Jump to content

Talk:Augusto Pinochet: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 813: Line 813:
:::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.
:::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 the iron man of the Chilean army, [[René Schneider]], 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.
:::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:
:::Regarding your four points:

Revision as of 20:27, 20 July 2006

Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4

POV edits I've been reverting and why

  • I've slightly reworked the reason the House of Lords used to extradite him. It previously said he could be extradited to Spain only to face charges of crimes committed after the UK signed the Torture Convention in 1988, which is false. The House of Lords decision was that he could only face charges for crimes after the UK incorporated the Torture Convention (which it had signed years before 1988) into UK law via the 1988 Criminal Justice Act. I have amended it accordingly.
  • removing Marxist and replacing with Socialist: this is a POV omission, it might be most informative to say Marxist Socialist Party of Chile or some such.
  • adding "dubious" to "a dubious referendum" is completely true, but POV, find another way to phrase it such as mentioning a first or third-party's assessment of the referendum.
  • removing "but five of his military bodyguards were killed." is unnecessary and definitely POV.

I don't disagree fundamentally with these edits, but you have to find a better NPOV way.

Daniel Quinlan 23:29, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Cantus, please justify the continual POV attempts you are making to this article. It's not like the article portrays him as a nice man, I don't see the need to keep trying to tweak it with your POV. Daniel Quinlan 04:57, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
As a specific example, Cantus gives this edit summary: ("In 1980 a new constitution was approved in a highly irregular and undemocratic plebiscite" -- From The US Library of Congress' Country Studies: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/cltoc.html). I don't find that precise quotation on the website (I followed the link for "The 1980 Constitution"). Even if it's on there somewhere, though, simply asserting this view without attribution (except in the edit summary) is POV. What I do find on the site is a somewhat cursory discussion of the 1980 referendum, stating, for example, "Because there were no safeguards for the opposition or for the balloting, most analysts expressed doubts about the government's percentage and assumed that the constitution may have won by a lesser margin."
I suggest this approach: In the passage here at issue, in the lead section, we refer only to a "controversial" plebiscite or some such. More elaboration could come at the point in the article where 1980 falls chronologically. Either at the end of "Suppression of opposition" or at the beginning of "End of the Pinochet regime", there could be a paraphrase or direct quotation from the Library of Congress site, with a proper attribution. We might well be able to find a notable spokesperson (opposition leader, international human rights activist, or some such) to go beyond the cautious wording that there "may" have been "a lesser margin" and who would instead come right out and say that the election was stolen. It would be misleading to refer to a 1980 plebiscite while remaining silent about the objections to it, but the current version is too dogmatic. JamesMLane 07:09, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment on latest edits: As indicated above, I don't agree with the wording inserted by Cantus. I do agree with his latest edit summary, however, in which he says that the criticisms of the 1980 referendum aren't made clear in the text absent what he inserted. My take on it is that Daniel Quinlan's edit suppresses the criticism completely, while Cantus's states one opinion as a fact. Does anyone want to take time out from reverting to comment on the approach I suggested above? JamesMLane 03:02, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The phrase is under Chapter 4 - Government and Politics, Constitutional History, Imposition of Authoritarian Rule. Your suggestion to put controversial first, and say why later in the article makes sense, however that can only be implemented when there is a 1980 Constitution section in the article, which is not the case as of now. —Cantus…☎ 05:31, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the more precise reference. I don't think the 1980 plebiscite needs a separate section. It was an instance of "Suppression of opposition" so it could be discussed in that section. It could also be considered the beginning of the process by which democracy was eventually restored so it could be part of "End of the Pinochet regime". I wouldn't object to a separate section about 1980, but I think it would be disproportionately small. JamesMLane 07:30, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Where is operation Condor and the murder of Ronni Moffitt?

No article on Pinochet would be complete without mentioning doing murders outside of Chile. There should some mention of the audacity of doing a terrorits hit inside Washignton DC. John wesley 14:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC) ~![reply]

Let's be grown ups

Okay, I have adopted the compromise suggested above and I even allowed the "violent" adjective (which I think is a POV addition because tell me about a coup that is not violent), but I seriously object to my compromise edits being reverted as "vandalism". That is serious abuse on the part of Cantus. I have tried to compromise, I have discussed by changes and objections, and I am not blindly reverting, I am working my edits towards some middle ground. Please do the same. If you disagree, call for a vote on one of my last set of changes and see how you fare. Actually, I'll call for a vote right now to see if we cann putput an end to this. Daniel Quinlan 09:43, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Vote: "violent coup"

  • violent coup
  • coup
  • violent coup violent is not point of view. i dont think anyone would disagree that weapons fire murders and bombing campaigns are not violent acts and these are undisputed this is how he came to power therefore violent is not a POV issue. Qrc2006 02:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • violent coup I agree with Qrc2006, there are many ways of conducting the overthrow of a government. I would even dare add "violent military coup", as there have been various civilian coups, such as the "Fujishock" self-coup conducted by elected president Alberto Fujimori of Peru in the 1990s, where he proceeded to give himself unchecked authoritarian powers by closing the legislative branch. The Pinochet coup was particularly brutal - with mass arrests, torture, assasinations, tanks in the streets, and jet fighters bombing civilian targets including the presidential palace of La Moneda. Komunysta 02:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote: Allende: Marxist or Socialist

  • Marxist
    • Reading biographies of Allende, he is clearly best described as a Marxist or a Communist. To be sure, he was anti-Russian domination, but he was no Socialist. Daniel Quinlan 09:43, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • The distinction is really non-existent. Allende was a marxist in that he was a progressive who implemented land reform and partial nationalization with the purpose of empowering the workers, the producers of his country. This also fits the modern definition of a socialist. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:25, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Definitely a Marxist, because it is the more accurate definition. A socialist is a very wide spread definition, but might still have a very democratic tone, even sometimes almost free-market oriented, like in the European scene (just think about Tony Blair, Gerhard Schröder, etc...). A marxist is still a socialist, but more radical. Marxism doesn't get well along with democratic systems, and therefore I would rather chose the definition Marxist for Allende, as he clearly acted and stated towards an autoritarian state like his friend Fidel Castro with Cuba. Allende even disrespected and motivated to disrespect democratic insittutions like jundgments done by the Supreme Court during his own presidentship. RapaNui 13:12, 06 Dec 2005 (CET)
  • Socialist
    • I tend to agree with what JTD says below, and I'd also like to point out that while Marxists may be socialists by definition, not all socialists are Marxists. What Marx offered was first and foremost a technique for analyzing contemporary society, less so a concrete program for social change. I don't associate Allende with dogmatic assertions of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and that kind of thing. -- Viajero 17:47, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Don't know about your language usage, guys, but this is my understanding of the words' meaning applied on my knowledge of Pinochet. The idea that one can be a Marxist without being a Socialist, when expressed without qualifications, is totally alien to me. /Tuomas 09:42, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I think Socialist doesn't have the negative connotations that Marxist has. Samboy 14:47, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I vote Socialist. Basically because of three reasons: 1) 'Marxist', while not a negative word, was the word used by the military Junta to refer to any and all leftists in Chile during that time because it was an important part of their "marxist cancer is going to destroy the country" speech. therefore, to call Allende a Marxist may relate to this instead of correct political definitions. 2) He was one of the founders of the Socialist Party in Chile and is still considered a Socialist in everyday political activities in Chile (the logo used for the Socialist Party during the propaganda of the upcoming Chilean presidential election is and image of Allende's eyeglasses). And 3) RapaNui's argument is mistaken: he claims that "he clearly acted and stated towards an autoritarian state like his friend Fidel Castro with Cuba", but one of the main reasons why his government failed is that he never went against democracy (in fact, in Patricio Guzmán's documentary "Salvador Allende, Soviet political figures of the time appear criticizing Allende precisely for his commitment to democracy). Jjatria
  • Marxist and Socialist
    • This is my attempted compromise version. —Cantus…☎ 00:13, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree. The standard way in many works for describing someone who different groups attach different terms to, is to say, applying the same standard here, "variously described as a Marxist or a Socialist". The problem, a little over a decade after the fall of communism, is that words like marxist carry implicit negative meanings. Unless the word is strictly defined in a totally neutral, objective manner it carries baggage that may distort his political viewpoint or push the agenda of the writer of the article. BTW, Daniel, a marxist and a communist are different terms, like say Catholic, Anglo-Catholic and Roman Catholic, Anglican and High Church Anglican and Low Church Anglican. In all of these, like marxism and communism, there is a degree of overlap, but they are not identical. FearÉIREANN 01:10, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      I realize that. I wasn't proposing that we call him a communist. I think Marxist is the most accurate term or I wouldn't be proposing it. Daniel Quinlan 07:24, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • He was both! He belonged to the Socialist Party of Chile, but the party in his time defined itself as Marxist-leninist, and was partidary of revolucionary violence. In the UP coalition, it was even to the left of the Comunist Party of Chile. So, if you just say "socialist", it may be mistaken by the tame Socialists of today. --AstroNomer 11:08, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
      Well, I guess it all depends on your perspective. Allende's nephew, Andrés Pascal Allende, who was a leading figure in the avowedly Leninist Movimiento de Izquierda Revolucionaria (MIR), criticized his uncle's government as "timid and reformist".
    • He's a Socialist who believed in Marxist dogma -- the proleteriat will soon triumph, all that. Dr. Trey 08:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No he wasnt up for violence, it has all been so god damn biased through your eyes. Allende was going to make up a plebicit to vote if he should stay in power or not. You words are completely chauvinism, as he never EVER considered to use strenght. The MIR and the GAP sympathized with him, but he was in no way in control of neither of them.

> "No he wasnt up for violence" --? That is simply nonsense, as Allende was certainly up to having imported Cuban enforcers terrorize the country.--Mike18xx 04:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote: Referendum quote

  • Reference inline
  • Reference via footnote
    • This is the standard way to quote sources in scholarly articles. There are even special tags on wiki to use when quoting sources, which I did not use this time. (See 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake.) —Cantus…☎ 00:13, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • I think footnotes should be used rather than in-line references where possible. That is the standard academic and encyclopaedic notation. FearÉIREANN 01:15, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Inline external references are considered undesirable (see: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)). Ideally, we should be using the citation guidelines and templates described on Wikipedia:Cite sources. -- Viajero 11:29, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for voting. Daniel Quinlan

Capitalisation

From Wikipedia:Manual of Style:

Philosophies, doctrines, and systems of economic thought do not begin with a capital letter, unless the name is derived from a proper noun: lowercase republican refers to a system of political thought; uppercase Republican refers to a specific Republican Party.

Thus: Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, Luddism; but capitalism, neoliberalism, fascism. "Socialist" appears with a cap in the article, because Allende was a member of a specific Socialist Party (and perhaps that word should link to the Chilean Socialist Party, if we have such an article, and not to "socialism" in general). It's not an expression of bias, and writing Neoliberal with a capital letter Just Looks Unprofessional. Leaving the other disputes to one side, can we at least follow these grammatical rules? –Hajor 01:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

relationship between Allende and Pinochet

Can the article shed some light on this relationship? I am just curious, because was Pinochet pretending to be Allende's loyal counterpart, and acting all along to become head of the Army, or was he once genuinely a friend, was it a betrayal, change of mind? What exactly happened to the relationship between the appointment in August and the coup in September, I'm just curious and thought the article should shed some light on this. -- Natalinasmpf 21:19, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From what I understand, Pinochet was an anti-Communist who was concerned over the unrest occurring in the country during the UP's tenure. Chilean military officials have said that he didn't plan the coup, but that when it came, he essentially decided to go along with it.
I seriously doubt they were friends. Allende was extremely concerned about a coup long before it occurred, and asked Prats for reassurance that Pinochet would stay loyal. J. Parker Stone 08:04, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell

happened to the Marxism article? J. Parker Stone 07:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

jesus christ, saying marxist is too ambiguous, saying it means that Allende agreed with taking the power violently, something that he did not agreed with. The best description for him is socialist

not true numbers

"As a result, approximately 3,000 Chileans were executed or disappeared, more than 27,000[2] were imprisoned or tortured, and many were exiled and received abroad as political refugees." The numbers that say the highest amount never go over 2500 people dead or disappeared, including the people who died during Allende's government, and including people who died on combat (i.e. terrorists who attacked Chilean soldiers. As a result of these battles, lots of terrorists AND soldiers died). Soldiers are also counted on these figures. A better approach would be "about 1500 people", and I still think that it's just too high. There are lots of people known to be living outside of Chile that are also added to this numbers.

The Rettig Commission verifies about 2000 dead and 1000 disappeared. The issue of whether these people were dissidents or "subversives" as the junta called them is addressed in the article. J. Parker Stone 04:15, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the inform and you are right here. But checking the inform allows me to say that the "brutal repression against leftist parties" is not true. Here I go with the dead numbers divided on political parties (I'll put political party names in spanish... "-" means leftist and "+" means right. (some parties ahve changed from side, I'll put - or + according to those times).

P. Socialista -: 405

M.I.R.* -:384

P. Comunista -:353

M.A.P.U.* -:24

Frente Patriótico Manuel Rodriguez* -:19

P. Radical (centre):15

D. Cristiana +:7

I. Cristiana -:5

P. Nacional +:4

Other political parties:15

NO POLITICAL PARTY:1048

This information was extracted from the Rettig inform. Using this I demand that the part of "brutal repression against left-pary members..." (something like that) is removed and never again written.

x* means that they are not political parties. Those are terrorists (because they where fighting (with violence) against the government) groups.

So I guess according your definition (fighting with violence against governments), the American forefathers were "terrorists", any independence movement that uses armed resistance is a "Terrorist", and in fact anyone who resists state coercion through non-state approved apparatus, is a "terrorist". You should try looking up the very long and complicated Wikipedia definition of terrorism, and realize that it is not merely limited to non-governmental actors. Also its ridiculous for you to be making "demands" upon anyone on Wikipedia, since you are in no place to "demand" anything of anyone.SiberioS 23:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is a stupid assertion Siberio. The Pinochet government was keeping stability after the former Marxist Allende was ready to turn Chile into a Soviet client state, with the help of Castro as a medium. Pinochet issues a reform platform that would have him as ruler for an X amount of time before he decided to step down from power. From there there were thousands of people engaging in anti-government violence, terrorist acts, political assinations, radicalizing the college youth. I doubt that the founding fathers killed people with car bombs, killed civilians, had massacres out in the street, radicalized the youth at the college and planned guerillas style tactics against the Redcoats. They were open and honest about thier longing for independence and made an accord with other colonies, held town meetings, and reported thier results to the throne of England. - ANON

I am very sorry to say that... its ambiguous. The Official numbers are 3200, but the true number is around the 5000. The Rettig report was made just as best as it could be made, it had no help by the militars whatsoever. I guess we will never really know the true numbers, since Rettig is made by the testimonies of relatives or church reports or other sources.

I have a question: how do you think that a campaign against Communist subversion should be run in a free country? (In Chile, it wasn't a free country, because they had a military junta.) But, what do you think? Should Pinochet have called for free elections? What if the people had elected the Communists again? A legally-elected Communist is still a Communist. (Communists don't believe in, or practice, free elections, or run free countries, or believe in freedom at all, for that matter. Under a Communist government, there is tyranny enough for everybody. The only shortages are in commodities, gas and food. Oh, and also in freedom. In Soviet Russia, everyone, except for Communist Party members, stood in lines for seventy-five years, and the stores were empty. If you complained, they took you out and shot you. Or sent you away to slave labor camps in Siberia, for "re-education". Look at the former Soviet Union, the proto-type of a Communist government: they ran the military, the secret police, who were as bad or worse than the Gestapo; the Communist party apparatus, the only allowed party in the country; they controlled all the food supplies, and the people they didn't like starved to death; transportation and the newspapers, schools and radio stations, which all taught Marxism: where was the freedom there? Also, in the Soviet Union, millions of people disappeared! Not just thousands. How many people disappeared in Castro's Cuba after the Communist revolution there?) Perhaps at the beginning, Allende was giving away free government money or jobs to the poor people, in order to buy their votes. But, free government money doesn't last forever. Americans are largely ignorant about how bad Communist tyrannies are, having never lived under one of them. What do you think was going to happen to all of the various capitalistic businesses in the country, such as the banks, the copper mines, oil fields, plantations, etc.? And what do you think was going to happen to the military (whose leadership had been trained in the U.S.-run School of the America's? These people are not idiots, just because they are South Americans. Do you think they wanted what happened in Cuba to happen there in Chile? No. They saw what was going to happen to them, and the military stepped in, and took decisive action. By nature, a Communist revolution is a declaration of war against the middle class (which Karl Marx called the bourgeiousie), the intelligentsia, the entrepreneurs, business-owners, mayors, teachers, the literati, the clergy, foreign Christian missionaries, and against all those who own private property, as well as foreign investors (such as the United States), whom Marxists view as being "enemies of the state". Communist theology states, "These institutions will either give way, or be destroyed." Pinochet and his men saw all this coming, and they stopped it. They used sufficient force to do so. If they had been kinder and gentler, they might have lost. The Communists play for keeps. Now, the Communists, who are the world's most brutal mass-murderers and torturers, are crying that Pinochet and his men played too rough. As far as American journalists, or Spaniards who were in Chile and got killed, were they Communists? What were they doing there, if things were so bad? Aside from torture, which I don't agree with, any Communist or terrorist in a war zone is a fair target for the military. As far as the American Revolution goes, I think that is a fair question. What if there had been an inquiry made into the guerilla war tactics carried out by the Americans against the British? Was any torture or terrorism carried out? As an American, I like to hope not. But, there was a war going on at the time! I read that some of the mobs tarred-and-feathered some British Loyalists, or rode them out of town on a rail. Some Americans were hanged by the British for treason against Parliament. Washington and his men were all in uniform at the time, I believe; unlike some guerillas, who pose as ordinary peasants or workers. But there was no such thing as the "Geneva Convention" yet, not 'til around eighty years later. In war-time, you were taking your chances back then. I don't believe that all of the American colonists would have come out smelling like roses. Also, native-American Indian war parties fought on both sides during the Revolutionary War, taking scalps as they went. Most of Washington's colonial army fought partly in the native American style. The British burned several towns in New England during the war. Is that terrorism? Would it terrify you? The British believed they were fighting a lawful war, over Parliament's lawful debt claims in New England, tariffs, taxes and smuggling. Washington and his officers were also educated, religious men, as were the British; not Socialist revolutionaries, who tend to be atheists (if God is not watching you, then "anything goes"). No one has asked what the Communist revolutionaries in Chile were doing. How many atrocities were committed by them? (Sept.)

ok, answers to all questions (or most)

1-"Should Pinochet have called for free elections?", he did, first in the 80s and then in 89, the first one was a fraud, as there were not even records of the votings (plus it is unexplained how it was so successful considering it took place after the most violent years of the dictatorship), in the second one Pinochet lost properly by mayority.

2-"What if the people had elected the Communists again?", dont people have the right to elect the goverment that suits them the best?, if they choose communism they probably do have strong reassons for it, and Allendes goverment was socialist, not communist.

3-"(Communists don't believe in, or practice, free elections, or run free countries, or believe in freedom at all, for that matter. Under a Communist government, there is tyranny enough for everybody. The only shortages are in commodities, gas and food. Oh, and also in freedom. In Soviet Russia, everyone, except for Communist Party members, stood in lines for seventy-five years, and the stores were empty. If you complained, they took you out and shot you. Or sent you away to slave labor camps in Siberia, for "re-education". Look at the former Soviet Union, the proto-type of a Communist government: they ran the military, the secret police, who were as bad or worse than the Gestapo; the Communist party apparatus, the only allowed party in the country; they controlled all the food supplies, and the people they didn't like starved to death; transportation and the newspapers, schools and radio stations, which all taught Marxism: where was the freedom there? Also, in the Soviet Union, millions of people disappeared! Not just thousands. How many people disappeared in Castro's Cuba after the Communist revolution there?)" Im sorry, but... do any of the examples you just gaved have anything to do with Chile?... yes, communism can be bad in other countries, but that can be sayd for pretty much any type of goverment. The goverments you just mentioned went through revolutions before turning to communism, and in most cases Jacobism is justifiable only by history. But that was not chiles' case, there was no "Communist regime" here. All threats about Allendes goverment turning into communism were mainly for propaganda purposes and to justify the coup itself (Plan Z to this day is seen as a lie by all Chilean historians). Goverments like the one of Allende are indeed pretty common today, almost all of Latin America is turning to socialist elected goverments, such as Bolivia, Peru, Venezuela (as Chavez was elected in order to be president). You have no grounds in ever comparing Allendes' goverment with harsh communist regimes, it clearly shows a great deal of ignorance on your behalf, and in the future i suggest you dont confuse them anymore (and im serious here, theres a HUGE difference between communist regimes and democratic socialism).

4-"Perhaps at the beginning, Allende was giving away free government money or jobs to the poor people, in order to buy their votes" , why would he do this in the beginning if he just won the election?. He didnt "bought" their votes, he did something called "doing what he promised", in this case it was socialization of resources and the increase of salaries (that were just insignificant at the time).

5-"But, free government money doesn't last forever": There were numerous other implications for the economical downfall, your view is a little too over simplistic (did i mentioned heavily biased?), the reassons for the economical downfall ranged from the stablishment of the black market, the failure of the agricultural reform (wich was necesary at the time), the numerous strikes supported by the oposition (with money from the US). All these things pointed towards inflation, the first step into taking over any country is to first destabilize it, the economy of a country is important towards the goverment they may have (Hitler might had never shownd up if the economy wouldnt had played a mayor role there)

6- "What do you think was going to happen to all of the various capitalistic businesses in the country, such as the banks, the copper mines, oil fields, plantations, etc.? And what do you think was going to happen to the military (whose leadership had been trained in the U.S.-run School of the America's?": well you just described very well the oposition, indeed, Allendes biggest oposition were business men, who were kind enough to sweep the banks after Allende won (as a way to secure their insterests), later on the same money people would finance most of the economic downfall (with a little help of the U.S. there, nothing like 10 millions to support the oposition there)

7- "Pinochet and his men saw all this coming, and they stopped it.": hehe, you dont know much of what happened there, dont you?. For starters, Pinochet wasnt the mastermind behind the coup, Merino & Leigh were, Pinochet came just in time and later took the power as dictator. Pinochet was more of a Fouché in this case (you do know who Fouché was, right?)

8- " As far as American journalists, or Spaniards who were in Chile and got killed, were they Communists?": actually, most werent even communists there, and not only Spaniards died, a number of other foreigners were killed, mostly europeans (reasson why Pinochet was prosecuted in London to being with). Ill tell you a little story here, 3 priests were assasinated during the dictatorship by the militars, none of them were communist, BUT, they sure got the tag of communist after they got killed, thats for sure.

9- "Aside from torture, which I don't agree with, any Communist or terrorist in a war zone is a fair target for the military": surprisingly most people who were tortured were not communists!

10- "No one has asked what the Communist revolutionaries in Chile were doing. How many atrocities were committed by them? (Sept.)" Skipping through the whole American-revolutionary war mumbo jumbo, lets skip to this issue, how many militars did the FPMR killed during the dictatorship? = less than 50... as oposed to the 3200 that the militars killed. People have asked about things that revolutionary groups (trotskist groups... you do know who trostsky was, do you?)as far as MIR and VOP (who were responsible for the assasination of Edmundo Pérez Zujovic, wich was the cause for the cristian democracy to stop supporting Allende), their tendencies were clearly trostskists and they were mainly aiming to stage a revolution like the cuban one, but not Allende, he had nothing to do with armed ultra-left groups and he even got to agreements with them to stop their acts of terrorism. The only group that was affiliated with the president was GAP, and they never commited any terrorist act, as they functioned as the personal guard of the president. But of course, to say that only leftist trotskist groups were the only ones behind the acts of terrorism is just one deep confirmation bias, there was a facist group called Patria & Libertad, and they had nothing to envy to MIR or VOP in their acts of terrorism.

Bottom line, you are a little too biased there, for some reasson you believe that Allende wanted to turn Chile into a soviet state and for some other reasson you believe that since he was leftist he just HAD to be BAAAAAD. Do a little research, youll see that not all leftist leaders were or are necesarely bad (Gadafi used to be a feared enemy for the U.S. 10 years ago, but now that hes a great leader for Africa, nobody cares about him anymore. Or for example Tito, he was communist and YET managed to keep peace in the Balkans, something monumental for its time, but right after his death the balkans turned to war again... are you aware of Josip Tito?, or you only know the bad communist dictators?), some indeed have been great leaders indeed. Just a hint here, Allende, before the coup, was planning for elections as the state of the nation was indeed critical at the time, the resolution finnally took place on september 10, yet the elections never took place (for obvious reassons, the coup was the day after). But from then on, many historians question what was the real purpose of the coup, as Allende was helding elections to see if he should stay in charge or leave. The day after the coup, numerous oposition newspapers justified the coup by saying that the "marxists were planning a coup for themselves", wich turned out to be not only false, but hardly believable also. But its history, it happened the way it happened and nobody can do anything about it, safe being consequent, tell the story the way it was, and most importantly, to not be biased about it.

At least this is being disputted

"(...)allowed Pinochet to implement profound neoliberal economic reforms while at the same time committing gross human rights violations both at home and abroad." This says that Augusto Pinochet ordered those "gross human rights violations". This is being discussed, and no one has ever proved anything against General Pinochet. This MUST be edited, at least until Pinochet is sown guilty on a trial.

Information must always be neutral. Some sources can't be used for obvious reasons, specially the Valech inform (if you said that you where tortured, then you obtained money... This is true and if you don't believe me, just do a search. President Lagos said that people who where abused would receive money for themselves. The problem is that the people who checked each inform had only 1 minute per person (considering that they worked 12 hours a day)... not a reputable source). The CIA inform shouldn't be used either. The CIA has obvious reasons to be against Pinochet.

...the money is compensation for trauma caused by the torture. And 7000 claims were rejected based on believed shaky evidence/false allegations. J. Parker Stone 04:52, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"The CIA has obvious reasons to be against Pinochet." On the contrary, the CIA has every reason to downplay just how bad the man they put into power really was. Redxiv 08:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again: 1. This inform was never made to become a reliable information source (President Lagos (socialist) and bishop Valech already said that). 2. Investigators took less than 3 minutes per claim to check them, and that time is true only if it's correct to say that they worked 12 hours a day including weekends and that every time they went out to investigate different places thay stayed working even more time that day, until they completed 12 hours. 3. There are lots of people that showed lots of evidence and where not believed, while others just said that they where tortured and they got their money. 4. You can't make a reliable inform if you offer money for the rest of your life for everyone who says something credible.

The only (somewhat) reliable information source about deaths and abuses is the rettig inform, and even that inform is not good for this article, because officers and terrorists who died on action are also counted.

So wait a second...if a court rules that you should be compensated for damages, that means your claim MUST of been dishonest, because you got money AFTER the claim was ruled? So the whole entire civil court system is America is full of liars and crooks? Hilarious.
SiberioS 23:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See the Valech report: financial indemnization is lower than minimal wage. Really harsch conditions

were given to be included in this report. It is a high lack of respect given to the victims to even insinuate that they would have lied for money !!! Beside, as judge Juan Guzman admits it, even though chilean Supreme court will probably always block attempts to convict Pinochet, because three of the judges are "fundamentalists" supporting Pinochet, as Guzman dubbed them, most people, in Chile and abroad, are rightly convinced of Pinochet's culpability. Moreover, why should CIA's report be doubted? CIA has admitted actively supporting Pinochet, not of opposing him!

And this is NOT being disputed

"(about allende's death)(...)The exact circumstances of his death are being disputed" There's NO ONE who still says that Allende was murdered or killed on combat. Even Allende's family agrees that he killed himself.

Where's the damn evidence?

I'll say a book first and then some webpages. I've selected webpages that say that Allende's government was something excellent and other things. You can search for reputable sources for yourself (I wouldn't use the rest of these pages as a source, as they are obviously biased in favor of Allende) (everything is in spanish... I think that I may find some chilean sites that are written in english): Book: "Páginas en blanco. El 11 de septiembre en La Moneda" Webpages: http://www.puntofinal.cl/010915/nactxt.html (they are deffending Allende's legacy saying that suiciding isn't bad at all) http://www.puntofinal.cl/010302/esptxt.html (interview to Luis Fernández Oña, husband of Allende's daughter, saying why did Fidel Castro didn't say anything about the suicide, but then he adds that accordingly to what Allende thought, he had to kill himself before leaving the power to his enemies). Then you have Isabel Allende Bussi (relative to Allende (how do you call your sister's daughter? nephew?)), who said for El Mercurio (biggest and most reliable newspaper in Chile)on august 17, 2003 that she was convinced about Allende's suicide. Also note that Allende's body was unburied a few years ago (2000-2002... I can't remember the year right now) and that the official version was only confirmed with new tests that where made to the body.

Isabel Allende Bussi, ´diputada'and former President of the Deputies Chamber, is Salvador Allende's daughter. The Isabel Allende you mean is the world-famous writer (cousin of each other). Baloo rch 22:47, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

        • The article says Isabel Allende Bussi (I copy/pasted the name). I confused the names of each other. Either way, it's his daughter who agrees that he killed himself.

Trey Stone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Correcting

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

Hello Matias, I reverted your edit because you removed several facts and quotes which are sourced, without providing sources of your own. I'm not trying to prevent you from changing the article, but I don't think that removing sentences like "Some supporters still insist [Allende] was killed by Pinochet's military forces" does anything to make Wikipedia more neutral and true. If you have references to your assertion that Pinochet's forces did not arrest hundreds of members of the left-wing opposition and kill many of them, please post them. I do not think the fact that Pinochet has been cleared of his accused crimes by the same Supreme Court he appointed is reason enough to remove the accusations entirely. Of course it should be mentioned that he has never been found guilty. Eliot 15:10, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hello Eliot. I agree with you about the sources. I'm not very used to wikipedia, but I posted my sources here on the discussion page. I knew that this article needed to be edited (it has to be rewritten in some places) but I did it once I it was reverted. Leaving this article as it was or as it is destroys Pinochet's honor and is against the NPOV (that's what you use for neutrality, don't you?). I posted above about suppression of opposition, and just by posting information of the rettig inform it's obvious that his government wasn't trying to destroy the oppossition (even if those deaths where Pinochet's fault, something that hasn't been proved either). I agree that his trials should be posted, but you can't say that he's guilty for now.
About Allende's death, I also posted above my source: an interview to Allende's daughter (c'mon... her word is enough... maybe you should add that for Allende killing himself wasn't something bad but something brave).
BTW... Would you tell me where can I revert changes? (unsigned comment from 200.90.206.33)
Hi Matias. I'm glad you've decided to contribute to Wikipedia, but I think your contributions will be better received if you read the NPOV article and the policies, and create an account.
I think you have some misunderstandings about NPOV. For instance, you removed the phrase "However, some supporters still insist that he was killed by Pinochet's military forces while defending the palace." I don't see any justification for removing this, as it is true that some supporters claim this. Removing it in support of "Pinochet's honor" is very un-NPOV.
You may view older revisions of the article via the 'Page history' link. Eliot 21:58, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. I will surely read the NPOV and the policies. Maybe I will understand better the idea of wikipedia (it's still difficult for me to think about this encyclopedia... It's missing many things). About Allende's death, his own family (inside or outside of Chile) agrees that he killed himself. I don't know what the point is about keeping that. Just because a few guys think something you'll put it on an article? maybe it should be posted at the very end, but I don't think that it's good for Allende's memory to say that he was murdered. I don't agree with his vission of the world, but he thought that killing himself was something good.
About Pinochet's honor, I referred to the part of suppression of opposition. I posted above here on the discussion page death tolls according to the Rettig inform. You can check it for yourself. Look at those numbers and please answer: Can you state that Pinochet wanted to suppress opposition? The comunist party at that time had some 1500 people and the socialist party had some 5000-7000 people (not sure about those numbers). The CUT (central unitaria de trabajadores - not a political party but definately oposition) had about 1 million of people (that number is tricky though, because workers where forced to join). At least the suppression of oposition should be posted as "some people say that Pinochet tried to eliminate oposition...". (Even though it's (very) probably untrue that Pinochet gave an order to kill someone). I agree to continue disscusing this. What do you think about adding a disscusion tag to the article?
Just wanted to say good bye. I'm leaving the Wikipedia project (I give up. Some articles are just way to biased, and what's worst, saying anything against what most people whant to think means a npov message). Eliot: I left some data here (some posts above, specially the one with the death toll). I'm not working here anymore. I hope that what you write about Pinochet is the truth and not what most would like to read (this encyclopedia is converting on a CNN info source...).
Matias, I have no interest in doing your editing for you. You say you have the facts right here. Nobody is stopping you from putting them in. You have no one to blame but yourself if you see problems in the article. Eliot 15:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

NPOV dispute

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

This article is primarily about Pinochet, not about Chile's relationship with the US. TDC June 29, 2005 13:56 (UTC)
Pinochet was the military leader of Chile, and as such, key government relationships which he pursued or which were related to his rise to power have a place in his biography. In summarized form, sure, but omitting them entirely reveals bias, hence the NPOV tag.--Eloquence* June 29, 2005 14:22 (UTC)
There was a similar issue with the Fidel Castro article, and the bulk of the information was redirected to the article on Cuba’s foreign relations. I would assume that this would be appropriate in this case as well. TDC June 29, 2005 19:21 (UTC)
If you want to bring up precedent as an argument, please try to find precise diffs for the incident in question.--Eloquence*
Ummm, Ok. All the following information [1] was removed from the Fidel Castro Article and placed in the Revolutionary government of Cuba article because it had to do more with the workings of the government of Cuba rather than the personal actions or life of Castro. TDC June 29, 2005 20:05 (UTC)
The analogy is inapplicable -- I am asking for a summary of information which already exists elsewhere, rather than a long section of duplicating or original material.--Eloquence* June 29, 2005 20:07 (UTC)
It is completely applicable, this article is about Pinochet's life primarily, and not about the government of Chile. TDC June 29, 2005 20:24 (UTC)
I refer you to my comments above in response to this earlier assertion from you.--Eloquence*
I would propose the following summary of the pre-coup relationship:
"Before Pinochet seized power, the U.S. government under Richard Nixon had established a strong CIA presence in Chile and had made several attempts to instigate a military coup against Allende (Project FUBELT). In addition, the U.S. had imposed economic sanctions on Chile, while increasing military aid from $800,000 anually in 1970 to $10.9 million by 1972. This combined strategy, as Nixon's advisor Henry Kissinger acknowledged privately days after Pinochet seized power, had "created the conditions as great as possible" for a military coup. While Nixon's government strongly supported Pinochet, there is no evidence that U.S. intelligence was directly involved in the preparations or execution of the September 11, 1973 coup."
I think briefly outlining that the U.S. government pursued a combined strategy of military aid, economic sanctions and direct support for potential coup leaders is important. Pinochet certainly benefited from this strategy. Therefore, a neutral biography that describes his rise to power should include it.--Eloquence* June 29, 2005 18:58 (UTC)

Remove Tag?

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

The tag was added by User:Mtad on 18 June. You can see my discussion with him down the page. He has since quit the project since he feels that it is "more biased than CNN." I am removing the tag for now. Eliot 16:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Eliot. I'm a pretty passionate hater of Pinochet, I don't understand what Mtad has against this article. It says he killed 3,000 people right there in the 2nd paragraph. My general feeling is that the use of these tags should be minimal, so I'm glad to see this one go. Next planned change is to add something about the CIA involvement ... Camipco 19:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Why just not be honest

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


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

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

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

Wikipedia, and socialist-infested university campuses, are the last redoubts of pro-Marxist English-language propaganda-inversions of Latin American history. While such ambitions may have once served the aims of Soviet policy, today they are merely pathetic and laughably, palpable dishonesties -- it'd be as if hold-out Islamists were continually re-writing the history of African slavery long after Mecca was a crater. Their deliberate conflation of the ligitimate removal of Allende from power (as authorized by the Aug 22 1973 Chamber of Deputies [Resolution]) with the bloodless assumption of extralegal power by Pinochet two days after the ouster is a prime example of this; whenever I have in the past attempted to introduce distinctions between the two, they have always been removed. -- thus the "'Coup' that overthrew Allende remains a hoary, moldy, communist-propaganda cliche over thirty years after the fact. Likewise, Washington's mere contingency-plannering will be played up, while Allende's imported Cuban thugs and straight up gangsterism worthy of any contemporary drug-lord mafioso receives nary a mention.

>>> why is Noam Chomsky cited in the Economic chapter?

Show me someone approvingly citing that thoroughgoing mountebank for anything, and I'll show you a Marxist propagandist...indeed, Chomsky references are litmus tests.--Mike18xx 00:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not written by Chileans!

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

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

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

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

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

Allende had anything but a majority of the vote: barely over a third (36% if my memory serves me). The Chilean Congress simply selected him as president in accordance with their tradition, which, in the event of lack of a majority vote, was to declare the candidate with the plurality of votes (in this case Allende) the winner. Allende's attempt, in spite of this lack of support, to put radical reforms in place in turn resulted in the opposition and subsequent uprising.Alloco1 05:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

>> Allende never used force to accomplish anything

You're either a "useful idiot" tool or a flat-out liar:

http://www.economiaysociedad.com/declaration.html

Declaration of the Breakdown of Chile’s Democracy, August 22, 1973

This is the complete text of the resolution that Chile’s Chamber of Deputies approved by 81 votes against 47, on August 22 1973. The resolution includes a list of the legal and constitutional violations committed by the Marxist government of President Salvador Allende. In the absence of a viable impeachment procedure contemplated in the Constitution, it "presents" the Armed Forces, among other authorities, with this "grave breakdown of the Republic’s constitutional and legal order." Likewise, it serves to "remind them that, by virtue of their responsibilities, their pledge of allegiance to the Constitution, and to the laws of the land . . . it is their duty to put an immediate end to all situations herein referred to that breach the Constitution and the laws of the land." After this call to "immediate" action by the equivalent of the US House of Representatives or the UK House of Commons, the Chilean Armed Forces, led by the Army commander General Augusto Pinochet, decided on September 11, 1973—only 18 days later—to remove from office the President, thus charged with violating the Chilean Constitution.

(...continued.)

Incredibly POV, Poor Quality and Long Winded

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

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

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

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

I changed it to the following:

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

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

Another example of a change I made is as follows:

  • Original: In addition, it embarked on a campaign of terror against leftist elements in the country. As a result, approximately 3,000 Chileans were executed or disappeared, more than 27,000 1 were imprisoned or tortured, and many were exiled and received abroad as political refugees.
  • Revised: Approximately 3,000 Chileans were executed or disappeared, more than 27,000 2 were imprisoned or tortured, and many were exiled and received abroad as political refugees. Most of those persecuted by the regime were affiliated with left-wing political parties.

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

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

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

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

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

File:20051216h.jpg

Coup edited

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

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

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

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

Military coup of 1973

Main article: Chilean coup of 1973.

File:Pinochetjunta.jpg
Pinochet (sitting) as head of the newly established military junta.

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

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

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

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

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

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


Carvajal: I spoke with him personally, i let him know he must surrender to the commanding chiefs. Eh... Answered with a series of cuss words, no more.
Pinochet: So, that means that at 11, when the first "parrots" arrive... you'll see what'll happend. AT 11 O CLOCK WE BOMBARD!
Carvajal: When La Moneda is evacuated, it will be much easier to assault it.
Pinochet: One it's bombarded we assault it with the Buin and the Infantry School. We gotta tell brady
Carvajal: Agreed. Lets wait till the helpers and Carabineros evacuate.
Pinochet: Agreed.

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

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


Carvajal communicates again with pinochet, asking him of a posibility of of another parle:
Carvajal: Ive just been informed of a possibility of parle
Pinochet: no, he must leave La Moneda with a small amount of people
Carvajal: ...they've retreated, but there...
Pinochet: ...to the ministry, to the ministry...
Carvajal: he is offering parle.
Pinochet: inconditional surrender, no parle!, inconditional surrender!
Carvajal: well, agreed, inconditional surrender, and we take him prisoner, offering no more than respect his life, shall we say.
Pinochet: Life and physical integrity, and next we send him elsewhere
Carvajal: Agreed... that means we keep the offering of taking him away from the country
Pinochet: We uphold our offering of taking him out of the country. But that plane falls, man, when its fliying.
Carvajal: Agreed... agreed. Lets propose that parle goes on.

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

"Give him more machinegun 'till the end and that his fire dont stop, man"
"its better to kill the bitch and the Levée en masse stops"
"This are not bullets, nothing more... that egghead wont shoot a rubber pill" (in Chile, Egghead is a mayor insult)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>> In a united effort by both the Unite States and the oposition, the Coup starts...

And the evidence of US "effort" in the "coup" (beyond the obvious "Thank the Good Lord the Chilean military itself is stirring to action in accordance with the request of the Chilean Chamber of Deputies Resolution of August 22, 1973!") is exactly what? Recordings of Kissinger mumbling during Washington skull-sessions? -- What laughable communist horseshit this whole wretched, running excercise is, as Marxist academics desperately scramble to protect their last "nest-egg", Latin American history according to Brezhnev and Castro, from the savaging spotlight of reality.

The real topper, of course, is the whole concept of a WikiProject Fascism to begin with, while WikiProject Communism and WikiProject Islamism are nowhere to be seen. "Could someone get me the 'morning-line' odds on whether WikiProject Fascism is written by Marxists, please?"

Recent edits

Can someone else check on the edits by Kissinger? They looked like vandalism, when I reverted them, however if they are legitimate OK. Since I'm already involved, I'll ask for 3rd parties to check and leave their validity to general consensus. 68.39.174.238 07:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

they are all in both Allende's and Pinochet's pages, let me clarify it right to you:

the first part comes directly from Pinochet's spanish page:

"El día 10 Pinochet manda a su esposa y a sus hijos más pequeños a la Escuela de Alta Montaña, en Río Blanco, Los Andes, que es dirigida por uno de los amigos de Pinochet. Después regresa a su casa solitaria, pasando la que él dice fue la noche más larga de su vida.

Pinochet llega a las 7.40 del día 11 de septiembre (al que años después llamaría el día decisivo) al Comando de Telecomunicaciones del Ejército, en el que se mantendría por el resto del golpe, poco retrasado en la hora, preocupando a más de uno. Se organizan las redes de comunicaciones con las demás ramas de las Fuerzas Armadas, especialmente con Leigh, que se encuentra en la Academia de Guerra Aérea, y con Patricio Carvajal, que será el coordinador de todo el golpe.

Durante este acontecimiento Pinochet demuestra una faceta de su personalidad que no había demostrado antes públicamente, es autoritario y con un don de mando avasallador. Durante las trasmisiones, que fueron grabadas por radioaficionados, se observa que avasalla a Carvajal y a Leigh, a pesar de que fue este último uno de los promotores iniciales del golpe, mientras que Pinochet fue el último en unirse"

the second part is translated directly from Allende's page, since Pinochet only mentions one or 2 lines from the radio transmition, but only the 3 last phrases i put there.

"La “Cadena Democrática”, formadas por las radios Minería y Agricultura, emite la primera proclama militar Allende debe hacer entrega inmediata de su cargo a la junta de gobierno, integrada por los jefes supremos de las fuerzas Armadas"

then it comes the proclamation, wich is much longer. but i didnt placed here...

"Los militares se contactan con la Moneda y le hacen la proposición de sacarlo del país, pero reciben una respuesta clara, Allende no se va a rendir. Pinochet se contacta con Carvajal, que le indica la negativa del presidente a rendirse:

Carvajal: yo hable personalmente con él, le intime rendición en nombre de los comandantes en jefe. Eh... Contestó con una serie de garabatos, no más.

Pinochet: O sea, quiere decir que a las 11, cuando lleguen los primeros pericos... Vai a ver lo que va a pasar. ¡A las 11 en punto se bombardea!

Carvajal: Cuando se evacue la Moneda va a ser más fácil asaltarla

Pinochet: Una vez bombardeada la asaltamos con el Buin y con la escuela de infantería. Hay que decirle a Brady.

Carvajal: Conforme. Vamos a esperar no más que evacuen los edecanes y los carabineros

Pinochet: Conforme.

A las 9.55 los tanques del general Palacio ingresan en el perímetro de la Moneda. Francotiradores apostados en los edificios aledaños los tratan de repeler, y se inicia la balacera. A las 10.15 horas, a través de radio Magallanes (la única pro-gubernamental aún no silenciada), Allende emite su último mensaje a la Nación:"

then its allende's last speech, wich should go in Allende's page, and not here, as Pinochet has nothing to do with it...

"A las diez y media los tanques abren fuego contra la Moneda, les siguen las tanquetas y los soldados, fuego que es respondido por los miembros del GAP y francotiradores apostados en los edificios aledaños.

Carvajal se comunica nuevamente con Pinochet, informándole de la intención de parlamentar:

Carvajal: me acaban de informar que habría intención de parlamentar

Pinochet: no, se tiene que ir a la moneda él con una pequeña cantidad de gente

Carvajal: ...se retiraron, pero ahí...

Pinochet: ..al ministerio, al ministerio...

Carvajal: Que se está ofreciendo parlamentar.

Pinochet: Rendición incondicional, ¡nada de parlamentar!, ¡Rendición incondicional!

Carvajal: Bien, conforme, rendición incondicional, y se le toma preso, ofreciéndole nada más que respetarle la vida, digamos.

Pinochet: La vida y la integridad física, y en seguida se le va a despachar a otra parte.

Carvajal: Conforme. Ya... O sea que se mantiene el ofrecimiento de sacarlo del país

Pinochet: Se mantiene el ofrecimiento de sacarlo del país. Pero el avión se cae, viejo, cuando vaya volando.

Carvajal: Conforme... conforme. Vamos a proponer que prospere el parlamento.

Se oirá a Pinochet durante el resto de la jornada usar frases como estas:

“Denle más guaraca hasta el final y que no se le apague el incendio, viejo”

“Más vale matar a la perra y se acaba la leva”

“Esas no son balas, no más... Ese huevón no se dispara ni una pastilla de goma”

Mas, también se muestra en ocasiones mucho más humanitario que sus compañeros de golpe: ofrece a Allende salir del país (Carvajal quería apresarlo), y consiguió que Leigh detuviera el bombardeo aéreo unos minutos, para sacar a las mujeres del interior de la Moneda ( a lo que Leigh se oponía).

A las 11.52 los aviones Hawker Haunter inicia su ataque a la Moneda, disparando en cuatro oportunidades sus cohetes sobre la casa de gobierno, el daño causado es devastador. Otros dos aviones bombardean la residencia presidencial de Tomás Moro, a la sazón defendida por los miembros del GAP que no alcanzaron a llegar con Allende.

El ataque prosigue a el palacio de gobierno con el uso de gases lacrimógenos, pero al ver que la Moneda todavía se negaba a rendirse, el general Palacios decide tomarla y envía a un grupo de soldados a derribar la puerta del palacio, son las dos y media de la tarde.

Dentro le gritan a Allende: ¡Presidente!, ¡el primer piso esta tomado por los militares! ¡dicen que deben bajar y rendirse!

El presidente dispone rendirse: ¡Bajen todos! ¡dejen las armas y bajen! Yo lo haré al ultimo.

Entonces --según el testimonio de uno de sus doctores, Patricio Gijón, que regresó para llevarse su mascarilla antigas ("de recuerdo", dice)-- con la metralleta que le regalo Fidel Castro durante su estadía en Chile, se dispara en la barbilla, explotando la bóveda craneana y muriendo al instante. Fue este el ultimo acto de consecuencia de un hombre que dijo que de La Moneda no saldría sino acribillado a balazos.

Palacios entra en el salón independencia, y se encuentra con Allende y el doctor Girón. Reconoce al presidente por su macizo reloj Galga Coulde. Llama al oficial de radio y entrega su escueto informe: “Misión cumplida. Moneda tomada, presidente muerto".

A las 14.38 horas, Carvajal le informa a Pinochet y a Leigh: "Hay una comunicacion, una información de personal de la Escuela de Infantería que está ya dentro de La Moneda. Por la posibilidad de interferencia, la voy a transmitir en inglés: They say that Allende commited suicide and is dead now."

A las 18 horas se reunieron y se abrazaron en la Escuela Militar los cuatro comandantes máximos de las Fuerzas Armadas, eran la nueva junta militar. A excepción de unas pequeñas escaramuzas en sitios aislados de Santiago, la junta domina todo el país. La Unidad Popular y su presidente habían muerto, se iniciaban los 17 años de Dictadura militar."


and thats all the parts i translated, i must admit i did the best i could, as many typos and grammatical errors are there


I see so, but I'd like other people to look @ it and see whether or not it belongs/fits in here and if so how it should be incorporated. When I saw it, the 1st added paragraph looked so spurious, and the fact that it was a page on a controversial leader gave me enough reason to revert it. 68.39.174.238 07:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page shows very little info about pinochet, and the coup was, for us Chileans, only seeable by the Radio transmissions, as all radios were taken out by the rightists. No one could leave their houses, as it was a state of siege and courtfew, all tv channels and radios that were functional supported the coup. To use the narration is the best way to explain it, as it is well made in the Pinochet & Allende page. Today, all documentaries about Allende use the radio narration, starting with "La Batalla de Chile" movies & "La Caida de un presidente", both of them who feature this. On Chilean tv, every september 11, 1973 special uses this radio transmission, as its a must!, cos everyone knows about it.--Kessingler 07:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you have the narration moved to Wikisource and call it something like "Allende-Pinochet Coup Negociations" and link to it from this article. It seems rather long to include in the main article but should be kept somewhere. Also, the original paragraph might be merged into the new section. 68.39.174.238 07:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Allende-Pinochet negotiations??, they never even talked!!, Pinochet was never the mastermind of this, so he was the authoritary leader of the coup, he barely got in the coup just 2 days before it happend. After Pratts retired in the sake of keeping the democracy (after El Tanquetazo, a failed coup that happened just months before it), Pratts, who was a loyal militar to the goverment (no, he wasnt socialist), he choosed Pinochet himself to take his charge, thinking that Pinochet was going to serve in the army without betraying the president. Truth is, the masterminds of it are Leigh & Merino, who commanded the aerial & naval armies, respectively. Mendoza, the head of Carabineros, was just a pawn, as he never sayd anything and never really had a saying in it (he was just "necesary" as he controlled Carabineros).
Pratts was later assasinated by CIA operative Michael Townley, who is currently in prison for his crimes.
The page must stay in its entirely, even more info would be better. The narration is essential to all this. All of it were phrases spoken by Pinochet himself in the coup, they all belong here, as Pinochet's finest hour was the coup. Later on, he dedicated himself to an image cleansing, excersising just like your Jimmy Carter used to and using a pearl in his tie... just your Jimmy Carter used to (he didnt really masterminded any of the economical changes, the responsables for that were the "Chicago Boys", Pinochet was a Militar).
One thing though, theres a lot of words that are very hard to translate from spanish, such as "Huevon", wich literaly means "guy-with-big-balls", but here in Chile, huevon means stupid (wich is a big insult). Also, in one of the phrases Pinochet says "Leva", wich is a simple word in spanish that means conscription, as when Pinochet sayd "to kill the bitch... etc", he doesnt say any french words, but i couldnt find a better word for it, so ill better just put "leva", instead.--Kessingler 23:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding you edit comment, on wikipedia you are one of "you people". --Ezeu 01:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
well, this whole page has been made by americans, sorry if it sounded rather cold.
As well in should be. This is the english language wikipedia. It is basically an encyclopedia for Americans and other english speaking people. They are the primary users and so it makes sense they whould be the primary contributors.

Grow up, Cantus

Marking edits which you think don't fit with the article as 'vandalism' is totally inappropriate. It's your responsibility to treat good-faith edits with respect, not just brush them away because they're inconvenient or complicated. Either try to make the new content fit in with the article, or else back off and let someone else deal with it. Eliot 12:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested alterations

There are a couple of points in the article that I am a little uncomfortable with. I am well aware that they may amount to beating a dead horse but please bear with me.

  • Regarding: Pinochet's economic policy - The only criticism of Pinochet's economic results included in the article is one by Chomsky. While he undoubtedly is a scholar of major stature his field of formal studies does not include economics. His economic criticsms are mostly based on idealism, opinions and ideology rather than on academic economic studies. Just because he is well known and respected in certain fields of study does not mean that his views on other subjects should be referenced as scholarly sources. I am sure that there are other sources that dispute Chile's economic success and support it with formal economic research. These should be included in the article instead of the Chomsky figures. One can also easily make the argument that citing Chomsky on certain topics implicitly promotes a certain POV. A good analogy is the Black Book of Communism by Stephane Courtois et al. While certainly scholarly and respected it is generally frowned upon as a single source of communist atrocities due to the author's well known and publicized anti-communist stance.
  • Regarding: Military coup of 1973 - as to Allende's suicide: 'According to the junta's official version, he committed suicide with a machine gun'. This paragraph does not explicitly state that it is by now understood to be a historic fact that Allende committed suicide. The implication is still there that it only the former junta agrees on this. The 1990 autopsy report only glances over the fact. I think that this should be stated more explicitly.

I didn't want to change these two sections without a prior consultation since this article is highly debated as it stands already. Chelman 14:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • The bit on Chomsky is highly suspect, for two reasons: 1) Chomsky is not an economist, and he's not an expert on economic policy per se (this is made more clear by point #2). If you really wanted to find someone critical of the Chilean Miracle, I'm sure Joe Stiglitz would fit the bill. 2) The figures that Chomsky cites are highly misleading. 1983 was the peak of the Latin American debt crisis; things were really, really bad everywhere in Latin America, but in fact they weren't that bad in Chile, relatively speaking. But choosing to look at unemployment over a period ending in a severe recession isn't fooling anyone--it's amateur at best. Also, one has to consider that Pinochet inherited an economy in ruins, and some unemployment was going to be necessarily to cure inflation >300%. The question is not how well Pinochet dealt with unemployment, but how well he did relative to what else he could have. There has to be some sort of baseline for comparison. John McAdams 10:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lets review each point one of the time:
  • economic policy: up to this date Chile is still one of the countries with the most unequal wealth distribution, all of this comes straight from the Pinochet dictatorship, as numerous corporations were privatized along with the health and pension system. In the case of privatization of numerous industries there was much robbery in it, all of wich is reviewed in the Maria Luisa Monckeberg book "El Saqueo" wich is probably the best book about that subject. Pinochet didnt exactly made any of these policies, they were all made by a group of people called "the chicago boys" and were all forced into acceptance, as it is also the case for Pension and Health. Today the pension system is probably the most criticized in Chile, as it is an obscene way to lose your 10% income to later recieve a minimum amount of pension while watching corporations get richer by it (you are forced to do so, bank taxes & the crappy goverment 20 dollars pension makes it an obligation and surprisingly the best choice, as there is no other choice), the pension system is such a large business that to try to root it out would be an almost impossible task, as it is rooted in the country´s economy and as foreign capitals are invested in it. The health system is good only if you have the cash for it, as none of he 21 ISAPRES will give you coverage if you only make minimum wage (wich is what most of us chileans make), they will give a generous coverage if you have a salary over the 2 million pesos a month.
  • about Allende Committing suicide: was he assasinated/was he murdered?: the answer is: BOTH. Unless Allende's last words before committing suicide were "good bye cruel world", it is safe to say Allende didnt committed suicide per se, he was after all in a battle at the time of his death and decided to terminate his life before the militars took him, and as it was also the honorable thing to do in his position as president (the last president to commit suicide in Chile was Balmaceda, and it was right after he was deposed). Its no secret that Allende killed himself, but it was a suicide that was forced upon him.

"A suicide that was forced upon him"? That's just nonsense. He freely elected to avoid, in the only way he knew how, the indignation of prosecution and jail for treasons as specified in the de-facto impeachment Resolution which authorized his removal. (Conveniently, Pinochet's subsequent actions enabled Allende's Marxist supporters to crow up martyrdom and pretend the Resolution and Allende's treasons never existed.)

actually, a voting was planned in september in order to see if Allende should stay in office or not, yet the coup took place before that could had ever been done, therefor when people say that it had no justification whatsoever (if the people would had wanted to impeach him, they would had gone with the democratic way). There was no "impeachment resolution" as it was forced that day, with the clear and undoubt support of the US. If Allende were to surrender he might as well would had been killed, as Pinochet so elequently sayd "when he gets on the plane, the plane falls man", wich is heard on the radio transmissions. Suicide was forced on him only because it was the only choice he had at that particular time, during the battle wich destroyed part of the goverment house. And just like Balmaceda, Allende had to do what other presidents in Chile have done once their goverment is overthrowned, the honorable thing to do, Allende lived the last days of the democratic presidents era. Now you talk about "Allende's treassons" and i ask you, of what treasson can you be talking of?: is it the "Plan Z", the fake justification done by the militars to justify the coup? (even a 4 year old could see its fake, considering its just less than 1 page long!!), the only treasson i see is the one done with the help of the united states and the "track 2", wich gaved 10 millions to support the oposition. How do i know im right?, because i got FACTS while you only have vague propaganda.

Dr Sheila Cassidy

For those unfamilar with the name, Dr Sheila Cassidy is a British citizen who was working in a hospital in Santiago in 1975, when she was taken into custody. Her subsequent incarceration and the ordeal she endured while incarcerated are, I think, suitable for brief addition to this article. The omission of a page about her should also be corrected, though I have woefully insufficient biographical information upon her to even begin the task. Any thoughts? Calilasseia 22:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree; including Cassidy would "set precedent" for including everyone else out there with a tale to tell (pro or con), with wrangling to inevitably follow as some are included and some are not. (Suffice also to say that "taking sides" during a civil war normally leads to consequences regardless of location.) What is notable regarding Cassidy is that she was released after only two months, which is a small fraction of the amount of time people suspected of, say, supporting terrorism, can expect to spend incarcerated even today.--Mike18xx 02:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bear with me, being a relative newcomer, but would this necessarily set such a precedent?

To many here in the UK who actually remember the news coverage at the time, the omission of Dr Sheila Cassidy might seem a little odd. Although the names of other foreign nationals that were incarcerated by the DINA are omitted directly from this English version of the article (my foreign language choices at school did not include Spanish, so I can't check that page directly), they are mentioned with reference to Operation Condor.

I see no problem in mentioning that Cassidy and some other notable foreign nationals were incarcerated by the DINA under Pinochet's rule. That this happened is a fact, after all, and not in dispute. The level of detail devoted to this would, I agree, lead to some interesting editorial speculation here in the talk page, but the addition of the basic facts I see no problem with.

Such a statement would, after all, be restricted entirely to persons incarcerated by the DINA, which should narrow the field somewhat with regards to extraneous additions??? Calilasseia 15:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All it's going to do is feed the "propaganda war" (the article is hard enough to deal with as it is). If it were up to me, I would hack great, heaping wads of hear-say straight out of this piece -- to necessarily include just about all references to anyone who made the "grand tour" of the Soviet-front orchestrated "peace rally" and lecture circuits in the 70s and 80s. It really is thirty years on, now; and time to start separating the truth from the (pardon my French) horseshit.

Regards Cassidy, see my last remarks. There's nothing, IMO, particular about her case as being related to Pinochet. I.e., given what she admitted to doing, the same thing would have likely happened to her in the penal system of (pick a fraction between 75% and 90%) of the nations on earth. Given that, and no discernable association between her and Pinochet other than the happenstance of her spending two months in a Chilean prison, I don't see the relevance of it.

Meanwhile, some bastard is hacking off the extremely relevant Chamber of Deputies Resolution again, and I must attend to that instanter....--Mike18xx 05:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution of August 22, 1973

As of the moment, the first paragraph of the article reads:

General Augusto José Ramón Pinochet Ugarte 1 (born November 25, 1915) was ruler of Chile from 1973 to 1990. He assumed dictatorial power by anot relenquishing martial law after, as Commander in Chief of Chile's armed forces, he ousted from power Salvador Allende, the then-current President of Chile, in a forcible removal authorized weeks earlier by the Chamber of Deputies of Chile for, its Resolution of August 22, 1973 held, Allende's violations of the Constitution and "goal of replacing legitimately elected authority and establishing the foundation of a totalitarian dictatorship."

It is a gross disservice to the truth for various fly-by vandals to keep hacking the necessary relevance of the Resolution off in what are, essentially, attempts by them to begin the history of Chile on September 11, 1973, and whitewash out of existence everything before that date.--Mike18xx 06:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This "authorization," as the POV-filled page you link to plainly states, has no force of law behind it, and authorized nothing. The paragraph as written before was accurate. The resolution should of course be discussed in the article, but this tortured first paragraph is nothing but an attempt to push POV. Please, let's stick to the facts. More pre-September 11th information can and should be added to the article, although Chilean coup of 1973 is the main article for the events leading up to the coup. I've reworked the first paragraph into a compromise version, I hope you find it acceptable. Eliot 18:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chile, as you may be aware, did not have any US-style "articles of impeachment" for the Chamber of Deputies to follow as de facto "force of law"; it's only recourse of action is the one it chose: imploring the nation's military to oust the President.
An analogy: It is about the same time in alternate history United States, where President Richard Nixon steadfastly refuses to resign in the face of growing demands he do so over gross misconduct in office. The US Congress, lacking a Constitutional means to impeach him, passes a resolution exhaustively detailing his various treasons and implores the US Army to address the grave national crisis; the resolution passes on a near 2:1 vote. Three weeks later, the US Army does so, and Nixon airs out his own head in preference to being arrested (and also to make a martyre of himself to his fervent supporters). General Westmoreland, rather than then going back to the barracks, uses the opportunity to establish a military junta ruled by him, and busies himself rooting out Nixon's supporters. Three decades later, Spanish-language historybooks and internet encylopedias still routinely present the Nixon's apologists' version of events in which the fact that an overwhelming majority of the Congress demanded he be militarily punted in the first place are buried way far down in the fine print if not swept under the rug entirely. Attempts to re-position the primary roll of the Congress in initiating the whole affair are ridiculed as "POV" and "misleading"; meanwhile, the apologists do not consider it "POV" to, variously, obsess over the "democratically-elected" "doctor" (actually a politician for thirty years) Nixon's "service" and "ambituous social reform projects", the contingency planning of his foreign adversaries, and especially, the "violent" details of the "coup" (which -- as opposed to the Congressionally-sanctioned removal of Nixon -- was actually bloodless, since it essentially consisted of Westmoreland just saying "No, I think I'll keep this brass-ring!" to Congress before dissolving it.)
RV'd with changes in the interest of pragmatic compromise. Also, an alternate source for the Resolution is now linked (it goes to a page sans any site-owner's editorializing).--Mike18xx 19:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reverting again to the consensus version (which I had no part in writing, despite Mike calling it "my POV version." Mike, I hope you continue to edit the article constructively as well as respecting consensus. Eliot 21:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please address the analogy above, Rebrane and Eliot -- because that's what's been going on here. The mere fact that a manifest whitewash has a "long" pedigree does not entitle it to last forever.

Regards your accusation of "ideologically driven" -- I loathe the smell of hypocrisy in the afternoon.

Regards "consensus", the vote was 81 over 47.--Mike18xx 21:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other probles with the 1st paragraph that Rebrane keeps reverting: It is POV for it to contain more "background" information on Allende than Pinochet (for whom the Wiki entry pertains), and it is particularly POV to focus on Allende's short stint as a physician while not mentioning his near forty years as a government bureaucrat in one role or another. In fact, other than the necessity of mentioning that Pinochet replaced Allende, the first two paragraphs were entirely about Allende -- not Pinochet.--Mike18xx 19:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "coup", as it were....

I am preparing to edit, at length, the entire "Coup" section (as well as delete the third paragraph as being completely redundant with the "Coup" section) in order to distinguish the difference between the legislatively-implored military removal of Allende, and the after-the-fact assumption of dictatorial power by Pinochet. The conflation of these disparate events has gone on for far too long, and otherwise impugns the motives of many actors on the stage (e.g., the "rebelling" air force, etc). As written, the section is in error of fact, and essentially shot-though with moldy Cold War-era propaganda-of-perspective.--Mike18xx 23:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure to cite appropriate sources for all your assertions. By 'appropriate sources', in case you don't read that article, I mean not just primary sources such as the text of the Resolution, but secondary sources such as history books or other encyclopedias. Eliot 14:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Appropriate" and "credible" are in the eye of the beholder, as Wikipedia itself observes via "...Although it may be advisable to follow it, it is not however policy. Feel free to update the page as needed..." right at the top of Reliable Sources. I.e., the Appeal to 'authority logical-fallacy is not codified here (and for an immense bellylaugh, this piece further down details: "Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers — like the New York Times... — are likely to be reliable, and are regarded as reputable sources, when anyone whose been seriously paying attention to the Grey Drunk Lady since it collected the lying Stalinist shitheel Walter Duranty's Pulitzer Prize recognizes it as arguably the least credible large media organ -- it's stubborn denial of reality over a great number of issues is legendary).
  • As indicated in the summary field of the last revert, I am attempting to acertain a repository for the original Resolution. I have so far learned that the Chamber of Deputies does NOT have its output converted into electronic form at present (although it is working on it, having finished 19th century up to early 20th century archives).
  • As far as I am aware, no one (particularly no one in Chile) disputes the accuracy of either the Spanish or the English renderings that are available on either of Chilean politician Jose Pinera's sites and/or mirrors.
  • In any event, for simple reasons of being closer to the source, I would rather "err" toward the assumption that documentation provided by Chileans is more "reliable" than than "err" toward the assertions of North American academics and journalists.
  • For that reason, until I see a dispute involving more than "technicalities", I'm going to keep the Resolution in there as relevant.--Mike18xx 01:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The accuracy of the translation of the resolution is not in dispute. The relevance is what is in dispute, and this is why primary sources are problematic. You can assert that Pinochet was motivated by the Resolution, but from the sources cited in the article, we don't even know that he read it. This is exactly what reliable secondary sources are all about, and it is not a technicality. Eliot 01:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One the hand you stipulate "The accuracy of the translation of the resolution is not in dispute," yet on the other you accuse me of "...assert(ing) that Pinochet was motivated by the Resolution," -- But the obvious purpose of the Resolution, in its own unambiguous terms, is the removal of Allende by non-legislative and non-judicial means. Whether Pinochet was "motivated" by the Resolution, or merely found it convenient to pre-existing schemes, is something I do not comment upon.
The Resolution belongs in the article, top-front-and-center, because it represents the majority opinion of the Chilean legislature regards the forcible removal of Allende, and it is therefore considerably more relevant to the subject than, say, "strikes", or external opinions.--Mike18xx 03:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike18xx Mr. Eliots pleas are fair, and also happen to be wikipedia policy. Please cite verifable sources. Although ""Appropriate" and "credible" are in the eye of the beholder", verifiable is wikipedia policy, which all of us have to follow. I have found that the best way to keep my material from ever being deleted is to site sources. There is a brand new Wikipedia:Footnotes process which may help. You seem to know a lot about the coup, I look forward to you continuing to expand this article with some of the source material that you have read.Travb 10:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pinochet had an early encounter with Allende

Indeed. If anyone here has read "The Crucial Day" a book in interview format with Pinochet he says that while he was in Northern Chile running a military prison for labor activists Allende (then a Congressman) and other Socialist politicians went to try and investigate the prison. Pinochet confronted Allende (because he said that the Congressmen needed a warrant to inspect the prison) and Allende said (and I am paraphrasing Pinochet's statement of what he said) "We are going in" and Pinochet then implied that he would have to order his soldiers to shoot them if they tried to go in without a warrant and then the Congressmen left. This definately should be mentioned in this article. I can't be the only person here who's read "The Crucial Day"--Jersey Devil 03:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


When did Pinochet begin to implement Chicago economics?

The page used to claim that he implemented Chicago economics instantly upon seizing power, and I changed it to indicate that some period of time elapsed. I cite my sources below. xod 01:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)xod[reply]

  • "Like most generals who seize power, he initially ran the economy as a centrally directed, military-type system. Only after this approach failed did he, in desperation, turn to the free market policies advocated by the Chicagoans." http://www.hooverdigest.org/974/bckr3.html
  • "In March 1975, the Chicago boys held an economic seminar that received national media attention. Here they proposed a radical austerity program...Shortly after the 1975 conference, the Chilean government initiated the Economic Recovery Program (ERP)." http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-chichile.htm
  • "During the first unsettled weeks of military rule, with factions of all kinds jockeying for power, rival schemes were proposed that were closer to old-fashioned fascism, of the kind still practised by Franco in Spain, with a repressive state giving orders to business rather than collaborating with it." http://www.blythe.org/nytransfer-subs/Covert_Actions/Pinochet,_the_Friedman_Boys_-and-_Thatcher

Recent edits

Could a regular review recent edits by an anon for POV. I'm not familar or fresh enough to do it. Rich Farmbrough 23:42 28 March 2006 (UTC).

US aligned/Soviet aligned

Due to recent edits, which explain that Allende was "Soviet aligned" to balance the article, I added that Pinochet was "US aligned". I personally feel that both adjectives should be deleted, but to add balance to the edits, this seems like a good, temporary solution.Travb 10:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


exploiting role

I changed the first paragraph back from this:

He seized power by exploiting his role as Commander of the Army after the Chamber of Deputies of Chile Resolution of August 22, 1973 indicted Soviet-aligned President Salvador Allende for treason and implored his forcible removal.

to this:

He came to power in a violent coup that deposed Salvador Allende, a Marxist physician who had become the first Socialist to be elected President of Chile.

The reason is because the verb confusion in the first sentence. What exactly does "exploiting his role" mean? A much clearer statment is that Augusto Pinochet came to power in a coup.

In addition, the Chamber of Deputies of Chile Resolution of August 22, 1973 is important, but does not need to appear in the first paragraph. This article is about Augusto Pinochet, not Salvador Allende.

Signed:Travb 10:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions

I won't put up with piety, immature edit wars from both the left and/or the right of the polictial spectrum. When it comes to edit wars, I am non-political.

Please do not delete relevant links to other pages:

Thank you.Travb 08:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).

Eliminating Information in Order to Create Consensus

The latests edits, 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 fun 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 disserviceto 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]
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)[reply]
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 generally; 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))[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Augusto_Pinochet&oldid=64914225"