his rule was autocratic, how bout that autocratic leader, instead of dictator?

OPENING SENTANCE OF THE SPANISH WIKIPEDIA

Augusto José Ramón Pinochet Ugarte (Valparaíso, Chile, 25 de noviembre de 1915 - Santiago, Chile, 10 de diciembre de 2006) fue un militar y dictador chileno.

Augusto Jose Ramon Pinochet Ugarte (Valaprais, Chile, 25, November, 1915 - Santiago, Chile 10, December 2006) was a military-person and Chilean dictator.

there is no such debate there.

Spanish wikipedia is different. Here the consensus is to remove the word. Why ignore that? SqueakBox 04:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Chile was governed by military junta not just by Pinochet
• 1980 plebiscite (however disputatious) gave some legal framework to Pinochet's presidency
• President doesn't necessarily need to be elected (can be appointed or assume power illigaly)
• Everyone can judge for himself since facts about his presidency are included.--Pethr 04:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

it was not govered my the junta, just as the army is not goverened by liuetenants or colornels its goverened by the generals and highest ranking officer. what legal framework, if Dictator is hard to define, calling this a presidency and using the word president is making the definition of president hard to define by your bastardizing of it. pinochet was not appointed. he took power, people who do coups are dictators, why cant you see that? people cant judge whether or not he is a dictator since those arguements are being excluded.

Perhaps because we dont want many bios to be a point of feuding between pro and anti brigades all because of a charged word like dictator. A President is one who presides, not one who has been democratically elected, SqueakBox 05:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

presides over what? is my dad the president of my house since he presides over my family? was margaret thatcher president since she presided over england is chancellor angela merkel president of germany? is god president of the universe since he presides over everything, should i add that to the god article, God: Former, Current and Future president of the universe and all people since he presides over us.

Well a murderer is someone who kills people. pinochet killed people can we call him that? can we use the word genocide? or man? lets just call him an antity as not to be POV about whether he was a living thing or not.

1 a : a person granted absolute emergency power; especially : one appointed by the senate of ancient Rome b : one holding complete autocratic control c : one ruling absolutely and often oppressively

from Mirriam webster

1. a person exercising absolute power, esp. a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession.

Jacket image of the Compact Oxford English Dictionary

dictator

 • noun a ruler with total power over a country. 

from oxford

from dictionary.com

My 2 cents

Although dictator does have a negative connotation, it is accurate in this case. President is also accurate, and both should be used.

(JoeCarson 12:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC))

There's no way back, once you start such labeling. Mark him "dictator" and his supporters will come and replace it with "benevolent dictator" since, in their view, he governed for the benefit of people rather of himself. Isn't it more balanced to describe how he came to power, what he did wrong and why he thought it was right thing to do? Important facts are presented in the article, they're are not explanatory enough?--Pethr 18:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. We want an informative, educational article not a controversial one nad certainly not one that takes sides (the good encyclopedia writer may hate Pinochet or love him but neither would show up in the article itself. That is WP:NPOV, SqueakBox 19:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

All that matters is that president and dictator are both accurate terms to describe Pinochet. "Pinochet was benevolent" is a normative statement. A comparison between Pinochet and other dictators would be appropriate, and most readers may judge him relatively benevolent. However, the editor clearly should not include that adjective in his description.

(JoeCarson 20:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC))

These arguments over definitions and which one should apply are exactly why the word "dictator" is taboo in English Wikipedia. User:172 can tell you more about the background if you really want to know. Gazpacho 20:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Newspapers of record

By refusing to use the word dictator to describe Mr Pinochet, describing him instead as General and President, WP does take an unusual position vis-a-vis at least three newspapers who reported on Pinochet's death. Other examples abound. The editors of WP apparently then have decided, on their own, to sanitize Pinochet's image in the guise of neutrality, when most papers of record have actually referred to him as dicator (In the 4th example, Pinochet is not referred to as president in the Obit)

• The New York Times

Gen Augusto Pinochet Ugarte dies at age of 91; brutal dictator repressed and reshaped Chile for nearly two decades and became notorious symbol of human rights abuse and corruption; he seized power in bloody military coup in 1973 that toppled Marxist government of Pres Salvador Allende

• London Times Online

Thousands of Chileans have taken to the streets in demonstrations following the death last night of Augusto Pinochet, 91, the Chilean dictator who ruled his country with an iron fist from 1973 to 1990.

• El Mercurio This article doen't refer to him as dictator, but does not use the title "Presidente", only general to refer to him. Note that El Mercurio was supportive of Pinochet and the Coup against Allende.
• Folha de Sao Paulo The largest circulation daily in Latin America:

Após uma cerimônia de funeral abalada por discursos de defesa do golpe militar no Chile, proferidos por familiares do ditador Augusto Pinochet (morto no último domingo, 10), os restos mortais do general foram cremados na noite desta terça-feira (12) no cemitério Parque del Mar, na cidade costeira de Concón, segundo funcionários locais. Após a cremação em Concón, 130 km ao noroeste de Santiago, uma comitiva militar de oito automóveis levou as cinzas do ditador. —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by CSTAR (talk • contribs) 06:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

Yeah forgot to sign, sorry. That was quick. --CSTAR 06:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

That's the difference between mass media and Wikipedia. Add BBC to the not-calling-names side of the list.[7]--Pethr 07:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Is that really true? How about here [8]?--CSTAR 07:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia does seek to be more inclusive of views than major newspapers (and certainly more than the New York Times). Gazpacho 10:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If we interpret Wikipedia policy strictly, particularly no WP:OR, WP:RS, there is a basis for the exact opposite claim, that it is to say, that it shouldn't be more inclusive and should stickto what's in major publications worldwise. Particularly this clause:

It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;

Notice that I produced three examples from major newspapers; It's not clear what you mean by certainly more than the New York Times but there is a truly overwhelming number of papers and journals that refer to Pinochet as a dictator.

At the very least, the article should note Pinochet's claim to fame in the very first sentence: A chilean general who siezed power in Chile in a Coup d'état against Salvador Allende on September 11, 1973.

--CSTAR 18:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You argument would be helpful if there were any facts omitted from this article but there are not or at least nobody argues about that. Media has it's own agenda and often it's more suitable for them to categorize rather than discribe what happened. Once more, facts are presented in the article. May be some scholar/academic paper or scientific research on the subject would make the case. May be some sentence about world media calling him dictator but i don't think it will help the article to be any better. The article describes who he was even without words charged with undesirable conotations.--Pethr 19:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Pethr, it seems to me that whether or media has its own agenda or does not, is irrelevant as per WP:RS and WP:OR. I think the discussion really should center around these wikipeida policy/guidelines. --CSTAR 19:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If we do that we must forget about inserting the weasel word dictator, SqueakBox 19:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is dictator a weasel word? We could say "Pinochet was a chilean male who wore dark glasses in public appearances early in his career". True statement. No words there that anybody could call "weasel".--CSTAR 19:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

See WP:Weasel words for an explanation of my choice of word, SqueakBox 19:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it follows from that guideline page that use of dictator is a weasel word. As is illustrated by the above links, the description dictator for Pinochet was certainly not invented here.

At the very least, what should come out of this discussion is how the defining first sentence of a person's WP article is formulated. For example Perry Smith clearly states why he was a notable person. Pinochet wasn't a notable person because he was a general or a president.--CSTAR 20:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont agree. I think being a President and also in the military are exactly what made him notable certainly until his arrest, and then his arrest on human rights charges was a third notable factor so I would mention that in the opening sentence before adding the word dictator. For me dictator conjures up Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin and its not a term I would particularly connect with any modern figure. We state clearly he wasnt democratically elected which IMO is sufficient, SqueakBox 20:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Imagine you asked someone (a student say) to describe Pinochet in a sentence. "He was a president of Chile and a general". Without stating that he was also responsible for the 193 coup d'etat, I would consider that a failing response, wouldn't you? I had thought the first sentence should answer the question of an individual's most notable characteristic. It seems to me that by failing to do this in this instance, you are establishing a different criterion from what is standard throughout most of Wikipedia.

Yes, it's clear we disagree. --CSTAR 21:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on, that is fully dealt with in the second sentence, which is again sufficient and currently given much more weight than his arrest in the UK and subsequent legal problenms in Chile so we are not neglecting this in any way, SqueakBox 21:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"Oh come on" is not an argument, it is instead is a not very-subtle putdown of an interlocutor. This is an extremely important topic: the first sentence of any WIkipedia article. I'm sorry, you seem to act as the you owned this article, and refuse to discuss substantive issues of policy and guideline with regard to its structure and formulation. Further discussion seems to be pointless. --CSTAR 22:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Gazpacho. While Pinochet certainly fits most people's definition of a 'dictator', it is still coherently possible to argue that he was not (owing to the plebiscite, collective rule by the military junta etc.), and it is never the job of Wikipedia to make judgements. Fundamentally, it's always better to use the official title - for a similar situation check out the debate on Talk:North Korea as to the validity of the term "Democratic People's Republic of Korea". NPOV is the major principle to follow here. Walton monarchist89 17:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I was involved in a similar debate re Kim Jong-il a year or more back, sounds like it hasnt died down there either, and as in every bio or similar I oppose the use of the word dictator, SqueakBox 19:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not a question of what one can argue coherently; that view is very close (if not indistinguishable from) original research. The responsability of WP editors is to accurately report what reliable sources actually say on the matter, not to introduce arguable "nuanced" positions. --CSTAR 19:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

No, by doing what you say we just report what his opponenets want and that is not acceptable given WP:NPOV, SqueakBox 21:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

no we report referanceable truth, he was a dictator, simple as that. and the junta did not govern, he did, the fact that a king has knights or that a prime minister has a parlament doesnt mean they are not king or president, the same is true that just because pinochet had subordinate does not mean he was not an autocrat. the generally undertood definition of president in modern times is that of an elected oficial, nothing else. "Someone who presides" is simply literal and technical, and too general. that definiton of president does not make sense here, because it is a broad generalization of anyone who is president of a commitee, club, political party, or nation. but the most frequent sense if i say someone is president-everyone first assumes, of where (where as in what country), if it is another type of presiding person, you say president... of the Model UN club, the University of California, etc. no news sources say he wasnt a dictator. the only people who say he wasnt a dictator are his cronies. and as for the whole benevolant debate, which you have imagined, that would be point of view, dictator is not. he was one by definition. every president/prime minister/chancelor in the world is elected by direct or indirect vote, was apointed by an elected body or line of succession during the 20th century. furthermore, you say calling him dictator is taking a side, why are you taking sides. this is wikipedia all points of view deserve mention, especially i would think a so widely held opinion. i mean wow the NY Times, BBC, CNN, TVchile, etc sure have some balls to be reporting their opinions, instead of news. the fact is this is not an opinion. and if you consider it to be, you still have to stop blocking it because all points-of-view should be included. i think it also deserves mention within the article that some sectors of chilean society regard him with very high esteem, a "benevolent dictator" as you put it. he's a cult personality for sure. he's also hated by many chileans, that also doesnt not appear in the article. DICTATOR DICTATOR, DICTAOR DICTATOR. look it up in the dictionary, and tell me why this is an opinion. does mirriam webster and oxford and dictionary.com all have opinions on what a dictator is now? get a grip with reality. wikipedia writing polycy should overide the weasol word ruling you seem to have. i think this should be brought up to a wider debate. and furthermore, you seem to be the only one reverting this. not people who think he is not a dictator, who cannot come up with any citations. but it should be mentioned if some people think that "plebicite" gave him legal standing.

Why WikiProject France?!?

I doubt very much that this article should be included in the France WikiProject; there's hardly any relevant connection apart from his surname. I propose that the tag be removed. GringoInChile 17:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

No idea what it was doing here but it has been removed, SqueakBox 17:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybr he does belong there, he is of Breton heritage, a region in France. Direct heritage actually. Just as im sure Madonna appears in the Italian wikiporject due to her ItalianAmerican heritage, it should be up to th France wikiproject if he is included not us.

Arhuement over the term dictator

Regardless if the word dictator is a weasal word i think it merritt includsion that there is an ongoing debate in Chile between the left and the right as into whether Pinochet was a dictator or president with the right (UDI RN) and with the left (Concertacion, Communist Party, Humanist Party) particularly the right saying he was never dictator and saying he was a legitimate president and the left saying that in modern times only presidents that are directly elected in free elections are presidents in the modern sense and that pinochet was a dictator. that last part was said by the head of the socialist party in an interview with TVChile.

I agree, in fact that's a perfect summary of my solution to the earlier debate. Rather than labelling him an unquestioned 'dictator', he should be described as 'President of the Military Junta', and it should also be said that there is a debate between his supporters and opponents over whether or not he was a dictator. As you say, sources can be provided for both sides. Walton monarchist89 12:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

i agree completelty, all points of view should be included since this is wikipediaCholga 23:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Dictatorship

I think that the word "dictatorship" is very lacking in this article, i means who's ever heard of a coup d'etat that led to military rule which is not considered a "dictatorship" someone, a student for example may type in "Chilean Dictatorship" or "Pinochet Dictatorship" , the notable period where no presidents where elected nor did the congress convened between 1979 and 1990 when before 1979 and after 1990 things where handled much differantly, might be confused.

Well, if you have trouble finding examples, try reading about the Government Junta of Chile (1925), it may enlighten you. Mel Romero 02:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

President

Use of the word president should be removed from the first sentance, since Pinochet was a very differant president from Allende and his predicessors and Aylwin and his successors, before and after his rule presidents where elected in direct free elections Pinochet was not, in this way the article may wrongly imply to readers that Allende or OHiggens or Bachelet or Aylwin had the same kind of administration. Allende was a directly elected president, so was Aylwin, Pinochet was not and the differance should be codified in this article, especially in the uninformative opening. President is not enough, self-proclaimed president is better but needs elaboration, this article doesnt read well.

Pinochet was a Chilean general who seized power from Democratically elected Salvador Allende in 1979 in a US-backed military coup detat and was elected President of the Military Junta of Chile and estableshed himself as president after a plebicite in 1986 which is regarded as undemocratic, his regime is widely critized for human rights violations and is described as brutal by the media. In 1990 a second plebicite failed to extend his leadership into 1998 and fresh elecetons where held whom installed Patricio Aylwin with what is known in Chile as, "the return to democracy"

Okay hows that for a new introduction? Any comments? Corrections? Feedback?qrc2006/email 02:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

He was president of Chile and therefore this information must not be deleted. Comparing him to Allenede is completely irrelevant to this. Your introm is highly anti Pinochet and we cannot have that here because of WP:NPOV and just fairness and not taking sides, SqueakBox 02:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

he was not president of chile, he was president of a military junta after a coup d'etat and dont you forget it. I didnt compare him to allende, i compared him to his predicessor AND succesor, it doesnt matter who they were, but that they came to power much differantly. im not taking a side. what side? the only side im on is that of making this a better article, which says the truth, the whole truth, the verifiable truth, and where ALL points of view are included. and it is not irrelevant sir.

I agree with SqueakBox. The proposed intro also violates WP:WEASEL in using phrases such as "is regarded as undemocratic" (by who exactly?). Walton monarchist89 12:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Who exactly? hmm, the United Nations, the people of chile. the wording can be changed to "Widescale fraud was alleged" by no means were they widely welcomed as free elections. helf finding sources?

This is an incredible discussion. I wonder why people like QRC2006 try so hard to pass myths as history. Let's see, where to start? From previous contributions to this discussion I can see that by "democratically elected" there seems to be a consensus that an election must have taken place in some form for the elected person to be regarded as "validly elected". If so, the majority of the Presidents (or Supreme Directors) that ruled Chile before 1830 would not qualify (including O'Higgins, who was never elected by the way). Now, if by "election" we want to understand a "fair and free and representative" election, then none of the heads of state of Chile before 1920 would qualify, since study after study has proven that the buying and selling of votes and governmental intervention was the norm in those times, while more than 2 thirds of the population was simply disenfranchised (something not at all unusual in most of the world at the time either.) More to the point, if the election of 1980 was "regarded as undemocratic" (not by the UN, and definitely not by the people of Chile as a whole) then all the results from that vote would be spurious, and hence all subsequent actions stemming from that vote, totally void and null. Right? well, if we were to follow that argument that you seem to propound, then neither Aylwin nor any of the successors (including Bachelet) would be legal, since they are the legal defenders of the 1980 Constitution, and the 1980 election is the one that approved that constitution (still in place by the way), and Pinochet's election was just one of the "transitory articles" included in the text. Well, we could follow on and on... but I think you get my point. You cannot have your cake and eat it too, and that's definitely what you're trying to do with the recent Chilean history by swallowing whole all the anti-Pinochet propaganda. The man was no saint, but this is suppposed to be a balanced account of his actions, not political POVs. Mel Romero 02:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with Mel Romero, who has expressed my point much more clearly than I could have done. Fundamentally, it's not the job of Wikipedia to make a judgement as to how "good" Pinochet was, or whether or not he was a "dictator" - both of these are subjective judgements which violate WP:NPOV. Walton monarchist89 13:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

how is citing the overwealimg body of mass media who all call him dictator a NPOV issue. also the very definition of the word. and the fact that he came to power very differantly from his predecessor and successor who were both elected by popular vote. he was not, that election by popular vote is the method of gaining the presidency of chile in modern times.

It is technically correct to include both president and dictator in the intro. (JoeCarson 01:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC))

Removed links

If you find any of the following links necessary please discuss them here before readding them to the article. Please see WP:EL and WP:MOS-L. Also please remember that many of them are duplicates, some of them are in refs already (or should be in refs or nowhere) and one of them isn't link at all.:)--Pethr 04:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• TRAIL: Augusto Pinochet Ugarte
• Official Government Biography
• Pinochet's Chile (Washington Post)
• Augusto Pinochet Ugarte Foundation Template:Es icon
• Pinochet Real – For Supporters of General Pinochet Template:Es icon
• "The crimes of Augusto Pinochet" (History of the Human Rights abuses of the Military Dictatorship)
• Spartacus Educational Biography
• Timeline of Pinochet Prosecution (Amnesty International)
• Article: "Doubts Remain over Pinochet's Fate: Chile's 'antiquated penal code' could be his undoing"
• Reconcile Chile
• Valech report on political imprisonment and torture, November 2004 Template:Es icon
• BBC News report: "Banks accused over Pinochet cash"
• Remember Chile Begins
• George Washington University article
• Pinochet and Me by Allende's US translator Marc Cooper, ISBN 1-85984-360-3
• "Killer File" entry on Pinochet includes timeline and links
• Genealogy of Augusto Pinochet
• Guardian Obituary
• The Pinochet Precedent by Transnational Institute
• Pinochet - Dead, Never Convicted Reports and features by the news agency Inter Press Service
• "Augusto Pinochet: Obituary". The Economist. 2006-12-13. Retrieved 2007-01-09. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• "Augusto Pinochet: The Passing of a Tyrant". The Economist. 2006-12-13. Retrieved 2007-01-09. No ifs or buts. Whatever the general did for the economy, he was a bad man. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• Londregan, John (2006-12-25). "Don't Cry for Pinochet: Chile Succeeded Despite Him". New Weekly Standard. Retrieved 2007-01-09. We should not make the mistake of giving Pinochet credit for the economic achievements of millions of hard-working and enterprising Chileans, nor for the policies that got out of their way. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• Christopher, John (2006-12-11). "Augusto Pinochet, 1915–2006: Farewell to the Perpetrator of One of the Most Shocking Crimes of the 20th Century". Slate. Retrieved 2007-01-09. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Introduction

The current opening sentence reads like this:

'Augusto José Ramón Pinochet Ugarte (November 25, 1915-December 10, 2006) was a general and President of Chile. Pinochet led a military junta to power in 1973, through a coup d'état, deposing the democratically-elected Socialist President Salvador Allende and establishing a military government. In 1974, Pinochet appointed himself President and remained in power until 1990.

Stating that Chile was under siege by communist subversives, Pinochet implemented a series of security operations, with support from the United States and other South American military governments, in which (according to the Rettig Report) around 3,000 suspected or known dissidents and leftists were killed, and (according to the Valech Report) around 30,000 more were tortured. He later implemented economic reforms which his supporters credit with the development of the robust modern Chilean economy and his opponents identify with large increases in unemployment, poverty and decline in real wages, with little effect on longterm economic performance.

At the time of his death in 2006, around 300 criminal charges in Chile were still pending against Pinochet for human rights abuses and embezzlement during his rule. Pinochet remains a polarizing figure in many parts of the world, dividing people who condemn him for human rights abuses and for taking power from a democratically elected government, from those who credit him with stabilizing Chile and preventing a Communist takeover.

Undoubtedly this needs to be cleaned up, to eliminate all POVs and falsehoods. I would like to point out just the most blatant ones to pave the way to a common ground:

a) Pinochet led a military junta to power in 1973, through a coup d'état. All credible sources agree that Pinochet (notwithstanding his own memoirs) was not a leader of the coup. If there were any real leaders, they were Admiral Merino and General Leigh. He was just forced to join the conspiracy two days before it happened, under threat of being superseded and pushed aside.

b) In 1974, Pinochet appointed himself President. That is not so. He was appointed by the Military Junta as a whole, under a joint decree. True, he participated of the junta, and true he may have forced the issue, but from that to appointing himself, there's a long way.

c) Stating that Chile was under siege by communist subversives, Pinochet implemented a series of security operations, with support from the United States and other South American military governments, in which (according to the Rettig Report) around 3,000 suspected or known dissidents and leftists were killed, and (according to the Valech Report) around 30,000 more were tortured. This definitely needs to be rewriten. It is mixing the events of the Condor Plan (supported by the US) with the internal crack-down on leftists within Chile (who was home-brew). This is disinformation at its best.

d) He later implemented economic reforms which his supporters credit with the development of the robust modern Chilean economy and his opponents identify with large increases in unemployment, poverty and decline in real wages, with little effect on longterm economic performance. Again, the man was no saint, but the supporters and opponents points of view on a technical matter is really irrelevant. What it should point out is the point of view of the international economic studies (of a technical nature) on the topic. On those studies, the consensus is that the present Chilean Economy is a direct result of the measures implemented during his tenure, and that overall, his economic management was sound. Mel Romero 02:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd encourage you to go on and write some draft here on the talk page of a) and b). However I think that c) and d) is sourced pretty well - Condor Plan was implemented in the Chile with some int. involvement and economic success is disputed. Please remember that you need good sources, otherwise others won't approve intro change.--Pethr 02:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

To User: Pethr. I think you missed the correction that I was trying to make in relation with point 3 (it was badly written anyway, so no surprise there.) I am NOT saying that there were no killings or tortures during the military government, or that the same happened under the Condor plan. What I am saying is that (at least for Chile) the figures indicated in the text are representative of the internal represion of leftist parties by the military, NOT to be confused with the people who suffered under Condor Plan, who in Chile were in the range of maybe 500. There is a need to be precise and separate both figures, because while Condor plan most certainly (though not conclusively) was supported by the US, the internal repression may have been condoned but was not supported. You may think this a moot point, but the objectives of both repressions were quite different. Condor plan was primarily an effort to stop leftist parties for undermining the status quo in Latin America, while Chile's internal repression was aimed at securing the military government AND expunging leftist ideologies from the country. One point that most everyone who handles this article seems willing to highlight is probably the single most controversial one: whether there was or not US support for the 1973 coup. As someone pointed out before, there's abundant information on how the US tried to bring down Allende and failed, but not a single document has emerged so far to even indicate that the 1973 coup had US (or foreign) support prior to its happening. That is why these differences must be kept in sight. On the economy I am sorry to be totally in disagreement with you. The only ones who dispute the economic success do so on political terms and not on technical ones. The best proof is that after 18 years of democratic governments (former opposition to Pinochet) his economic model continues to function virtually intact. Mel Romero 05:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Mel for elaborating more on this. As far as I know, internal crack down on leftish activists etc. was indeed part of Operation Condor. I've never read anything drawing line between those two. Condor was plan that was executed in some Latin American countries sometimes with international cooperation involved. This needs to be sourced well. I think that cited reports somewhat support my view but I don't want to study that right now. U.S. involvement is different matter. There is great doubt about U.S. involvement in the coup and this information has been repeatedly removed from article because of this. On the other hand there is evidence that U.S. contributed at least technically to the OC. There was also onetime payment to the Chilean chief of inteligence service which was downplayed as mistake and there are other things like Kissinger's (DOS/WH) approval of OC while slightly warning about human rights abuses at the same time. I agree that the U.S. role is sometimes exagerated but not in this case. The U.S. are implicated only when they should be. I don't know much about Chilean economic policy but please be careful with this. Generally I agree with you but there is a little more to all of it.--Pethr 22:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Mel Romero's points. This article is on a very controversial topic, and he should try to keep the introduction as POV-free and factual as possible. I propose the following:

Augusto José Ramón Pinochet Ugarte (25 November 1915–10 December 2006) was a general and President of Chile.

In 1973, Pinochet particioated in a coup d'état that deposed the democratically-elected Socialist President Salvador Allende and established a military junta. In 1974, the junta appointed Pinochet president by a joint decree. He remained in power until 1990.

Stating that Chile was under siege by communist subversives, Pinochet implemented a series of security operations in which (according to the Rettig Report) around 3,000 suspected or known dissidents and leftists were killed, and (according to the Valech Report) around 30,000 more were tortured. He later implemented economic reforms which are credited with the recovery from the hyperinflation which came during Allende's presidency and the development of the robust modern Chilean economy, although this is disputed by his opponents.

At the time of his death in 2006, around 300 criminal charges in Chile were still pending against Pinochet for alleged human rights abuses and embezzlement during his rule. Pinochet remains a polarizing figure in many parts of the world, dividing people who condemn him for human rights abuses and for taking power from a democratically elected government, from those who credit him with stabilizing Chile and preventing a Communist takeover.

Alright, now 5 questions:

1-why does it justify Pinochet in every bad action? (or reports such as Valech or Rettig recieve the bias treatment: "according to...", almost questionning the reports, when no one in Chile has ever dared questioning any of them seriously).

2-why are bad actions minimized to basic footnotes? (the rigg bank scandal, for example).

3-why is the united states not mentioned?, they provided much aid through the CIA.

4-what is this myth about the "communist takeover", the cold ended more than a decade ago, there is huge evidence that clearly shows that Allende at no point of his goverment ever planned any take over, with "Plan Z" now widely being regarded as a forgery (the document itself is just one page long).

5-pinochet was president?, its nice to see wikipedia siding with every pinochet supporter out there (nazis included), when it was all too clear that although the constitution he created, for the elections he rigged, sayd "president", he was a dictator.

The answer of course its as simple as that the article is not NPOV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.215.168.240 (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Au contraire. What you are trying to do is give this article a pro-Allende and anti-Pinochet bias. The article is very neutral as it is. I will answer your objections one by one:

1. The only way to be NPOV is to write "according to" when we refer to any source, including the Valech and Rettig reports. It is a flat-out lie that nobody has questions the report, I can name more than a few people of the top of my head (of course, you'll dismiss them as crazy Nazi pinochetists). That people think the Valech and Rettig reports are not the complete truth means Wikipedia must, because of its NPOV policy, add "according to" when refering to the reports.

2. What you call "bad actions" are not minimized; there is ample coverage of the financial scandals and allegations throughout the article, including the introduction. Overexpanding on these "bad actions" is giving the article an anti-Pinochet bias.

3. The United States is mentioned extensively, even more so in the individual articles on the coup. What you are trying to do again is to give the article your own bias against Pinochet. I must point out the coup would've occured with or without CIA complicity given the widespread anger against Allende's policies.

4. The "myth" about the communist takeover is a legitimate point of view that many Chileans adhere to, including myself. Given the terrorist acts of far left groups such as the MIR, the declarations of the Socialist Party conventions which called for an armed struggle, the support by Castro for a takeover, the supprot by many left-wingers for a coup is good proof to me. One of the most important Chilean historians today, Gonzalo Vial, has compared the text of Plan Z (which is not one page long at all, more like 10 pages) to be most likely authentic, given that its strategies are very similar to the plans for a takeover by the Socialist Party, the MAPU, and the MIR.

5. Yes, Pinochet was a Chilean president whether you like it or not. The current government recognizes him as such, as we will go down in history as such. Wikipedia MUST be NPOV, so if we call Fidel Castro president we must call Pinochet president. Castro has never been democratically elected either. There is also no proof whatsoever that the 1980 plebiscite was rigged except for "nobody could support a dictator like Pinochet, he couldn't possibly have won, so it must be rigged". The polling agency CEP took surveys in the late 1980's where people were asked how they had voted in the 1980 plebiscite. The majority said they voted for the "Yes" option, and the survey results were very close to the official results of the plebiscite. Marmaduque 19:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Pinochet was president and he wasn't. The definition of president for Allende and his predecessors followed a pattern and definition. Pinochet did not come to power the same way, so that definition of president does not apply to him. Pinochet was president under the definition of president between 1974 and 1990 which only he held the title too. Then a third type came after 1990, very similar to pre 1973, which follows the legitimate understanding and definition of a president in a democracy as did the pre 1973 definition. The Pinochet definition of president was in fact a euphanism for dictator but he was in charge and called it what he wanted to. I think we can all agree on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.129.168.31 (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Economic Policy

It's bad style to continue writing Chicago Boys when the government, Pinochet, etc. could also be used. Also, the language of this section was heavily biased against Pinochet and misleading. We should avoid POV terms and phrases like "devastated" and "horrible economic policy" for example. Also, economic indicators and benchmarks mean nothing out of context. Understanding the economy of Chile before Pinochet is a prerequisite for understanding it under Pinochet. (JoeCarson 13:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC))

This is especially true, because of the ongoing controversy over the propriety of Pinochet's CIA-backed coup rests to a great degree on the economic performance of Allende's socialism vs. Pinochet's reforms. Cuba's health system is a similar benchmark, with fans and foes making contradictory claims. (See Healthcare in Cuba). --Uncle Ed 11:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV introduction?

In reading the introduction, I get the feeling that this article is very POV. Phrases like "saving Chile from the hands of international communism" and "communist subversives" could be considered subversive. I get the feeling that these are perhaps quotes and should be indicated as such. Due to the activity around this article, I have not added the {{NPOV}} tag. Should someone?

128.42.157.209 04:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that part of the intro sounds POV. We could just qualify it with, "Pinochet and his supporters believed Chile was under siege..."

(JoeCarson 14:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC))

In case you guys didn't notice someone rewrote the entire article in a specifically POV way. I've reverted it. - DNewhall 21:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I did not notice that. Thanks for pointing it out.—69.61.172.149 22:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC) (same as 128.42.157.209)

Neo-Nazi

Why wasn't this article included in the category of neo-Nazis? I read in the book "Is fascism dead of alive?" that Pinochet explicitly praised Hitler and Mein Kampf and other neo-fascist leaders like Le Pen are also fans of Pinochet.

He may have expressed praise for Hitler (I've never heard that) but his policies were quite different from the Nazis and other fascist groups.JoeCarson 14:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

not really, he killed and tortured many people, on a smaller scale and not jews/gypsies/gays/etc but just as brutal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.129.168.31 (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

While I don't find it hard to believe that Pinochet would praise Hitler, the claim will require a source. No matter how much Pinochet disgusted me, we can't just take your word for it. So go on, give us a source, THEN we'll see what we can do about the "Neo Nazi" thing. 172.212.94.23 14:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Pinochet's Legacy

Not much credit is given to Pinochet on the economic level. The Economist which is no friend of Pinochet's has said that he was a brutal dictator but that many of his policies helped Chile's economy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.3.115.36 (talk • contribs).

Opinion on Pinochet's economic policies is split. Many think that he helped the Chilean economy by making it business-friendly and efficient but many others think he hurt it by helping widen the divide between rich and poor and causing unemployment. - DNewhall 04:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

His reforms greatly benefited the élite of Chile and those whom they did business with, that's rather undisputed, but whether it trickled very far down is another story.

Pinochet and the Soviet Union

Did Chile sever relations with the U.S.S.R., or did the U.S.S.R. sever relations with Chile? 71.193.93.176 23:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The USSR broke relations with Chile (as also did Cuba and the Eastern Block countries) before the end of September 1973. Probably, given more time, the break would have been initiated by the military government, but that is not certain since the military mantained diplomatic relations with China. --Mel Romero 06:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

k, thanks. Josh 22:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

economics section POV tag

I've added a POV tag to this section. This section should foremostly be a summary of material that is to be presented in Chile_under_Pinochet#Economy__and_Free_Market_reforms. What and when policies were enacted, some economic indicators, and some rudimentary discussion of how these policies were recieved, that is what to be added in this article. The current discussion on poverty, which I left in, is one-sided (doesn't even have page numbers), and probably more suitable for the main article. Intangible2.0 03:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Diactator Pinochet

Personally, I don't mind 'dictator' being added to the opening sentence (since AP was a dictator). However, Wikpedia clearly (in other dictator bio articles) chooses not to use the word. Why is this article being made the exception? What makes the Chilean example more prominant then other examples (of dictatorship)? Please, remove the 'word' OR add it to all the others. There can be no double-standard. GoodDay 23:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've brought my concerns to WPBPG, to see what the Project calls for. GoodDay 17:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The vast consenus of the global and chilean media and the very definition of the word dictator make Pinochet a dictator, this point of view should be espressed in the article. All articles don't have to follow the same rules. IMHO i.e. Hugo Chávez is not a dictator, but i strongly believe it should be mentioned that some people chose to label him as such and why. All points of view should be included in wikipedia. Now having said that if those articles do not use the D word and this one does i am going to cite Wikipedia:Ignore all rules as rationale.71.142.91.34 01:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Most pointedly Adolf Hitler doesn't have the 'D-word', if any bio article should (have the D-word) it's that one. GoodDay 15:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, Adolf Hitler was elected in generally free elections.Cholga 18:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

He was ELECTED freely, but mantained his hold on power with dictatorial methods.

So that says to me that the Hitler article would most neutrally state, A.H. was a democratically elected president of Germany who later extended his rule through dictatorial methods or somthing such as that. But that is better decided by those interested in the AH article not here. This should be case by case and IMHO all people considered dictators should me mentioned as being so framed, by whom, when, and for what purpose. All persons widely considered dictators by the media and public opinion should also be duly noted, Internationally independant witnesses clearly have determined Pinochet was a dictator. It should be very clear, because President is an oversimplification. He did not become president in the same manner as his predecessor nor sucessor, so stating president is misleading. The definition of presidents before him and the new definition of presidents after him should be clarified from the type of President he was. That would be the most neutral. Sure there was one plebisite, who's ever heard of a president who is elected by one prebisite which is internationally critizied as being undemocratic. Even if most people chose him, they may have done so under fear or their votes may have been bought or scared into. The common layperson definition of president does not conform with Pinochet's acctions and therefore should be clarified in the opening statments that his rule was disimuilar to this. Not mentioning his regime as a dictatorship, even if this is reported as the opinion of an overwealming majority and not the neutral observation of wikipedia editors is necessisary because in this manner readers are not conditioned into thinking he was a freeley elected leader in the common perception of what a president and president of chile is/are/does. Does that make sense?Cholga^talK! 00:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

AMEN!. Excuse me by me awful english, but I'm chilean and I can say that Augusto Pichochet Hiriart was a DICTATOR. He and his goverment violated human rights. --Lady Kya (talk) 13:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

All rulers should be introduced with their official titles. The article can subsequently add how they got into power and cite sources that proclaim him/her a "dictator" or whatever other unofficial title. I doubt your claim that "internationnaly independent witnesses" have proclaimed him a dictator, such claims are invariably made by leftist, leftist sympathizers, or people who just repeat what leftists have said without actually researching the matter on their own. Pinochet won two referendums. While the first admittedly did not allow for political campaigning, the second did and they results have never been challenged with actual evidence. The argument always seems to be "Pinochet couldn't possibly have won the election so me must have commited fraud." Also remember that the Chilean Chamber of Deputies, which represents the Chilean people, actualled called for the coup in 1973. So it would definitely be POV to immediately state Pinochet was a dictator. If you must, state that some consider him a dictator in the article or better yet the reader decide whether Pinochet was a dictator. Marmaduque 01:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you find a reliable source that says he was not a dictator? I've checked Microsoft Encarta, Columbia Encyclopedia, Britannica, and other encyclopedias and they all say he was a dictator, established a dictatorship, or something similiar. Wikipedia should not be any different than other real encyclopedias. Vints 13:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

A source which argues that Pinochet isn't a dictator is almost by definition an opinion piece and will not really serve as a "reliable source", therefore you are asking for something impossible. I can tell you that many very reliable sources DO NOT call Pinochet a dictator. See El Mercurio for example, the Chilean newspaper of record and much more reliable in this case then international encyclopedias. Check any neutral history book made in Chile, they will never refer to Pinochet as a dictator. Neutral Chilean sources are much better than international sources and much more suited to make this kind of judgements. Wikipedia should NOT strive to be exactly like Britannica or others, that is EXACTLY what makes Wikipedia unique. "Dictator" is a very loaded term that should NOT be used in any article unless it was the official title of a ruler. Let the reader decide for him or herself whether someone is a dictator. Marmaduque 21:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

They are many NPOV sources from a variety of supports which qualifies Pinochet as a dictator. They are no guidelines in Wikipedia prohibiting the use of this term. Henceforth, calling the examples of other articles only show that such arguments may be raised for any dictator, as all of them still find their supporters. However, if the distinction between a democracy and a dictatorship is to keep some sense in Wikipedia as in the real world, then I don't see how we can do without it. Tazmaniacs 12:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

To Marmaduque's argument that "dictator is a very loaded term that should NOT be used in any article unless it was the official title of a ruler", well, that is your argument and is not supported by any Wikipedia guidelines. Bring it to discuss in such a place; in the time being, "terrorist" is also a loaded term, but we correctly use it without problems for Hamas or Red Brigades. Tazmaniacs 12:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy of NPOV supports my argument that these kind of loaded terms should not be used. Regarding terrorists, while it is admittedly a loaded term, is different because there are official lists of terrorist groups published by the United States and European governments. There is no such "list of dictators" compiled by an official source, and the Chilean government certainly does not call Pinochet a dictator but rather his official title of President and General of the Army. And if we are going to agree to label Pinochet a dictator, I demand that Fidel Castro, Adolf Hitler, Hugo Chávez, Francisco Franco, Carlos Ibáñez, Jorge Videla, Alberto Fujimori, Juan Velasco Alvarado, Pervez Musharraf, Bernardo O'Higgins, Alfredo Stroessner, Humberto de Alencar Castello Branco, Fulgencio Batista, Mao Zedong, Islom Karimov, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, Idi Amin, Jean-Bédel Bokassa, Mobutu Sese Seko, Omar Bongo, Gnassingbé Eyadéma, Saddam Hussein, Mengistu Haile Mariam, etc., also be referred to as dictators in their article's introduction. It's only fair. Marmaduque 20:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV policy does not prohibit the distinction between a democracy & a dictatorship. His official title most certainly was President & General of the Army (after being head of the military junta), but he is also considered by scholarly sources and main-stream press, worldwide, as a dictator. If your only argument to not stating that Pinochet was a dictator, as supported by WP:RS, is that such a fact is not stated for other famous dictators, well you might start trying to find another line of argumentation. Please do add that Castro, Hitler, Franco, Videla, Zedong, etc. were dictators, including RS of course. Again, there is no policy excluding the term of "Dictator" from Wikipedia. Tazmaniacs 15:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Given the inherently POV nature of the word "dictator", why not opt for the simplest solution and let the reader dice whether Pinochet is a dictator? This is the solution most in line with Wikipedia's policy! Marmaduque 00:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Several Wikipedia bios already have the word "dictator" in the lead. With your way of arguing one could say, either remove all the occurances of the term on Wikipedia or add it to this article. Vints 06:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, MOST of the biographies of dictators in Wikipedia don't use the word dictator. Just see the articles I mentioned above. The easiest solution is to delete that word from the small handful of articles that use it. Marmaduque 20:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

In the absence of any guidelines concerning the use of the term "dictator" in Wikipedia, you are not entitled to decide on yourself whether it is, or not, appropriate to use this word in Wikipedia. Since Pinochet is refered to as a dictator by historians, the BBC, CNN, the International Federation of Human Rights, La Nacion and El Pais, Wikipedia should call him what he is. It is not to the "reader to decide" if he was, or not, a dictator, since this is not a subjective appreciation, but an objective fact. A dictatorship is different from a democracy (thanks Captain Obvious!). Tazmaniacs 15:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I have never stated a dictatorship is the same as a democracy. Wikipedia does have a NPOV policy and we should adhere to it as much as possible. That includes not using the word dictator unless that was the ruler's official title. The reader of the article can come to his own conclusions based on unbiased information. Why is that so difficult to understand? Why do you insist on imposing your own viewpoint on Pinochet? Dictator is an extremely loaded term and there will be conflicts in many other talk pages about whether to label someone as a dictator. Was O'Higgins a dictator? How about Mohammed Reza Pahlavi? Ayatollah Khamenei? Mikhail Gorbachov? Hugo Chávez? "Dictator" is almost always a subjective term. And I insist, why not opt for the simplest solution and let the reader decide? (BTW, La Nacion is the government newspaper, very biased it its reporting and far from a reliable source. It is very revealing that the two most respected newspapers in Chile, El Mercurio and La Tercera do NOT label Pinochet a dictator). Marmaduque 17:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV policy does not includes censorship of the word "dictator". Tazmaniacs 20:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It has in every other article on Wikipedia about dictators, see Fidel Castro. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

So? There is no Wikipedia guideline censoring the use of this term. Tazmaniacs 20:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

For a long time, it was a word to avoid ... but tell me, if I were to change my mind, would you argue the same thing over on the Castro article? Just curious. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

TDC is right, in Wikipedia dictator is a word usually avoided. But Tazmaniacs does not seem to understand the huge edit fights that will occur if we decide to label people dictators. I mentioned a few examples above already. Is it worth the trouble when the simplest and most NPOV choice is not to go around calling people dictators? Let the readers form their own opinions! Marmaduque 23:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

First, the discussion here concerns Pinochet, not other dictators — and to satisfy your curiosity, TDC, yes, I would support calling Castro a dictator. The reason is simple: this issue is not a subjective one of "letting the reader form his opinion", as being a dictator is not subjected to different opinions. It is an objective fact, which can be measured according to various standards agreed upon by all political scientists. One can not at the same time, as Marmaduque does, argue that he recognizes the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship, and claim that the perception of what constitutes a dictatorship and what doesn't is something subjective. Suspending the Constitution, withholding reliable elections, establishing a military junta, detaining (and murdering) people without judgment is certainly not something you encounter in the United States or in West Germany. That's all the differences between a democracy and a dictatorship. It is not a left-right matter, as they are dictatorship which claims themselves socialists (Castro and "real socialism") and others that claim themselves anti-Communists. Tazmaniacs 16:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You are ignoring the point. This article cannot be unique: if we label Pinochet a dictator, we must also label other dictators as such. And there WILL be huge edit fights that will never be resolved. Dictator is not an objective label. Was Abraham Lincoln, for example, a dictator for suspending habeas corpus? How about Bernardo O'Higgins, who exiled people who disagreed with him and never allowed free and fair elections? All of the 19th century Chilean presidents participated in large-scale electoral fraud and intervention and detained oponents. Will all of them be called dictators as well? Allende himself was accused by the Supreme Court, the Chamber of Deputies, and the Comptroller General of violating and ignoring the Constitution, he committed fraud in the 1973 parliamentary elections, and allowed his followers to attack, torture, and even kill his opponents. Sounds dictatorial to me. Detaining people without judgement was widespread in Chile before Pinochet, and even torture was occasionally committed by supposedly "democratic" authorities. The distinction between democracy and dictatorship is not as clear cut as you think it is, and label Pinochet a dictator will not only violate NPOV rules but create numerous, never-ending arguments in other talk pages. Marmaduque 17:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not ignoring your argument. The simple fact is, if you want to discuss about the use of "dictator" in Wikipedia, the Talk page of Pinochet is not the place. A debate elsewhere has been lifted, and no consensus has been reached. Thus, there is no reason not to use the word, especially where it is appropriate, which includes this page. If you want to label other dictators as such, I fully agree with you — but this is not the place to argue about Bernardo O'Higgins, Abraham Lincoln or Salvador Allende. Nor about Fidel Castro, Mao or whoever you can think of. Tazmaniacs 19:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I wonder about single use account which, over and over, delete exactly the same part of the lead. Maybe the user(s) should think about taking an account, it would be more helpful. Thank you, Tazmaniacs 19:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps one of those IPs could've been me forgetting to log in. I apologize for that. My point basically is that "dictator" is an extremely loaded term with very negative connotations, almost inherently POV, and that will create a very biased shadow over the rest of the article. In absence of a policy on the word, considering the NPOV rules and the fact that other loaded terms are mostly avoided, I think the label "dictator" should be completely avoided until a definitive Wikipedia policy is created. I agree, this is not the place to argue about the abovementioned potential dictators, but all I'm saying is that this article cannot be the exception, that other dictators will also need to be labeled as such if we decide to call Pinochet a dictator, and that the result will be never-ending discussions and edit fights. All of this can be easily avoided by letting the reader decide whether to consider someone a dictator. It's the simplest and most NPOV decision. Marmaduque 20:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Again and again, a dictatorship is not a subjective fact to let the reader decide upon, but an objective fact which can be ascertained, and, in the relevant case here, is ascertained by a number of sources. The "label 'dictator'" will be censored on Wikipedia if you succeed in having the majority of Wikipedians accept to issue such a policy. As of now, it is not the case. CQFD. Tazmaniacs 11:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Dictator is a subjective word, which is why articles like List of dictators have been deleted. I have given numerous examples above of rulers that do not neatly fit into the category of dictator. Wikipedia has censored NPOV terms such as terrorist. Dictator is equally NPOV and, unless it's an official title, it should not be used. Marmaduque 22:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I consider George Bush a dictator, because he operates beyond any checks & balances, but Wikipedia isn't the place to call him one. It is a colorful word that doesn't belong here. Wikipedia is where we post facts that show that Bush and Pinochet were bad guys. I support Marmaduque in purging the word from this article, and not out of any feeling of love for the old bastard Pinochet. xod 00:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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.”"

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" ([9], [10], 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 [[::User:Veritatis splendor|Veritatis splendor]] ([[::User talk:Veritatis splendor|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Veritatis splendor|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 Template:En icon
  • Larry Rohter, Colonel's Death Gives Clues to Pinochet Arms Deals, The New York Times, 19 June 2006 Template:En icon

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)