Talk:Augusto Pinochet

Not neutral

If Castro being described a dictator qualifies as POV, then calling Pinochet a dictator, is also POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.146.137 (talk) 12:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Pinochet removed a President who was himself a dictator as he intentionally violated the county’s constitution and ignored its elected house and court. It was simply a military Dictator replacing an elected one (let’s not forget Hitler was also an elected dictator). As to Castro, he took control of the government by military force because he didn’t like the constitution, not because it wasn’t being followed. He then installed himself for life, something Pinochet did not do. Castro is truly a dictator and to deny that is absurd.

It's sad that wiki makes Castro, who murdered tens of thousands of Cubans, out to be almost a hero but treats Pinochet, who killed far less of his citizens and completely returned his county to a prosperous nation, as evil incarnate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.79.15.102 (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

This article is not neutral, he was a dictator, not a president. --190.164.177.56 (talk) 08:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

He was both. The article explains that. Raymond Dundas (talk) 08:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

If he wasn't president but dictator (no problem with it), same should be indicated under Fidel Castro ( but it isn't... strange, isn't it? ) --194.203.215.254 (talk) 08:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Fidel Castro follows a constitution democratically ratified approved by the Cuban Population by a national referendum on February 15, 1976, Pinochet didn't. CmrdMariategui 22:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Which does not imply that Castro is not a dictator. Democratically established constitution is completely compatible with dictatorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bungimail (talk • contribs) 02:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Per the irrelevant matter of Castro, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS & WP:OTHERCRAP.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 02:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Firstly the links you provided are about whether articles should be included or not included in wikipedia, not about the treatment of subject matter. The treatment of political subject matter should be consistent over the encyclopedia. Otherwise the claim of NPOV does not make sense. You cannot apply one set of logic to your favored people and another set to people you hate. Its not fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.177.112 (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The title of this section could not have been chosen better. The article about Pinochet is certainly and by no means neutral. There are too many partial statements that should be supported by facts. One of them is for example about the death of president Allende: "The cause of his death is disputed". This is probably true, but in Chile there is currently a consensus, even amongst his supporters, that he commited suicide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.72.246.178 (talk) 20:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

"US-Backed Coup"

Why not make this simpler? The CIA's own website implies that the US supported the 1973 coup - assuming that helping the plotters collect intelligence equates to "support" - The website reads: "Although CIA did not instigate the coup that ended Allende’s government on 11 September 1973, it was aware of coup-plotting by the military, had ongoing intelligence collection relationships with some plotters, and—because CIA did not discourage the takeover and had sought to instigate a coup in 1970—probably appeared to condone it." [1]. Moreover, to pretend, as the wikipedia article does, that the 1975 Church Report is the definitive authority, while ignoring all of the information that has been released since then, is absurd. And the wiki article even misrepresents the Church Report! The latter states, "There is no hard evidence of direct U.S. assistance to the coup, despite frequent allegations of such aid." This is quite different from the article's assertion that "there is no evidence" of U.S. support. Another thought: wikipedia always seems to lock those articles that are most demonstrably wrong. What's the purpose of locking a website without clearing away the obvious trash within it?

[Erik Mears, 13 Oct 2010] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.213.78 (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

There has been a lot of to-ing and fro-ing over whether or not the 1973 coup was "US-Backed", prompted by this article on the Harry's Place blog. In it the author, Michael Ezra, expresses his exasperation at the use of the phrase "US-Backed" to describe the 1973 coup that brought Pinochet to power. As evidence that the US did not back the 1973 coup, Ezra quotes the 1975 Church Report:

Was the United States DIRECTLY involved, covertly, in the 1973 coup in Chile? The Committee has found no evidence that it was. (Link)

It is worthwhile to point out the same report details evidence that the US supported a failed coup in 1970, expressly ordered by President Nixon, by supplying weapons to chilean army officers. It also details support given to various right-wing organisations, such as $12.3m spent on election 'propaganda' and $1.65m spent on propping up a right-wing newspaper, "El Mercurio". Another interesting piece of information is that in 1964, the CIA gave $2.6m in campaign finance to the Christian Democrat party. As the report notes:

Covert American activity was a factor in almost every major election in Chile in the decade between 1963 and 1973.

In fact the whole report is very interesting for people wishing to learn more about US involvement in Chile.

However, posters have been repeatedly re-inserting the claim that the 1973 coup was backed by the US, most recently by IANVS here. IANVS also puts 7 footnotes to support the claim that the 1973 coup was "US-Backed". I shall go through them and demonstrate why they actually do not support the "US-backed" claim:

1. Link one goes to http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch18-01.htm, which is the opening page of a series of cables dated 1970 from the US Embassy in Chile (written by Ambassador Edward Korry) to the Secretary of State, announcing Allende's win in the election that year, and the policy implications of that result. While candid, I cannot find anything in the linked front page (or any of the other, unlinked pages) that discusses US sponsoring of a coup in 1973.
2. Link two goes to http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch01-01.htm, which is a 17 page report dated 18 November 1970 on "Chilean Task Force Activities". It reviews action taken during the course of the election campaign by the US to prevent Allende obtaining power. While it discusses a potential military coup, it notes that this option was ultimately unfruitful. Again, there is no discussion of a coup in 1973.
3. Link three goes to PINOCHET: A Declassified Documentary Obit, which is an opening page for a series of declassified documents detailing a variety of topics in Chile, including US support for the Pinochet regime. Every single document linked from this page dates from after the coup (which was on 11 September 1973), the earliest is dated 13 September 1973 (although the document says 26 September 1973), which was a message from the US to the Junta welcoming their rise to power.
4. Link four goes to Chile and the United States: Declassified Documents relating to the Military Coup, 1970-1976, which is a page with links to a variety of documents. It sounds initially more promising. Unfortunately, all the documents are dated after the 1973 coup, except for a small handful which pertain to the botched 1970 coup. There are no documents dated in the years 1971 or 1972 or before 11 September in 1973, which presumably would have to exist if a coup were to be planned.
5. Link five goes to http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch27-01.htm, which link four describes as "Cable Transmissions on Coup Plotting". It is dated 18 October 1970. It discusses secret shipments of weapons, but this appears to be again part of the botched 1970 coup, which was cancelled in link two.
6. Link six goes to http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch05-01.htm, which link four describes as "Operating Cable Guidance on Coup Plotting". It is dated 16 October 1970. It juicily declares "it is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup. It would be much preferable to have this transpire on 24 October but efforts in this regard will continue beyond this date." However, it gives absolutely no detail on any plots that might happen in 1973, 3 years in the future. It is instructions given to CIA operatives in 1970 but not evidence of any coup attempt in 1973.
7. Footnote seven has no link, and bizarrely cites the Church report which Ezra quoted above as declaring that there is no evidence to the claim that the US supported the 1973 coup. This is categorically not evidence in favour of the 1973 coup. As I note above also, it supports the 1970 coup claims.

So to conclude, none of these footnotes provide any evidence of US coup plotting or even "US-Backing" to a coup attempt in 1973. There is plenty of evidence to show that the US attempted a coup in 1970. It seems that IANVS has got his or her history slightly muddled and confused the two.

The point of this is to put all the evidence down in front of everybody so that we can reduce silly edit wars and 3RR violations. Hopefully it will achieve its aim. -- yoctobarryc ⁂ ☎ 15:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I am always suspicious of multiple references for a fact. One good reference is sufficient and multiple poor references do not compensate for this. It may be that the U. S. backed the coup but we need sources to support that. So I would ask other editors to find these sources. If there are sources that some writers believe the U. S. backed the coup, we may add that opinion as well. TFD (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Good Article Debate

Article is really good, and I suggest it be nominated under good article criteria. Please state whether you suport or oppose the precedent. Thanks.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Communist propaganda

This article is clearly written from Communist Point of View. Communist Point of View is clearly not the same as Neutral Point of View. It contains lots of defamatory material against Pinochet and does not mention crimes and murders committed by communist terrorists against Pinochet's supporters. Please change, as whenever I am correcting, some communist propagandists revert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.89.170.22 (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I semi-protected this article for 3 days because an anonymous editor, perhaps yourself, kept reverting to their own preferred version without discussion here. Please outline your specific objection to specific pieces of text, and your preferred alternatives, and outline your reasons for each change, with reliable sources. We can look at each point individually and make changes as agreed. Franamax (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

IP85 (who is also the blocked sockpuppet User talk:217.113.225.18), the conservative National Review, which you keep on removing is hardly "communist". Also please read WP:3RR as you've gone 5RR in a matter of minutes and reverted 5 different editors (who have reverted your Wp:POV insertions) over 10 + times.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Did I say 3 days? This time I mean 3 weeks. Franamax (talk) 05:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

@Franamax - well that simply proves you are a communist vandal if you block the article instead of removing the blatant communist propaganda and defamation85.89.170.22 (talk) 01:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)