Talk:Pablo Neruda

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article nomineePablo Neruda was a Language and literature good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
January 19, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed

A brilliant person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Personal life Contradiction[edit]

"Neruda had one daughter, Malva Marina Trinidad (1934–1943), living in Gouda, The Netherlands. She died at age eight in 1942." <-- This sentence contradicts itself (did she die in 1943 or 1942?) and the earlier Spanish Civil War subheading that says she was born in Madrid.Staticshakedown (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Neruda married Marietje Antonia Hagenaar (whom he called Maruca, although the article names her Maryka Antonieta Hagenaar Vogelzang, Maryka is probably a basterdisation of Marijke, a common Dutch name, she is usually referred to as Maruca Reyes, Vogelzang was her mothers maiden name, so referring to her as Vogelzang is not correct), an Indonesian-Dutch woman, on 6 december 1930. Neruda was appointed as Chilean consul in Madrid, where his daughter was born in 1934. The daughter, Malva Marina, had hydrocephalus. As far as I am aware she was his only child. The child was taken on by a foster family in Gouda, where she died aged 8. I am planning to visit the cemetery in Gouda where she lies buried in June 2018, I will see if I can find the grave and post a picture. Although gravestones are not proof, it is the best I can do. Maruca and Neruda probably seperated in 1936 although their divorce is registered in 1942. Maruca died, alone, on 27 March 1965, aged 65. Pauline Slot, a Dutch author, wrote an interesting romantic novel in 2010 called En het vergeten zo lang in which Maruca features, I do not believe it has been translated into English. 06:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, the revisions to his wife's name make sense. It looks to me as though somehow two methods of spelling Dutch have crept in: "Marijke" looks like a modern Dutch spelling; the alternative use of the "y" instead of the "ij" looks antique (it sometimes appears as a "y" with two dots on top, effectively the dot on the i and the dot on j. and in various places one can see the ij displayed in capitals as a single character with looks like a "U" with a break at the bottom of the left hand downstroke). "Marietje" looks like an affectionate diminutive. To be dead sure, perhaps a mother-tongue Dutch speaker would be able to comment?! Foiled circuitous wanderer (talk) 09:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Fortunately I am native speaker of both Dutch and English. It is not uncommon for children to have one of their parents names as a diminutive. For example Juanita would be the daughter of Juan (meaning little Juan) and Anita would be the daughter of Anna (meaning little Anna). Marietje means little Marie (as in Mary). It was not uncommon for Dutch people to give their children diminutive names, even though the birth certificate may differ. In this case the birth certificate could say Marie, whereas in practice she would be called Marietje (possibly to distinguish her from her mother). There might also be a problem with naming issues. There are countries where you are known by your own name and your fathers name. For example Magnus Magnussen is Magnus son of Magnus. In the Icelandic phone directory he would appear as: Magnus, Magnussen. In other cultures a name of a parent could be included, as in Alisa Zinovyevna Rosenbaum, Alice, daughter of Zino Rosenbaum. In Western countries it is usual that a woman takes on her husbands name followed by her own name (or the other way round) as in Jessica Ennis-Hill. Although it has occured that a husband takes on his wifes name as in Jon Kabat-Zinn (when he married Myla Zinn). In this case Marietje Antonia Hagenaar would be the Dutch maiden name, but in Chilean it is not unthinkable her name would be Maria Antonia Hagenaar Vogelzang. Why she would be called Marijke I do not know, but it could a case of reverse engineering. The spelling is also a cultural problem, in German an s and z would become a ß (ringel s). Many domain names change ö to oe. Y is a difficult letter in many languages. In Dutch it is known as a Greek Y, whereas ij is known as a long y, to distinguish it from ei, the short y. 11:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Neruda's pseudonym[edit]

This topic has been revived from the archives since there has been no discussion about it. There seems to be considerable doubt that Neruda's pen name derived from Czech writer and poet Jan Neruda. Apparently Neruda never agreed to reveal the origin of his pseudonym and it seems that a journalist forced that theory. There is an interesting hypothesis published on the web by a Spanish physician. According to that the name derives from the violinist Wilma Neruda which he admired a lot. Unfortunately the following article by Enrique Robertson is only written in German,spanish and French

Article by Enrique Robertson --Moroderen (talk) 07:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Several have pointed that Neruda may have known of Wilma Neruda when he was assuming his pen name, but in his memoirs, he admits it was for Jan Neruda and how he had once placed flowers at a statue of Jan while traveling in Czechoslovakia. But still, perhaps he did get it from the violinist, Neruda wasn't always exactly honest in his memoirs Eizmarcos (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Quote from Weekly Standard[edit]

What was tagged as a "full English translation" was in fact anything but, as anybody who can read the Spanish original can tell: it was a clumsy translation of disconnected passages (some of them, including "Malenkov will continue his work", in the voice of a character in the poem) that have been deceptively collated. Feketekave (talk) 11:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


A chronological, complete list of (at least major) works toward the end of the article seems in my recollection to be pretty standard Wikipedia practice for authors/artists/etc., as well as a pretty useful reference. (talk) 04:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

true! I was looking for exactly the same. would be nice if someone, who has some time, could include it. :D --helohe (talk) 01:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

What about the poetry?[edit]

The article is an excellent description of his life but not a word about his poetry. What does it mean? Has there been critical reviews? What are the themes? Did he have a poetic theory? Why should I read him? Why was he said to be the most important poet of the 20th century? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You've said it!!! Too funny to read in the midsection that, at that point, Neruda had a worldwide reputation as a poet, and yet we are told he published only one book!!! LOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


Seems to me that the quote from Borges is awfully long, to the point of being quite disproportionate to its importance. - Jmabel | Talk 04:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand this[edit]

Pablo Neruda was credited for one of Hitler's greatest downfalls, the "Literary Attack" or "Punch to the Face" as some called it, that was believed to contribute to his suicide. Artist Pablo Picasso was granted credit for the action, and Pablo Neruda wouldn't be awarded it for decades to come from Picasso's confession.

Is this real? It seems like a hoax. If it is real -- there should be some explanation. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JustinMarst (talkcontribs) 14:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Paragraph 2[edit]

The second paragraph (of the introductory material) seems to be more or less a disparate hodgepodge of information, with most or all of the points unrelated to one another. Can this get some attention maybe? Thanks, Bob the ducq (talk) 15:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Legacy section[edit]

I suggest we cut the "Legacy" section. It is mostly a list of media inspired by Neruda's works. Every famous artist has hundreds of people who are inspired by their work. The list is not comprehensive or notable, in my view. WP:TRIV says "Trivia sections should be avoided." Any objections? ThanksSpanglej (talk) 04:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Films and Television Section: Truly, Madly, Deeply[edit]

In the film "Truly, Madly, Deeply", Nina's dead husband recites Neruda's poem "The Dead Woman" (from The Captain's Verses). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

What is a Chilean Communist Poet?[edit]

Or a Communist Poet for that matter? Even if he was a Communist, does it have to appear "Chilean Communist Poet?" Is there another type of poet, or Chilean Poet, that calls for the distinction "Chilean Communist Poet?" Are there "Chilean Egalitarian Poets," or perhaps "Chilean Plutarchian Poets?" I don't know. I'm just asking. Cheers. (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Neruda was a Communist Party senator and politically active for much of his life, that is why it is mentioned in the lead. Maybe the juxtaposition of the three words in this way isn't helpful. Span (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Copyright violation?[edit]

the poem "curse" is quoted in its entirety here. I believe that is a copyright violation.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It's removed. Thanks for the flag. Span (talk) 04:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Márquez quotation[edit]

In The Fragrance of Guava, a collection of conversations between Gabriel García Márquez and Plinio Apuleyo Mendoza, first published in 1982, Márquez describes Neruda as "the greatest poet of the 20th century — in any language." That is the original source of that statement, which has been quoted, unsourced, by the Washington Post, by All Things Considered on NPR, and most recently, in the New Directions paperback edition of Love Poems. But how exactly to cite that original source in a Wikipedia article, I will leave to established editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

¡Gracias! I've added the source you provided to the article. Gamaliel (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pablo Neruda/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Olegkagan (talk message contribs count logs email) 21:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article within the next week or two. I did cursory reading and it looks very good but there a few fairly small things that need to be improved. Will post everything together once I give the article a thorough reading. --Olegkagan (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    a. I found a few small things but since they were so minor, I corrected them myself.
    b. Parts of the lead section do not correspond with article. Time periods are not always clear when words like "soon", "later", or "during this period" are used.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    a. There are a lot of unsourced information in this article. This is currently one of two major issues with this article.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    a. Though covered briefly in the biographical section, in order to truly address the main aspects of the topic, this article needs to discuss - in its own section, imho - the themes and technique of Neruda's poetry. There is also very little about the critical/scholarly reception of Neruda's work both during his lifetime and posthumously. In addition, while Neruda's contemporaries are mentioned, there is nothing here little here about who influenced Neruda, and who was influenced by him. For a poet of Neruda's stature, where there is a lot of biographical articles and literary criticism, it is unecessary for a GA article to be close to comprehensive, but it should, at least, include these items.
    b. Below I've listed individual lines that lack focus or are extraneous to the flow of the article. On a larger scale, however, the section on Borges should not be its own section. It should be cut down and incorporated in the article (either somewhere in the current structure, or in a "Criticism" section) or made into a sidebar.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    b. Just a suggestion: in the photos of Neruda's homes, include the years he lived there in the caption. That information is included nowhere in the article and thus the images tend to lack context within the poet's life.
  7. Overall:

Detailed Comments[edit]


  • "He chose his pen name after Czech poet Jan Neruda." - This information is important to include in the lead, but it is completely unsourced in the article.
  • "Neruda always wrote in green ink as it was his personal color of hope." - Not only is there no source for this mentioined here, but it is trivial in any case. It certainly doesn't belong in the lead.
  • "On July 15, 1945, at Pacaembu Stadium in São Paulo, Brazil, he read to 100,000 people in honor of Communist revolutionary leader Luís Carlos Prestes." - This does not fit in with the lead as it basically jumps to a specific reading towards the middle of Neruda's life. It can be included in the article, just not in the lead.
  • Later, Neruda escaped into exile through a mountain pass near Maihue Lake into Argentina. Years later..." - This is an example of a place where the time periods are not clear. It's okay to be a little bit vague in the lead since you go into detail later, but "later" is also repetitive here.
  • "When Neruda returned to Chile after his Nobel Prize acceptance speech, Allende invited him to read at the Estadio Nacional before 70,000 people." - My Spanish is not great, but I can't find where in the source 70,000 people is mentioned.

Time - The time is not clear in these lines:

  • "Later, mired in isolation and loneliness, he worked stints in Colombo (Ceylon), Batavia (Java), and Singapore."
  • "After returning to Chile, Neruda was given diplomatic posts in Buenos Aires and then Barcelona, Spain." - When did Neruda return to Chile?
  • "During this period, Neruda became slowly estranged from his wife and began a relationship with Delia del Carril, an Argentine twenty years his senior." - Does "this period" refer to the life of his daughter?
  • "Neruda moved later to Valdivia in southern Chile."
  • "Del Carril eventually learned of his affair with Matilde Urrutia and he sent her back to Chile in 1955. She convinced the Chilean officials to lift his arrest allowing Urrutia and Neruda to go to Capri, Italy. Now united with Urrutia," - The sequence of events in this part of the article is generally unclear (who did Neruda send back?). When, for example, in relation to 1955 did "She" convince Chilean officials?
  • "Upon Neruda's return to Chile, he stopped in Peru, where he gave readings to enthusiastic crowds in Lima and Arequipa and was received by President Fernando Belaúnde Terry." - When did Neruda return to Chile?

Citations Needed - Though not all of these lines are controversial or likely to be challenged, it's good form to stay away from unsourced statements in Wikipedia articles. This article is, unfortunately full of them. There is also incidents of citations at the end of the paragraph only being the source for the very last statement. I've already checked the sources I've been able to check for accuracy, and I'll be able to check the rest once I get my hands on Feinstein's book and Tarn's introduction. (See the Lead section above for a few more of these)

  • "In the winter of 1914, Neruda composed his first poems."
  • "Neruda's father opposed his son's interest in writing and literature"
  • "Neruda received encouragement from others, including future Nobel Prize winner Gabriela Mistral, who headed the local girls' school."
  • "The young poet wanted to find a name that would mislead his father."
  • "Years later, Pablo Neruda in recognition of the Czech poet, left a flower at the foot of his statue in Prague “Confieso que he vivido”."
  • "The first name Pablo is thought to be inspired by the French poet Paul Verlaine."
  • "a collection of love poems that was controversial for its eroticism, especially considering its author's young age."
  • "While on diplomatic service, Neruda read large amounts of poetry and experimented with many different poetic forms. He wrote the first two volumes of Residencia En La Tierra, which included many surrealistic poems."
  • "After leaving his wife, he lived with Delia del Carril in France." - Not only is this unsourced, it is also unclear; previously it seems like his wife and daughter left him, but here it says that he left his wife.
  • "Neruda later said he did it at the request of Mexican President Manuel Ávila Camacho."
  • "This enabled Siqueiros, then jailed, to leave Mexico for Chile, where he stayed at Neruda's private residence."
  • "In exchange for Neruda's assistance, Siqueiros spent over a year painting a mural in a school in Chillán." - I've included the last three, though I expect they may be covered by citation #16. If I find that they are, I'll strike them out here.
  • " Martín Espada, poet and professor of creative writing at the University of Massachusetts, has hailed the work as a masterpiece, declaring that "there is no greater political poem"." - I have no doubt that Mr. Espada did say this, but it needs to be cited?
  • "However, despite his disillusionment with Stalin, Neruda never lost his essential faith in communist theory and remained loyal to "the Party"."
  • "While in hiding, Senator Neruda was removed from office and in September 1948 the Communist Party was banned altogether under the Ley de Defensa Permanente de la Democracia (Law for the Permanent Defense of Democracy), called by critics the Ley Maldita (Accursed Law)..."
  • Neruda moved later to Valdivia in southern Chile. From Valdivia he moved to Fundo Huishue a forestry estate in the vicinities of Huishue Lake. Neruda's life underground ended in March 1949 when he fled over the Lilpela Pass on the Andes Mountains to Argentina on horseback. He would dramatically recount his escape from Chile in his Nobel Prize lecture." - All of this needs to be cited.
  • "...a Whitmanesque catalog of the history, geography, and flora and fauna of South America, accompanied by Neruda's observations and experiences. Many of them dealt with his time underground in Chile, which is when he composed much of the poem." - This need to be cited otherwise it constitutes original research.
  • "In fact, he had carried the manuscript with him on his escape on horseback."
  • "Neruda returned to Chile in August of that year and rejoined Delia del Carril, who had traveled ahead of him some months earlier, but the marriage was crumbling." - Particularly that the marriage was crumbling.
  • "Miller later opined that Neruda's adherence to his communist ideals of the 1930s was a result of his protracted exclusion from "bourgeois society"."
  • "However, this visit also prompted an unpleasant backlash; because the Peruvian government had come out against the government of Fidel Castro in Cuba, July 1966...even after receiving an invitation in 1968." - No parts of this episode carry any citations.
  • "a decision that did not come easily because some of the committee members had not forgotten Neruda's past praise of Stalinist dictatorship."
  • Technically, all of selections of Neruda in popular culture (what is currently the "Legacy") section should be cited, but I'm not going to insist on that since it doesn't look to be standard among recent Good biographical Articles.


  • You might list the years covered in the subsections of "Life and career". For example "Early years (1904-1914)".
  • Contradiction in need of clarification: In the section "Mexico" it says that Neruda and Octavio Paz "...nearly came to blows in 1942", but later in the section on "Neruda and Stalinism" it says "Their differences came to a head after the 1939 Nazi-Soviet Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact when they almost came to blows in an argument over Stalin." -- So 1) In what year did they nearly come to blows? and 2) using the phrase "come to blows" twice is repetitive and should be replaced in one of these sections.
  • In the section early years, "In the winter of 1914, Neruda composed his first poems" does not follow from the previous sentence. It looks like it was tacked on to the end of this paragraph.
  • "She convinced the Chilean officials to lift his arrest allowing Urrutia and Neruda to go to Capri, Italy." - You mentioned going to Italy before, but you mention it again here but the chronology of Neruda's time in Italy, and the reason for being in Capri specifically is not clear.
  • It'd be nice to have a section of "Los versos del Capitán" added to the article, if possible, since it's mentioned by name.
  • "But his Swedish translator, Artur Lundkvist, did his best to ensure the Chilean received the prize." - I'll check the source on this and try to make it clearer myself, but off-hand, I'm not exactly sure what Mr. Lundkvist did? Did he lobby on Neruda's behalf? Pay off the committee? There are better ways to say it then "did his best", methinks.
  • The little sentence on the investigation re. Neruda's death that was started in June 2011 should have a little more detail. At least that the Chilean Communist Party called for the investigation and that Neruda's is not the only one.
  • The paragraph on houses in "Later years" should be moved to the "Legacy" section.
  • Not necessary for a GA, but for the record, the section on "Early years" needs to be expanded. It says nothing about education or influences, which seems to be standard in biographical articles of poets.
  • The "Legacy" section should be renamed "In Popular Culture", I think Legacy refers more to a more general influence in poetry and politics.
  • Finally, I notice that the majority of citations in this article come from only two sources. While these sources look to be of good quality, more biographical and literary sources should really be used to add depth.

I apologize if some of the above may look like nit-picking, but I think a Good Article should be just that. Further, I'm a fan of Neruda and would love to see this article improved. I'm willing to keep this open for a two weeks, till 28 September, 2011. If you can fix the above issues by then, I'd be happy to pass it. Otherwise, feel free to delist it, take as long as you want to improve the article, list it and message me (I'll be happy to review it again). It's up to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olegkagan (talkcontribs) 05:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, because User:Haidill hasn't responded, I am going to fail the article. --Olegkagan (talk) 17:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

This article still seems uneven and strays far from accurate in it's description of the man's life. For example: Neruda was already living underground in 1948 when Conservative Chilean President González Videla outlawed communism in Chile. A warrant may have been issued for Neruda's arrest at that time, but he was already in hiding since 1947 due to his protests against President Videla's policy against striking miners. Neruda was in hiding for a total of two years until he managed to leave in 1949. The Wiki only mentioned his friends hid him for a few months when the warrant was issued! He was already living "underground" for a year or so at that time.. -- (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)Dr. S

Is Pablo Neruda poisoned?[edit]

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: A judge in Chile has requested the exhumation of the remains of the poet Pablo Neruda in the investigation of his death 1973rd year. Famous Nobel laureate died twelve days after the military coup in 11th September 1973. Gen. Augusto Pinochet overthrew President Salvador Allende. Neruda died at the age of 69 years and his family has always claimed that he died in a hospital in Santiago of advanced prostate cancer. However, Chile is 2011. opened an investigation on suspicion that he was poisoned, according to the BBC. (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Horrible photo in infobox[edit]

There are many far more complimentary pictures of him. For a Nobel prize winning poet, a better picture could be found. 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 04:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Birth Name[edit]

Which is it, NEFTALÍ RICARDO REYES BASOALTO as it is on this page (and in the Britannica Encyclopaedia) or RICARDO ELIÉCER NEFTALÍ REYES BASOALTO as it is on the Spanish Wikipedia page? --Nazroon (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I would like to know this, too (although it's now been changed to the way the Spanish page has it). Surprised that something so important about such a well-known figure isn't nailed down definitively. What was the source with the discrepancy in the Spanish page? (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

We can accept there are two versions of his birth name. This is not particularly unusual, especially in Catholic Hispanic tradition that long ago. We should note in the lead that Neftalí Ricardo Reyes Basoalto is an alternate name. Biographers differ:

Rape claim[edit]

AFAIK, Neruda was never accused of rape during his lifetime. What we have is an account in his memoirs (and only in his memoirs) of a possibly ambiguous incident, which, while non violent, clearly troubled him decades later. This was picked up a few months ago by Slavoj Zizek -- who probably would not be offended at being called a provocateur -- and bounced back and forth in the press. (Odd, given that the account had been there for all to read.)

Without any implication of whether "silence does not mean consent" is or is not an anachronism when referring to South Asia in 1929, would it not be far more NPOV to say something along the lines of: a sexual encounter described in his memoirs has recently been described as a rape? Feketekave (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

"The military coup supported and financed by the US"[edit]

In its current form, the article states: "the military coup led by General Augusto Pinochet on September 11, supported and financed by the United States saw Neruda's hopes for a Socialist Chile destroyed.."

First, the source points to a Peter Kornbluh/National Security Archive page that discusses CIA support for the Pinochet regime in 1975...two years after the coup. The source does not show in any way that the US supported or financed the coup.

Second, this isn't the appropriate article to discuss this controversial topic, as it can't be covered adequately in this article that's supposed to be about Neruda, not the coup. Suffice to say that the coup had terrible results but during his time in office, Allende lost support of many sectors of civil society including some socialist and communist groups. In other words, it makes no sense to specify that the US supported the coup when the list of Chilean actors that supported it is several pages long.

Finally, Neruda's dream was for a communist Chile, not socialist. Further, the list of heads of state of Chile from the 1920s to 1970s shows political control of the country shifting as regularly as a pendulum (sometimes democratically, sometimes undemocratically). Several socialist-leaning parties or socialist coalitions held the office, including the Radical Party and the Democratic Alliance.

-- (talk) 11:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, really. Of course the coup was supported and partly financed by the CIA; this is admitted nowadays even by Chileans who still defend it. I'd agree that a better source is needed here.

This is not the place to discuss the virtues and defects of Allende's government. Let us just say that: (a) it would be nonsensical to call pre-Allende Chile "socialist", (b) "socialist" is a word that Neruda would have used himself (as did members of the Socialist and Communist parties, indistinctly). Feketekave (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this isn't the place to discuss the virtues and defects of Allende's government. Nor is it the place to discuss the level of the US's involvement in the Chilean coup. I'm not sure I understand how or why Neruda, a vocal advocate for communism in Chile, would have dreamed of a socialist Chile. Maybe there's something I don't see. Unless I am missing something, as a Stalinist, Neruda would have viewed socialism as a stepping stone on the revolutionary path to full communism. -- (talk) 06:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Nobel prize date is incorrect[edit]

Neruda won the Nobel Prize for literature in 1971, not 2016. <> Mark C (talk) 12:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)