Talk:Augusto Pinochet/Archive 4

Editing the sandbox (Augusto Pinochet/intro)

I don't agree with the anon user's change to say that U.S. opposition to Allende was "[i]n accordance with its Cold War policy of opposing Communist expansion." The U.S. defense of its action to oust Allende is too peripheral to the Pinochet article to be included in the intro. On the other hand, the facts about what the U.S. did and did not do to bring Pinochet to power are relevant. I've restored the Kissinger statement that the U.S. "created the conditions" for Pinochet's ascension. JamesMLane 00:16, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Just a question. Is there any chance of this sandbox becoming the introduction? I have several edits I'd do, but haven't because I'm afraid it will just simply be reverted on sight by 172 if it ever is put on the real article, triggering and edit war that will be finished protecting the page...and so ad infinitum --AstroNomer 05:25, May 31, 2004 (UTC)

It may be that 172 intends to troll this article indefinitely. But if people collaborate on the sandbox there'll be more inertia to finally get it installed once and for all. (Arbitration may or may not affect this.) What's been clear from the beginning is that several people object to the language 172 is pushing, and so it is unacceptable. VV 18:27, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Good question. My thought was that, if there seemed to be a fair amount of support for whatever emerges from this sandbox, it would then be one alternative in a new poll. Although I joined this discussion partway through, I don't think there's been a poll that asked people to express a preference between, on the one hand, saying "U.S.-backed" and then elaborating/qualifying in a footnote, and, on the other hand, replacing "U.S.-backed" with a summary of key facts in footnote-free text. If there are enough facts to make clear that the U.S. did indeed have substantially more involvement than it initially admitted, perhaps we could achieve consensus or a semblance thereof on that approach. Then again, perhaps not, but to travel hopefully is better than to arrive.  :) JamesMLane 06:24, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Comments on VV's latest edits:
ECONOMICS. VeryVerily, you said that the summary "really [gave] one side only" on the economic issues. I don't see the basis for that criticism. The sentence you deleted gave both sides: "His supporters say that he rescued a faltering economy and produced a long period of economic growth (the 'Miracle of Chile'); opponents note that both unemployment and poverty rose dramatically during Pinochet's rule." While deleting that sentence, you restored elsewhere the "rescued a faltering economy," and also the hyperlink to the "Miracle of Chile." You left in the "great modernizer" from the preceding sentence. You deleted all the anti-Pinochet material, i.e., the unpleasant facts about unemployment and poverty. It seems to me that your version gives only one side. What was biased about the sentence you deleted? The hyperlink should certainly be included but, given its nonneutral title (as opposed to "Chilean economy under Pinochet" or some such), a reference to that article, without more, would not be NPOV. Including the phrases "great modernizer" and "faltering economy" tilts the scales even more.

A comment about economics. The numbers I've seen given to "prove" an increase in unemployement and poverty are not from the end of Pinochet's regime, but from the worst point (1983, i think) in an international crisis that had affected Chile specially badly, probably because of its recent liberalization and other economic policies. And also the numbers given for the "before", are not from the end of Allendes' government, but closer to the begining, before both his policies and external presures took their toll on Chilena economy. I'd say that the most fair way of characterizing the economy during Pinochet's rule is that had big fluctuations, following the international market in which Chile was inserted; that there was an overall improvement, but the distribution of income regressed greatly, with the most affluent sector being the most benefited with the economic improvements, but not the only ones...I won't put that, though, because it is only my impression, and don't have "hard numbers" on hand to back it. Now, the "Miracle of Chile" stuff I'd leave it out...I don't remember anybody in Chile using that phrase...there were highs and lows, hard work, concentration of economic power, some speculation, etc...no miracles...--AstroNomer

According to our article on the "Miracle of Chile," that phrase was actually used by Milton Friedman to describe some part of Pinochet's regime. I think the phrase has enough currency that we must report it, though it's obviously not NPOV. As to the details (unemployment, etc.), if some points aren't firmly established then we have to be clear that we're reporting a POV. Perhaps instead of "opponents note that both unemployment and poverty rose dramatically during Pinochet's rule," we should say "opponents contend that... (etc.)" It's certainly accurate to say that at least one opponent, Greg Palast, so contends -- see [1]. JamesMLane 08:33, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

IMPORTANCE OF THE U.S. ROLE. Your comment is "don't want to suppose pinochet couldn't have done it on his own." I agree with that. On the other hand, we don't want to give the impression that the U.S. merely supported Pinochet's regime once he took over, and that nothing the U.S. did before the coup played any role in Pinochet's success. I tried to walk the line between these two extremes by saying that he "came to power with important help from the" U.S. Not "vital help" or "necessary help," and not saying, as I think some historians would, that the U.S. "installed" Pinochet in power or "orchestrated" the coup -- but also not saying or suggesting that he came to power with the completely passive approval of the U.S. In your version, there's discussion of Pinochet's regime (economics, dictatorship); then the sentence about the U.S. supporting him; then a sentence that begins, "Prior to the coup, the U.S. had...." That makes it seem as if the U.S. support for Pinochet was still with reference to his time in power, as distinct from what went on before the coup.
For these reasons, I don't think your latest edit is fair to the POV that the coup was a bad thing and that the U.S. (not just Kissinger) does indeed have "the blood of martyrs" on its hands. JamesMLane 05:24, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Coup in Chile

With all this emphasis on the coup the 1973 coup in Chile I thought it would help to make a separate article on it which consolidates everything we know about the coup. --Uncle Ed 15:36, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Look at Chilean coup of 1973.--Baloo rch 17:41, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Both links refer to the same article, which I largely wrote. --Uncle Ed 19:16, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

US backing for coup

First of all, I don't think the issue of whether (or how much) the US "backed" the Chilean coup of 1973 is of primary importance to the Augusto Pinochet article.

Secondly, if it's a point of dispute amoung us Wikipedians, then it will NEVER be possible to unlock the article -- not even if me and a couple of other guys agree to abandon the dispute. Because someone else will just come along and revive the dispute -- and I don't see any way to reconcile VV and 172, even if Eloquence and I (Uncle Ed) came to a rapprochement.

So maybe we should directly address the problem of US backing of the coup in the article itself. That is, mention in the article that various writers (other than Wikipedians) disagree over the extent of US support for the coup. For example,

• E. Leet, the Nobel-prize winning chairman of the History Department at Columbia University, wrote that "It has always been clear to scholars that the coup of 1973 could never have taken place without US backing. The US-backed coup was the worst thing ever to happen to Chile, and the blood of martyrs is on Kissinger's hands."
• I. M. Dumbjohn, professor of Hemispheric Studies at West Point Military Academy, wrote that "The CIA denied any involvement in the coup, and we can trust our own intelligence agencies always to tell the truth to the public, obviously." --Uncle Ed 19:33, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree with your first point, that it's not terribly important; that's why I've been against having half the intro be about the US, laying out specific evidence and the like. The allegation should be only briefly mentioned if at all, and the burgeoning section below left to burden the details (or forked to another article). I don't think the latter sarcasm is necessary; the recently classified document shows the CIA did not stage the coup (unless you believe Kissinger was lying, which Eloquence dismisses as highly unlikely for the other claim). VV 21:19, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I always thought it was a fact that the coup was backed by the USA but I have to admit that I didn't check the evidence. Andries 14:52, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think the problem most people have with "US-backed" is just that it has a broad range of meanings. The way in which the US supported the coup is quite complicated, and despite what some people have been saying the evidence is hardly crystal clear on exactly how they did it, even if you're willing to take Kissenger at his word. What's needed is an intro that explains the nature of US support in a little more detail, so that we can at least all agree that the intro is factually accurate, whatever its other merits.

A lot of people (myself included) were under the impression that it was an established fact that the US had supported/backed the coup. In fact, I still think it's an established fact, but we ought to be clear on exactly how the US supported/backed the coup, and not take sides on disputed issues. Cadr 15:04, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Edits to discussion of prosecution

Because this page is still protected, I can't make these changes to J.J.'s recent edit, so all I can do is suggest:
(1) "Since presidency ended there has been ongoing controversy, both within Chile and other countries, over attempts to persecute Pinochet for various alleged crimes committed during his rule." Insert "his" before "presidency"; change "persecute" to the NPOV "prosecute."
(2)"On May 28, 2004 the Chilean Court of Appeals voted 14 to 9 to revoke Pinochet's dementia status, and thus his immunity from prosecution. In arguing their case, the prosecution presented a recent television interview with Pinochet. The judges found the interview to be proof that the former President was both lucid and mentally competent." In the first sentence, the link to Court of Appeals is pretty much useless. I would write it as: "the Court of Appeals of Chile [or whatever its full formal name is] voted 14 to 9... (etc.)" to prepare for having an article on that particular court. In the second sentence, change "their" to "its". JamesMLane 20:08, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Unprotected

After mailing list discussion, I hope calm will prevail. Here is the most controversial part (disputed at least among Wikipedians):

He was one of the leaders of a United States-backed coup that deposed the socialist government of Salvador Allende in 1973. (bold word is disputed)

Why not mention in the article why various historians, politicians, etc. call the 1973 coup "US-backed"? And explain what they mean by this?

If an historian says that the coup would certainly have failed without US support, that sounds like an excellent reason for that historian to say that the US "backed" the coup, and it would make sense for him to refer to it as a "US-backed" coup. The overthrow of Saddam was undoubtedly "US-backed", although "US-led" is an even better term.

I will support any addition to the article in which the term "US-backed" is supported by either (1) a source who applies the term or (2) some reasoning mentioned in the article. For example:

• Historian Felix Z. Gatto called the coup "US-backed" because the US supplied money, arms, intelligence, etc.; or,
• US backing for the coup included supplies of X and promises of Y by Nixon and Kissinger; or even,
• Despite official CIA denials of having "backed" the coup, historians generally consider US intervention as having been crucial to the coup's success.

In any case, I'd like to see a paragraph about the "backing" thing put into the article and remain STABLE for several days before somebody tackles the thorny task of editing the intro paragraph. I think we should omit any mention of things which we, the writers of this article, are disputing amongst ourselves, until we agree upon how the main body of the article should be written.

Well, see you all again Monday. Whatever you all decide, I won't be editing or toggling the "protection" switch again until then! --Uncle Ed 20:31, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Nice way of washing your hands, Ed. "I'm back on Monday" -- Whatever. --Cantus 21:39, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Edit

I made a minor edit to the article, just updating it with the newest news of Pinochet's trial. Nothing that should be controversial user:J.J.

Several changes to the introduction. In my opinion, the best way of describing his post is head of the military government. "Dictator" would please most, but is a term that will create disagrement. "de facto ruler" is partially correct, but for the period 1980-1990 does not apply, as he was named president by the constitution of 1980. Head of the military government is the best, because it was not the government of just pinochet, but the higher officers of all the armed forces were involved. In particular, for the period 1980-1990 the legislative power was made up by the heads of the other armed forces plus the second in command in the army.

Modifications to introduction

About the succesion. As I had mentioned before, the return to civilian rule established in the constitution was not contingent upon Pinochet's (or "the candidate's", as Pinochet is not named candidate for the 1988 in the constitution) defeat, but it would have happened anyway. Had Pinochet won, there would have been an election of Congress anyway in 1989, and the armed forces would not have had a part in that government. That's the reason of my reestructuring:contrary to myth, it was NOT Pinochet defeat that restored civilian rule, it was established by the constitution put in effect 8 years before. It is likely that, as long as Pinochet had continued being President the government would have been continued to be known to many as "Pinochet dictatorship", despite the presence of a Congress, but who knows, it is all speculation now...

I left commented the US-backed part that Ed commented, I won't get into that again.

Changed from "hundreds" to "thousands", as the Retig commission found close to 3,000 murdered and dissapeared. Also added resignation from Senate, did not, however, add the lastest prosecution.--04:47, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think you can "depose" a constitution. You can break it, declare it null and void, supersed it, and probably other things, but not depose it, as far as my understanding of the word depose goes.--AstroNomer 06:03, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

What about "put aside"? --Ruhrjung 06:30, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I'm busy reverting this guy as we speak. --Cantus 06:29, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Usually, in these coups, the military's top priority is to depose the elected leader. Later, they may announce that the constitution has been "temporarily suspended," keeping a fiction that the military acted in defense of the constitution. Other times they announce that the constitution has been "superseded." The important point is the overthrow of Allende. The reference to the constitution should be omitted from the intro; if someone digs out exactly what the junta said about the constitution after seizing power, that can be mentioned in the body of the article. JamesMLane 07:32, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Some resources

• Four resources found by Fred Bauder 13:00, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
• The Pinochet File: A Declassified Dossier on Atrocity and Accountability" by Peter Kornbluh (New Press) ISBN 1565845862
• http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/05/arts/05CHIL.html?th
• http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20031101fareviewessay82615/kenneth-maxwell/the-other-9-11-the-united-states-and-chile-1973.html?mode=print
• http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040101faresponse83116/william-d-rogers-kenneth-maxwell/fleeing-the-chilean-coup-the-debate-over-u-s-complicity.html

"US-backed coup" is a very shorthand and ambiguous way to describe a rather complex situation. Most actions were carried out by Chileans who while they may have been in close contact with the CIA did not have specific backing for the various actions that they took. The CIA according to their own rendition of events seems to have "waffled". Broadly backing a change of regime, but not taking decisive action either to effect that change or to effectively control events afterward. Fred Bauder 13:21, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

Plan to resolve duplication?

It is clear that we duplicate the story of US involvement in early 70s Chile too much. (Here, Allende's article, History of Chile, Chilean coup of 1973, U.S. intervention in Chile). It looks like that this duplication has arisen out of trying to solve inter-editor disputes rather trying to build the 'pedia (although it does that too to a large extent), so I don't want to go on merge-rampage and tread on any toes. But do we have a strategy for creating the definitive account? Or do I have it wrong, and we should be retelling the story on each page? Pcb21| Pete 12:50, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Took the words out of my mouth, Pete. After consolidating the 7 paragraphs of CIA role with the 3 paragraphs on the coup itself, I think it MIGHT help if we moved ALL TEN paragraphs from Augusto Pinochet to 1973 coup in Chile. This would not be to whitewash Pinochet, but just to facilitate editing the stuff about the coup, since that has been so controversial this spring. I'll wait for comments on this, though, so people don't get irritated at such a drastic change. --Uncle Ed 12:58, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I favor consolidating all detailed discussion in Chilean coup of 1973, with the other articles having wikilinks and summaries. In the Augusto Pinochet article, I believe that the U.S. role in the coup is a significant aspect of Pinochet's bio and should be mentioned in the intro, along with the other major Pinochet-related controversies (the Chilean economy and the attempts to prosecute him). JamesMLane 02:45, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

pov war

the deceptive, trolling, and vitriolic edit comments don't fool anyone. the coup was not a minor spat in isolation. User talk:Badanedwa 20:31, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)

Could you explain what in Earth are you talking about? --AstroNomer 03:08, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

lol --Cantus 03:17, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Introduction

Cantus wrote in an edit summary:

reinstating agreed intro

I for one did not agree on this. And I saw no other comment in recent days approving Cantus's version.

In particular, I object to labeling Allende as a "socialist" rather than a Marxist. If you click on the Salvador Allende article, it says clearly and prominently that he was a Marxist: "He was also an ardent Marxist and an outspoken critic of the capitalist system." [2]

The distinction between the general aims of socialism and the specific goals and methods of Marxism lies at the heart of the dispute. Allende's opponents saw him as abusing the democratic process to take Chile into a Communist dictatorship, which they feared would trample human rights as much as Castro had by then (and has since then!) -- as well as making the country as poor as Cuba.

Cantus, you have the right to make any change to the article you wish, the same right as anyone else. But please don't claim it was an "agreed upon" change. You simply reverted the intro to your own previous version. --Uncle Ed 12:52, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Because of the coup it is uncertain whether Allende would have, in practice, followed the Leninist pattern of establishing a totalitarian dictatorship. The term Marxist covers a wide spectrum of political beliefs ranging from democratic socialists to Pol Pot. Socialist is often used in bad faith as a euphemism, for example as it was in the East Germany article. So neither without more specificity is appropriate. I think the best solution is to go back into Allende's record (and of his political party) and quote their stated policy. Then express the fears of democratic and right wing Chileans as well as those of the United States. Defining Allende as a practioner of totalitarianism is not possible as he didn't get his chance. It remains theoretically possible that he would, in practice, continued to respect democratic institutions. Fred Bauder 14:17, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the illumination, Fred. If there's that much confusion over the basic terms, that may be one reason (among others) that there has been so much disputing among us contributors -- and not just on Pinochet vs. Allende but other related topics. In particular, I had thought that it was socialism rather than Marxism which had such a broad spectrum of definitions such as you expressed above (I thought "Marxism" was more specific, i.e., a subset of socialist approaches). --Uncle Ed 15:08, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Soviet Communism was Marxist-Lenninist, not Marxist. Saying that Allende was a Marxist should not imply that he was allied with the USSR. Cadr 23:04, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There are some hints in Allende's actions of totalitarian intent, for example, his friendship with Fidel Castro. It is hard to believe a person with a deep commitment to democracy would have had Castro by for a cordial visit. Fred Bauder 17:17, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

The Pope also had Castro by for a visit; apparently they smoked a cigar together during the latter's most recent visit to Rome. Is the Pope also totalitarian? Have you got any slightly more substantial evidence than this Fred? -- Viajero 19:46, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The question is, Why did the Chilean military and the CIA have the opinion that Allende was intending to make sure that the election where he was elected was to be the last election ever held in Chile. As for the Pope, he is unquestionably authoritarian, but without "legions" he can't really impose his rule. Fred Bauder 21:00, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

Re Castro: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." The U.S. had funded Allende's opponents, and even directly supported the attempt to kidnap General Schneider, in which Schneider was murdered, as part of the attempt to prevent Allende from taking office. Castro was the only Western Hemisphere leader standing up to the big bully that was targeting Allende. In Allende's position, regardless of how much sympathy you have for totalitarianism, you take your allies where you find them. As for Fred's question, I would by no means take it as given that the Chilean military or the CIA sincerely (as opposed to pretextually) held the belief that there would be no more free elections. Were there not strong opposition parties that continued to function openly during Allende's administration? Was there not a free press that vigorously criticized Allende? I don't see how a President who had neither military support nor overwhelming popular support could have posed a realistic threat to cancel further elections, even if he had wanted to, which there's no evidence he did. Oh, wait, I know, he was developing weapons of mass destruction.... JamesMLane 23:39, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Cantus & 172, would you mind if I added the following paragraph to the introduction of Augusto Pinochet? I'm thinking of putting it 3rd or 4th, i.e., just before the first heading. --Uncle Ed 17:00, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Pinochet remains a controversial figure. Some regard him as a great modernizer who rescued a faltering economy (the "Miracle of Chile") and saved Chile from communism, while others consider him a brutal military dictator responsible for severe human rights violations and social decay.

We could juice it up a bit by saying:

Pinochet remains a controversial figure. Some praise him as a great modernizer who rescued a faltering economy (the "Miracle of Chile") and saved Chile from communism, while others condemn him as a brutal military dictator responsible for severe human rights violations and social decay.

I think that would be quite unacceptable and highly POV in several ways: "saved from communism" is blatantly POV and speculative ; as opposed to "severe human rights violations" which are hard facts. To talk about "rescuing a faltering economy" when unemployment went up fivefold and wages declined by 40% under Pinochet is highly POV. The structure of the sentence suggests that the two statements have somehow the same validity, but the first one is extremely controversial, the second factual. pir 04:54, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Constitution

172 just erased all the reference to the constitution to go back to his prefered version, that gives the impression that Pinochet, as one contributor once wrote "made a plebiscite when he felt like it, and had to leave because he lost". The plebiscite was established 8 years before, in the constitution, an after being defeated, he did not "step down", that sounds as some kind of resignation, he simply passed power to his succesor after his mandate expired, as established in the constitution. Do you use the word "step down" to every constitutional transfer of power? Did Clinton "step down" to give the power to Bush? --AstroNomer 23:30, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

Furthermore, this so called "historian" he titles his removal of the constitutional basis of the plebiscite of 1988 with a comment "removing misleading overview of 1980 plebiscite" The 1980 plebiscite was not metioned at all!!!! The 1980 plebiscite aproved the 1980 constitution, but as there is mixed views as of its validity, I simply put "he's government enacted a constitution", what is accurate, wheter you think it was approved by the population or not. If he says the account was misleading, assuming he was actually referring to the 1988 plebiscite, it is because he really doesn't have a clue of chilean history, has not read the chilean constitution, and is simply repeating "common knowledge", or he doesn know Chilean history but was he is intentinally distorting it. --AstroNomer 23:39, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

I will ignore the personal attacks above. Nothing in my revision was inaccurate. Moving on, if you wanted me to restore the reference to the constitution, you could've just asked. I did so anyway. 172 00:09, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I apologize for the tone of my previous message, but not for its content. I really hoped not to see the previous user again, and see that had returned to "his" favorite revision, without any regard for what had been edited or discussed, and no explanation whatsoever (except a few comments on the summary line), was more that I was prepared to accept with calm.--AstroNomer 00:23, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I can relate, as I also get frustrated when some users don't disappear, such as-- well maybe I shouldn't elaborate. Now, is May 28, 2004 the right date for the change I've added? I remember that it was the last Friday of last month, but I might be wrong. 172 00:30, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know whether the 1925 constitution contemplated this kind of agreement as the one taken by the congress immediately after the 1970 election. I believe It didn't in which case the congress exceeded its own attributions. Also I had the impression the political parties had an agreement in advance to the election on whoever had the majority would be the elected one. About the civil‘s rights they where indeed as far as I remembered broken. Some of which were: The right to have a company as owner, the right to have a large estate as owner, the right to determine the prices of good according to market (they were fixed by law. As a consequence of that it started a black market and the basic good became hard to obtain. What is a worst, pensions were taken by the Allende government to use them to fill their own needs. The economy was utterly destroyed considering the inflation of around 1000% a year. As an example a car had the same value of a house or a property because the risk of loosing it to the government expropriation. Finally Allende was not a socialist or not at least as we understand a socialist is in our days, it has to be considered more as a communist, because among other things he supported the armed fight to take and retain the power, if not as fact at least as a statement. He also supported the redistribution of the richness among the poor people, the abolition of private property in the case of the industries. Finally I think all this are facts and can be proved or documented with an appropriated research so please do the homework. About impartiality, remember Thucydides. User:FBlin Oct 12, 2004

deposed the first Socialist to be elected president

Not intending to upset User:172, I find his version to be more aimed at whitewashing what several high US representatives in retrospect have admitted to have been an error (was it Powel last time?) than to explain the important facts for a curious but uninformed reader.

I changed[3] the wording of the intro from:

came to power in a United States-backed coup d'état that deposed Salvador Allende, the first Socialist to be elected president of Chile.

which gives the impression that the coup was chiefly a matter of person, when in reality it was a radical change of form of government. That's why I put in the abolishon of democracy before mentioning that Allende was deposed:

came to power in a United States-backed coup d'état that abolished Chile's democracy and deposed Salvador Allende, the first Socialist to be elected president of Chile, who died during the coup.

Any reader who enters this article may be curious about the background for the more recent events connected with Pinochet. That's is why I think it's important and necessary to here mention the human rights abuses he and his government have been accused of:

Pinochet's government quickly moved to suppress leftist opposition with human rights abuses that evoked worldwide concerns, including "disappearances" and torture of intellectuals and political dissidents.

/Tuomas 09:02, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The abolishing of democracy was not the main purpose of US influence. They would have been happy had their attempts to cause Congress to elect the runner-up in 1970 succeded. But in 1973, there was no easy way to depose the Marxist Allende and preserve democracy at the same time, so they didn't mind helping create the conditions for a coup (Note that I say "help create the conditions", I still do not think that that is 'backing up') that would, at the very least, suspend democracy.

For the record, I might add that I have no opinion on such matters as what phrases have what connotation in English. /Tuomas 15:50, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

About the human right abuses, I agree that 172 succintnes was too much in this matter.--AstroNomer 10:44, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps we should outline and summarize the views of people who opposed or supported the 1973 coup in Chile.

Political arguments:

• It was intended to abolish democracy.
• It had the effect of abolishing democracy.
• Any overthrow of the winner of an election is by definition anti-democratic and therefore "bad".
  • ...but there is a difference between enforcing extraordinary elections and to remove the constitutional basis for democracy. /Tuomas 15:50, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Economic arguments:

• A command economy is always better for a country (especially the poorest of the poor) than a free market economy.
• It thwarted the people's clearly expressed desire to have a socialist economy.
  • Chile's economy and political system was far from that of the Soviet Union and her satellites. Chile's economy was rather developing in the direction of the domestic economy of the United Kingdom, West Germany or France. This wording is nothing but the crudest propagandisms used by fringe right-wing supporters of Pinochet. The people's desire was twarted already by a multitude of US sanctions and other means of economic warfare. /Tuomas 15:50, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Human rights arguments:

• Pinochet killed 3,000 people (at least!) and tortured many others -- there are copious detailed testimonies proving this beyond doubt

I don't care whether all these views go in Augusto Pinochet or another article, as long as (a) we don't fight each other while writing about these views and (b) we minimize duplication of info in the 5 articles which touch on the 1973 coup. --Uncle Ed 13:41, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have difficulty for some of the terminology and the underlying presumptions.

*A command economy is always better for a country (especially the poorest of the poor) than a free market economy.

This is too reductionistic. Where the evidence that Allende wanted to implement a command economy? Indeed he nationalized various industries, but so did the British too in the 1950s, and we don't normally refer to the UK at the time as a "command economy". It should also be noted that Pinochet, as stalwart free-marketer, re-privatized nearly everything with the important exception of the copper industry, which remains in state hands, and he had incorported in the Chilean consitution that 25% percent of its income would go towards military spending (correct me if I am wrong AstoNomer). This is hardly a sterling example of free-market principles! In other words, Pinochet (and plenty others like him) use techniques of statist economic control when it suits them.

I think it is 10% of the sales of copper, and it is not in the constitution, but in a law. I believe the money was compromised for a long time in payments for loans used in a fast militarization in preparation for the very close to happening war with Argentina (that would have inevitably degenerated in a war against Peru and Bolivia too). It is worth mentioning that only the then existing mines are still in the hands of the state. There are a few big copper mining projects now in private hands, and the sales fromt the private sector is close, if not larger than the state owned one (about 80% sure about this last statement). -AstroNomer 22:41, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

It thwarted the people's clearly expressed desire to have a socialist economy.

Again, if you are implying a centrally-run economy, this is an incorrect assumption. All that we can assume for certain is that a largish section of the Chilean population wanted social reforms and were willing to see the ecomomy more oriented towards those ends (ie, higher social spending).

-- Viajero 14:57, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If someone cared to dig up relevant printed books from the time, then one might quote Pinochet's official arguments and explanations for the coup. Disputes on the coup per se is maybe not really suitable for an article on Pinochet, unless they explain why he was prosecuted (or whatever the correct English term might be) by a couple of Western European judiciaries. /Tuomas 15:50, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Personal Remarks

In Alice in Wonderland, the Mad Hatter (an adult) teases Alice about her hair, evoking a rebuke from the 7-year-old girl.

'You should learn not to make personal remarks,' Alice said with some severity; 'it's very rude.'

After teasing her at length with vexing word play, the hatter finally manages to provoke her sufficiently that she momentarily departs from the Victorian politeness demanded of child to her elders, whereupon the Hatter pounces:

'Who's making personal remarks now?' the Hatter asked triumphantly. [4]

This is not a pattern for any of us to copy. I sincerely request all contributors, new and old, to remind me if I fall into this bad habit. A word to the wise is sufficient. --Uncle Ed 13:29, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Article protected: was this really necessary?

Completely asinine uncalled for protection of article by Hcheney today. Take a look at the history, and see if this merited a protection. I think not. I mean, I mildly appreciate the fact that he protected my version, but a protection at this time was not at all necessary. --Cantus 21:24, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Article unprotected

I do not see any evidence of a full out edit war, just some active editing, so i unprotected it. I will recuse myself for editing for today, so that a conflict of interest is not suspected. If i missed something, and there were really reasons for protecting, I apologize--AstroNomer

Constitution again

While reading the history of editions I saw that apparently Ed had added "imposed" a constitution instead of enacted. I purposedly wrote "enacted", and not mentioned its approval in a plebiscite in order not to add another point of discussion. The constitution was approved in a plebiscite by more than 60% of the population, but the consditions in which that took place have been heavely debated. There was not an organized and unified opposition, like in the 1988 plebiscite, there were no electoral records (though the fact that Chile has a National Identity Card makes that point a bit less bad), and there was not much opportunity for the opposition to get their point to the population, and plenty of publicity for the yes option, so, even when the constitution was approved, there is plenty of space for discussion. Despite all this, many would say that "imposed" is not correct either, because there was the possibility of refusal, and in fact about a third of the voters did (this was not a 99% approval nazi plebiscite). So, I would leave all the details for the article on the constitution, or the plebiscite, would anybody want to write one, but not here. FOr the purpose of this articlo, I think it is enough to say that the constitution was enacted, and was eventually accepted as the law of the land by all the political actors. --AstroNomer 23:13, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

The current version uses the word "enacted." AstroNomer is right in his posting above. For our purposes here, the only neutral way of handling this matter is describing the formal constitutional processes. 172 23:22, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

May I remind AstroNomer that 99% turnouts were more typical of the Soviet Union and her satellites. Nazis were bad in many ways, but they didn't really care that much about referenda and plebiscites. Their experience of the parliamentary elections of March 3, 1933, may be one reason added to the strictly ideological.

--Ruhrjung 00:16, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Human rights abuses

Ok. Soviet plebiscite. My point is there had to be a degree of freedom to have a third of votes against. Now, taking the oportunity that 172 seems to be reading the talk page (no offense intended), I want to reiterate that the human right abuses are important enough that they deserve more than a "swift repressiong of opposition" sentence. The reality of the abuses, or exceses is not in question, only how high the responsabilities went and the degree of knowledge and responsability of Pinochet himself is. But it is an inescapable fact of his government, and one of the ones he will be remembered for, for a long time to come. --AstroNomer 00:41, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

I agree!
But the edit history of this article is that much convoluted, that it's hard to comprehend what's removed, what's reworded and what's just simply moved around. What about the wording that 172 removed some hours ago?

...with human rights abuses that evoked worldwide concerns, including "disappearances" and torture of intellectuals and political dissidents.

Could it maybe be somehow joined with what I put in the same place some minutes ago?

Constitutional civil liberties and human rights were disregarded, resulting in thousands of political refugees being received in the US and in Western Europe.

One must also consider what's important enough to put in the introduction.
--Ruhrjung 00:52, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I put my comment after 172 removed the human right violations, but before you put the bit about the refugees. --AstroNomer 01:23, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

US-backed again

Would the involved parties find acceptable change US-backed by " a coup for which the US helped create the conditions". I know it is longer, but it is also completely imposible to deny. Evidently this leaves in the introduction only "one" of the many possible causes of the coup, so, if it is impossible to remove the reference to the US, references should be added about the rest of the causes: " a coup caused by internal opposition, the effects of the government policies, the activities of the allies of the government and US external, and probably undercover, influence." I don't expect that even longer phrase to be accepted, but it is a suggestion. --AstroNomer 01:23, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

That's OK with me, although it would be nice to find a better wording. Cadr 11:56, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ruhrjung's Latest Edit

After two edits, I believe we have stumbled upon a wording all of us can agree on. 7

The alleged US support for the coup of 1973 remains somewhat controversial.

I agree with this wording, as it isn't confrontational. I would speak out against any change from this phrasing. TheCustomOfLife 01:30, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The word alleged is highly POV. --Cantus 01:51, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, it is alleged to have happened. Rumored could be substituted for the word, but it would be the same effect. TheCustomOfLife 02:36, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've yet modified this more. :) It was kind of long and sounded too weak. My proposal now is to add widely believed language. This is factual and a common "weasel term" on Wikipedia (e.g., Al-Qaida is "widely regarded" as a terrorist organization - sheesh!). I also attached it to the previous sentence for brevity. I still think this prominent a mention of the US is not appopriate, but I'm willing to defer placement issues a bit. (P.s., Ruhrjung's assertion that I must devise replacement language before removing misinformation is not, I think, justifiable.) VV 01:50, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, again I suspect I stumble on nuances of English: If it's justificable or not is not my cup of tea, but if an editor with VV's experience do not, then that's to the disadvantage of the cooperative process and reflecting one of the reasons why I prefer to stay away from pages where such contributors dominate.

With regard to the difference between the word "alleged" and "believed" I can of course be wrong, but as a non-native speaker of English I would assume that "beliefs" are intended to be understood as misconceptions, while I understand "allegations" as concerning something negatively charged, but without taking side for or against the actual allegation. I wonder if anyone really argues that it was good if the US supported the coup?

Would maybe ...US government, which is widely held to have supported the coup... be an improvement?

By the way, may I ask why the reference to the article on the coup of 1973 was again removed?
--Ruhrjung 02:13, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't believe believe has the connotations you mention, and held to have is awkward to my ears; perhaps others can chime in on this? The reference to the coup article was moved, not removed. I do not understand your first paragraph, sorry. VV 02:27, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Coup d'ètat

The reference to the Chilean coup of 1973 was removed from the intro, wasn't it?
--Ruhrjung 02:31, 2004 Jun 12 (UTC)

No, it's linked to the words "coup d'etat" in the second sentence. I didn't see the point in linking to the general "coup" article, especially since Chile coup of 1973 can link to it, and this seemed a natural place. VV 02:39, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

But except for totally fresh readers of wikipedia, that's a totally un-intuitive solution. I, for instance, didn't understand it before you directed me at the explanation. There are plenty of references to coup-d'etat in Wikipedia. One must assume that if they look the same, then they also go to the same article. And I am convinced that many more than I would not understand that this is not a link to a general article on coups but to the specific article on this very coup. Such a practice must be avoided whenever possible.
--Ruhrjung 02:45, 2004 Jun 12 (UTC)

Okay, well, it does seem to be a common technique on Wikipedia. Just poking around, I can find examples; e.g., on Fidel Castro president is linked to President of Cuba, and I've seen dozens more in my time. Someone wanting to find out more about the coup might think to click on coup. The nature of hyperlinking within the text (rather than relying on "See also" lists) does result in a recurring issue where it's not clear where a certain click will take a browser, but this seems a bigger problem than we can tackle here. Anyway, I'm not wedded to the approach I took, it just seemed most concise, direct, and natural. Do you have an idea as to how else to introduce it? VV 02:52, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I know that this technique is used, and I might even use it myself now and then, but as a principle it must be used with constraint. It's no big problem to spell out that Fidel Castro is the president of Cuba. One miss the first ability to link to Cuba, but usually there will be plenty of them in the surrounding sentences. The same goas here. One could easily write He came to power in the Chilean coup of 1973 that deposed Salvador Allende or maybe He came to power in a coup d'état, the Chilean coup of 1973, that deposed Salvador Allende...

Of course the prose suffers to some degree, but the usability of Wikipedia must have priority, of course!
--Ruhrjung 03:04, 2004 Jun 12 (UTC)

I've included both links. The first use of the term "coup d'etat" is linked to the general article that explains that term. The comment about the U.S. role carries the link to Chilean coup of 1973. I don't think the prose suffers this way. JamesMLane 04:48, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm not thrilled with this approach, in that I don't see why the link in the US part should be thus distinguished in terms of hyperlinking. Indeed, I'd probably even favor Ruhrjung's circumlocutions over this. VV 09:31, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Due to my membership in the Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club, combined with the persistence of a single user who goes through my user history and reverts just about any change that I now make, I will no longer make contributions to this article or to this talk page until further notice. 172 03:32, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The point of making this announcement, instead of just walking away? Well, anyway, losing a user who has "contributed" nothing but grief on this article is tolerable to me. VV 09:31, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Using both links has in my opinion great advantages. Not the least is that way indicated why Pinochet's seizure of power wasn't a pure coup d'état, but in some sense also had characteristics of a revolution in as much as the democratic constitution was put out of order / abolished / bypassed / replaced (native English speakers: please chose the most appropriate term). Maybe VV could explain what's so bad with linking to both articls? /Tuomas 09:57, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

ow-GOO-stoh pee-noh-CHEHT oo-GAHR-tay

Now that is harsh on the eyes. Sampa, or IPA, please, someone? (Same goes for Say-NYOR ah-ZHEN-dheh over on his article.) –Hajor 03:58, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Let's avoid personal remarks

Please don't say things like the following. They only hurt others' feelings, while adding nothing to the article:

• a user who has contributed nothing but grief on this article

If you must mention others, it would be better to say something like:

• a user whose edits I've nearly always disagreed with

Anyway, things seemed to have cooled down a bit, and the Augusto Pinochet and Chilean coup of 1973 articles seem to be coming along nicely now, so I guess I'll continue to stay out of it -- for the most part ;-) --Uncle Ed 23:42, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree, Ed, I find VV's remark vicariously hurting. Andries 19:44, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from, Ed Poor, and appreciate your desire and nonstop efforts to tone up the level of civility, but merely saying I disagree with a user's edits is a rather different and inadequate description. If you are aware of what has happened on this article over the last couple of months, you will understand why. VV 09:15, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The intro

If all the dust has settled, can we delete the "Intro sandbox"? It was at Augusto_Pinochet/intro . . . --Uncle Ed 19:25, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'll make it a redirect. IMHO it shouldn't be deleted, as it was part of the authorship process. VV 19:41, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Pictures

The pictures and their associated captions in this article need work.

1) It would help if the main picture of Pinochet was a photo and not a drawing or a Photoshop filter job.

2) In the section "Military coup of 1973," it is not specified who is Pinochet and who is Allende. Even having seen the other photos, I can't figure this out for myself.

3) In the "Suppression of opposition" section, Pinochet is labelled as the guy in the center... except that there's two guys in the center.

NPOV tag

An anonymous user has disputed the neutrality of this article. The sole explanation provided is: "This article seems written by Socialists opposed to Pinochet. It needs pro-Pinochet information to achieve real neutrality."

I've moved this explanation from the top of the article, where it doesn't belong. In my opinion, the NPOV tag doesn't belong, either. There's been no effort by this user to present his concerns here so that editors can try to work them out. If the anonymous user doesn't provide proper support promptly, the tag should be deleted. JamesMLane 23:47, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I believe that this article has too many remarks about the negative sides of Pinochet's rule, too many positive remarks about Allende, too much importance to the "U.S. role in the coup", etc. The article is totally biased against Pinochet. In my point of view, having visited Chile many times, MOST OF THE PEOPLE in Chile are happy that Pinochet fixed their country, and they acknowledge that it was Pinochet's doing. Most of them also agree that Allende RUINED THE COUNTRY. This article doesn't seem to convey that.--65.2.143.80 15:19, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What kind of "remarks" are you talking about, exactly? The fact that Pinochet was a dictator and Allende was a democratically elected president? Well, sorry, but it seems your problem is with that little thing called reality, not with us. As for what "MOST OF THE PEOPLE in Chile" think, have you personally interviewed all 15,116,435 of them? Can you cite any scientific survey? Or are you just spewing out the prevalent opinion among your circle of friends? I personally know quite a number of Chileans who have assured me that Allende "fixed their country" and Pinochet "RUINED THE COUNTRY". However, such opinions do not belong in an encyclopedia. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:10, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nonsense, the article is very close to being NPOV. The reason Pinochet looks bad in this article is because he was bad (unless perhaps you don't have a problem with dictatorships or human rights abuses). As for the US role in the coup, the article is extremely conservative in its statements. There is an enormous amount of documentary evidence confirming a highly significant degree of US support for the coup. If you have any more specific criticisms of the article, however, we'd all be happy to look at them. Cadr 18:32, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

All I can say is god damn how I wish this much effort was put into the Fidel Castro article! TDC 19:00, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

I haven't looked at that in a while. I understand that for a time you were engaged with a few of the usual who wanted his reign portrayed as nice and clean, but maybe it's settled now. VV 21:18, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Settled? anything but. I have been spending some time gathering info. TDC 22:10, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

I think that Cadr is TOTALLY WRONG. I don't like dictators in general, but for me Pinochet is one of the exceptions to the rule (that dictators are bad). I am not contesting the killings (which I don't condone). I am contesting the fact that as it is now the article shows Allende as a good guy and Pinochet as a bad guy, and seems to show that Pinochet did a bad job in the Economy, whereas in my point of view Chile is now an example of economic success. ALL of it is because of Pinochet, and that is what MOST CHILEANS think. You and whoever includes pieces of indication in the contrary is missing the point and is making this article appear highly POV. --65.2.143.80 19:45, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Right, so dictators are bad, unless you happen to like them... For your information, the article shows the facts about Allende and the facts about Pinochet, as well as presenting opinions from both sides. If the facts show Allende to be the "good guy" and Pinochet to be the "bad guy", then, once again, I'm afraid your problem is with reality, not with us. Keep in mind, however, that different people have different visions of good and evil. Fascists, for example, would see Pinochet as a very "good guy". And so do many American conservatives, it seems.

As for the economy, again, the article presents the facts. I suggest you really should try to mould your views to fit reality rather than trying to mould reality to fit your views. Pinochet's ultra-capitalistic economic reforms had a plethora of negative effects, especially for Chile's poor and working class. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:10, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Let's keep the conversation civil. Pinochet is an extremely polarizing figure, and while this article is not perfect, it does capture this fairly effectively. Definitely if you have data on the contemporary Chilean views of Pinochet those would make a valuable addition. And, if you want to see a really POV treatment, look at the relevant section on the History of Chile article. VV 21:16, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The anon's condemnation of "whoever includes pieces of indication in the contrary" shows a lack of understanding of NPOV. The policy doesn't mean that we decide whether Pinochet was good or bad, and then eliminate all "indications" that run contrary to the One Truth that we've decided is correct. Instead, it means that we include significant information regardless of which side it tends to favor. The current version of the article includes the favorable evaluation from Milton Friedman, along with the GDP figures touted by him and other Pinochet supporters/defenders/apologists/whatever you want to call them. The article also includes the unemployment figures that throw a bad light on Pinochet. That's how NPOV works. Is it suggested that the "disputed" tag would be removed if only we'd agree to suppress the truthful information about the unemployment rate? If not, what change is suggested? It's very bad form to slap on the NPOV tag with no prior discussion on the talk page, and still worse not to respond with specific proposed edits even when the appropriateness of the tag is questioned. JamesMLane 06:20, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree with 65.2.143.80's statement above. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 04:30, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The economic numbers do need work. In a previous version I wrote that employment and wages varied during his presidency. The choice of 1983 clearly tries to show Pinochet's economic tenure in a bad light, as that year was the lowest point in a economic recession, triggered by external causes but exacerbated by the the recent openness of chilean economy. The right numbers would be the begining and the end of the presidency, or state that that that was the lowest point. The employment and wages numbers in 1973 also need explanation: how much of those employments were in the fiscal sector, where it is easy to "create" employment by decree? And the real wages also don't mean much when there are no basic goods to buy, as was the case during good part of the UP years (by whatever reason).--AstroNomer 17:41, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

I also think that it might be usefull to incorporate into this discussion the Latin Debt Crisis of the early 80's which had an enormous effect on South American economies as well as Chile's. TDC 22:09, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

(RE the two comments above). There's the danger of a double standard here. If we're going to tone down criticism of the enonomy under Pinochet because of "external factors", we should be fair and tone down criticism of the economy under Allende because of external factors (i.e. deliberate US disruption of the economy). Cadr 23:16, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, I am sure we could find a neutral source (hardy har har) to give some insight as to the effect of the Latin Debt crisis and the magnitude of the impact on the Chilean economy. Economies do not operate in vacumes, regional and international considerations do play a role as well as domestic policies. That said, external forces can be large or small, and I think an agreement can be made about the influence particular issues have on an economy. TDC 03:46, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

Yes I agree. I was merely pointing out that there were significant external influences on the pre-Pinochet economy too, so it is not fair to say "the economy under Allende was a mess [no mention of external influences]" but "the economy under Pinochet was OK [when you consider the external influences]". Cadr 14:23, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Putting aside political issues and how "good" or "bad" Pinochet was as a person, regarding the economy I think that numbers really show that Allende did a very bad job and Pinochet (or his team or his policies) did an Excellent job. As of now, this article tends to minimize Allende's disastrous policies and also gives too much importance to the negative sides of Pinochet's economic reforms. I think nobody is doubting the fact that Pinochet was a dictator. But I think the effect of Pinochet in the Chilean economy was undoubtedly a success. Not because of Allende, or the U.S., or external influences or what happened after Pinochet. Pinochet did not have "mixed" success witht he economy. It was total success. --AAAAA 12:31, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

But, with the exception of inflation, the numbers don't show that at all - they show things were worse before Allende came to power, and worse after the coup. And it's difficult to credit Pinochet with Chile's economic success - he left the economy in a worse state than he found, and it's only i the mid-90s (when the socialists returned to power, as it happens) that Chile started to enjoy economic success. It's like the 'Mussolini made the trains run on time' thing - there's no evidence that he was responsible for that, that it wouldn#'t have happened anyway, or that it was worth it. 195.92.67.70 12:40, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

AAAA, that's completely untrue. It's not difficult to find numbers which show that the economy was worse off under Pinochet (e.g. the drop in the average wage; peak unemployment rate of 34.6%; poverty rate of 41.2% by 1989; there arse also issues with how much of the growth from 77-81 was real, etc.) As I said before, we cannot give unqualified praise to the economy under Pinochet (ignoring external influences) and unqualified criticism of the economy under Allende (ignoring external influences, which despite your baseless assertions to the contrary, were highly significant). Cadr 13:37, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Birthdate

An anon has changed Pinochet's birthdate from November 25 to November 24. I'm changing it back to November 25 on authority of an unofficial translation from the Chilean Senate web site (the original isn't available) and of Encyclopedia Britannica Online. JamesMLane 18:09, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You are correct. The official birthdate is November 25. Check the official information at the Presidential web site(in Spanish) Mel Romero 14:15, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Election again

I still don't like this sentence:

the first Socialist to be elected president of Chile.

It sounds like he "won" a single "election". In fact, he failed to get a majority, because the top 70% of votes was split almost evenly between him and another candidate. A third (spoiler) candidate took a lot of votes.

There was indeed a "democratic process", but it was not a direct "election" by the people. It was a vote by the congress.

I'm not saying this was illegitimate in any way!

But I'm saying the phrase "elected president" IMPLIES that he got a majority of votes. Since he didn't and the congress didn't simply vote again but placed ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS on him, I think the word "elected" doesn't say enough.

Moreover, almost every discussion I've had with advocates of socialism or communisms harps on how the people CLEARLY showed their desire for socialism, because they ELECTED Allende -- but those nasty Americans OVERTHREW him just to enrinch themselves.

Wikipedia seems to support their argument, and I'd like it to be clear that Wikipedia DOES NOT ENDORSE their argument. I don't even want to endorse their key premise: that the PEOPLE elected Allende. It was not the people AT LARGE but only the CONGRESS who elected him.

If there's no way to express this in a few words, then let's not call him the "first elected Socialist president" at all. Let's use a longer (and, sorry, more cumbersome phrase) like:

• first socialist to become president; readers can follow the link to the election of 1970 to find out the details: got only a plurality of the popular vote + Congress in accordance with the Constitution voted him in
• first socialist leader to attain the presidency through the democratic process -- my preferred version; again, readers can get the details if they're interested; note it does not imply that he WON THE POPULAR VOTE

I guess the trouble is that "elected president" implies "won the popular vote". Or am reading too much into this? AstroNomer, you know both English and Spanish. What do you think? --Uncle Ed 23:55, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

By the way, this parallels the US 2000 election, which Bush opponents says was "decided by the Supreme Court" as if the Electoral College failed to produce a winner. This is propandistic POV, because if no one gets a 270 electoral vote majority, then as in Chile the vote goes to congress; there's some formula whereby the Representives (i.e., Congressmen) vote, and whovever gets the majority in each state gets 1 for that state -- so all states are on an even footing in this SECOND VOTE. Note that this didn't happen. The US Supreme Court merely affirmed what Florida said, that their electoral votes should all go to Bush -- and Gore even affirmed that he supported their affirmation.

Only by the POV that (a) the election hinges on florida; (b) we sued to make the Supreme Court force recounts, etc. (c) if we get the Supreme Court to vote our way, we'll win; etc. can you say that the supremes were going to "decide the election". The other POV is that the dems were trying to steal the election and the supremes finally said, enough is enough: you had your recounts and everything, take it like a man. From this 2nd POV, the vote went NORMALLY and was decided in the Electoral College as provided for by the US Constitution. It did not go Congress (which would have been the second stage, if there had been no majority); and it did not BYPASS the Congress either.

Golly, people make such a fuss over the electoral process! :-) --Uncle Ed 00:06, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The trouble with your logic is that it would mean that no U.S. President could be described as "elected". Most of them, unlike Bush, actually got more votes than any of their opponents, but that's not why they took office. They were voted in by the Electoral College, just as Allende was voted in by the national legislature. The popular vote actually had more relevance in Chile -- the legislature had to choose between the top two vote-getters, whereas the U.S. process could install the third-place finisher, although obviously that would be extraordinarily unlikely. Chile didn't have a nice simple system of "whoever gets the most votes wins", but it's too narrow a view of the term "elected" to say that it refers only to that system. JamesMLane 03:43, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would say that "elected" means roughly "installed in power as the result of an election according to the rules of a constitution". If we can say that George Bush is an elected president without needing to qualify the phrase, we can certainly say this of Allende. Cadr 13:41, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree, except that your definition might need some tweaking in the cases of (1) obvious sham elections, like Saddam Hussein's last pre-invasion electoral victory, where we probably shouldn't say "elected" at all; and (2) even within the context of a legitimate competitive system, an election marked by credible allegations of misconduct that could have affected the result, where my inclination would be to say "elected" but to note the controversies at the same point in the article. Neither of these exceptions applied to Allende's election. JamesMLane 15:27, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, my definition has a few loopholes. I do wonder if Ed does consider the election process to have been fair, though? Presumably his opposition to the term "elected" cannot be based solely on the lack of an actual majority. Cadr 00:35, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cadr, there are 2 different questions on the table:

1. Did Allende become president through a "fair" electoral process (I say yes).
2. Was his election a popular endorsment of socialism, as the phrase " first Socialist to be elected president" seems to imply (I say no).

The second question is significant (a) in light of Allende's statement about not being the president of all the people (but only of his own faction); and also (b) in light of Socialists' incessant claim that the American acted in an anti-democratic way by overthrowing the very leader the people had chosen, simply because we Americans didn't like the economic system (i.e., socialism) that the people wanted.

I tried many times to edit out the "first elected Socialist" but EVERY TIME it was reverted: so the exact wording of the phrase must be VERY SIGNIFICANT. It must be conveying some MESSAGE, like the one I impute above. If so, it's POV and should be amended. --Uncle Ed 22:59, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is there some subtle distinction I'm missing between a socialist who was elected (i.e. Allende) and an elected socialist? I really can't see any. There isn't any implication of popular endorsement going beyond the facts: a plurality of the population voted for a a socialist politician. Do you actually believe that installing a dictator in place of a constitutionally elected leader was (pro-)democratic? The whole issue of socialism and its popularity is a red herring in this discussion. Allende was the most popular candidate in the election, therefore his removal by force was anti-democratic, whatever his political persuasion happened to be. The electorate may or may not have endorsed socialism, as they may or may not have endorsed any number of other things; it doesn't matter. They endorsed a leader who was installed in power, and was then removed from power by force. Only under a truely Orwellian definition of democracy could this chain of events be seen as beneficial to democracy in Chile. Cadr 23:11, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You are welcome to your opinion, but I disagree. In the American Civil War of 1860-1865, the North "removed from power by force" the leader of the Confederate States (the South). Now I'm not sure of all the facts, so correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the president of the confederacy ELECTED? By the secessionist states?

Northerners and other fans of Abraham Lincoln glorify him as having "saved the Union" and having "preserved democracy". If there are people who consider Lincoln's military campaigns "anti-democratic", well either I never heard of them or I've forgotten them.

I daresay the situation parallels that of Chile. One faction wanted an economic system that the other faction opposed. There was a violent struggle over this matter. Each country is considered to be a "democracy" in the aftermath of that struggle.

In conclusion, I don't think the Wikipedia should endorse the view that the coup was "anti-democratic". But I welcome inclusion of clearly attributed advocacy expressing the POV that the coup was anti-democratic. We should even give the arguments of these advocates, like (a) Allende had popular support, but (b) he was violently overthrown, so (c) the overthrow was anti-democratic.

We could also mention an opposing POV, like (d) Allende has considerably less than majority support, (e) opponents suspected him of imposing the will of a minority on the majority, (f) same as b above', so (g) the overthrow was democratic.

I think this issue is much larger than the Augusto Pinochet article and the Chile series -- and by the way, I detest Pinochet! The larger dispute is over how people feel about government.

As an American, I strongly support the following view, found in the American Declaration of Independence:

• "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it." (emphasis added for talk)

I think the essence of true democracy is not majority rule but government which preserves citizen's rights. So if an elected government (even with a clear and overwhelming popular majority), started to becom "destructive of" citizen's rights, I would feel that a revolt against such a government would be 'good' and also 'democratic'.

Of course, this is only my opinion. We still need to find a way to agree on the wording of the article. I'm not trying to convert you to my way of thinking; I only mention these things, because frequently it helps Wikipedians to cooperate on article writing when they understand each other's thinking. --Uncle Ed 14:32, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Several points.

• At the end of the civil war, the Southern government was removed from power and a democratic government replaced it. This is not what happened in the case of Chile. A democraticly elected government was replaced by a dictatorship. Installing a dictatorship cannot preserve democracy, unless, as I said, you have an Orwellian useage of the word "democracy" in mind.
• "I daresay the situation parallels that of Chile. One faction wanted an economic system that the other faction opposed. There was a violent struggle over this matter.". The violent struggle (though partly the result of internal tensions) was agitated by the USA to promote its own interests, despite the fact that the preferred (by a plurality) economic system had already been established reasonably clearly by an election. You can compare socialism to slavery if you like, but once again, the fact is that the coup did not remove socialism and replace it with anything more democratic (even if one believes that socialism is somehow inherently anti-democratic), but instead installed a dictatorship.
• It is pretty hypocritical to criticize Allende for imposing the will of the minority on the majority, given that you appear to be defending a dictatorship, which is clearly an extreme case of minority-over-majority rule. George Bush got a minority of the popular vote, but it would not be legitimate to overthrow his government becuase of this.
• "I think the essence of true democracy is not majority rule but government which preserves citizen's rights. So if an elected government (even with a clear and overwhelming popular majority), started to becom "destructive of" citizen's rights, I would feel that a revolt against such a government would be 'good' and also 'democratic'." Can a revolt benefit democracy if it installs a non-democratic government, though? The US constitution asserts the right of the people to revolt, not the right of a dictator to assume power in a military coup. Citizens' rights are not preserved by a military coup, and the human rights situation under Pinochet was worse than that under Allende. Otherwise, I agree in principle.

Regarding the article (we are getting a little off topic here I know), you still don't seem to have come up with any good reason for not referring to Allende as an "elected socialist". "elected" doesn't imply that he got a majority, just that he was installed in power following an election according to the rules of the Chilean constitution. I'm certainly not looking to cover up the details of the election, but given that we're writing the introduction to an article about someone else, just how much detail about Allende and his election do we need to give?Cadr 00:22, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How about "first constitutionally installed socialist" then? ;-) --Uncle Ed 18:50, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is it OK if we delete all claims that Bush was elected, and replace them with "constitutionally installed"? or, better yet, "constitutionally installed by one vote"?  :) JamesMLane 03:57, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

CIA Activities in Chile to Be Investigated

Possibly of interest to editors: [5]. --Cantus 22:50, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

That link is broken, however according to de-classified documents [6] I don't see what there is to investigate. - Dejitarob 17:55, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Replaced link.

An interesting point regarding Anaconda

I have heard that when Pinochet denationalized various Chilean state-owned industries, he did not denationalize the copper mines, because profits from the copper mines went into the military pension system. Can someone who is better-read on Chilean history confirm or deny this point? --Sethg 14:37, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is absolutely true. Codelco was not privatized for this very same reason.

As far as I know, not directly into the military pension system, but a law was enacted (and it is still in vigour) that 10% of the sales of copper (not profits, but sales) would be destined to military needs. I have heard argued that those funds were compromised for many years in paying loans contracted in the rapid arming before the quasi-war with Argentina in 1978, but I don't have numbers. About the military pensions, those come from the military budget, so part of it must come from the copper, because of the law just mentioned. The military is the only segment of the population that wasn't transfered into an individual account retirement system (AFPs). --20:31, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

More on this topic (in spanish), with numbers: [7] - --Zuirdj 03:25, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What was the opinion of Chileans on Pinochet's coup, then and now?

QUESTION TO CHILEANS: Hello. I wonder, are there any polls out there showing what Chileans think of the Pinochet coup now? Is the country divided over this issue? What percentages of the population are for and against? -Jose from Spain

Answer to José: There is no poll I know of, but my impression is that the majority of the population still thinks the coup was a necessary evil. Under Allende's rule the country fell into a state of such chaos that (it seems) only the military could restore the rule of law. However, there is also now a wide agreement that human right violations that succeeded the coup were completely unjustified, and they are universally condemned. Nevertheless, I must add that several of my friends, who declare themselves leftists, recognize (not without certain unease) that the economic reforms, that have been immensely beneficial to the people, could have never been made by a democratically elected government. So it is somewhat funny that these friends of mine, who so fiercely opposed "el golpe" and afterwards suffered political prosecution, now have mixed emotions about it. Remember that during the 70s and 80s very few people in Chile believed in free market as a resource allocation mechanism. Even some right-wingers opposed Pinochet's economic reforms. My own father, who was an ardent Pinochetist (not ardent any more), was terrified when he learned that prices were left free to float, no longer fixed by central authority. So no democratic government could have ever gathered the political support to make similar reforms. Nowadays, due to the success of the capitalist system, virtually everybody (right-wingers and left-wingers alike) embraces it. Hence we are all now pretty much glad the coup happened, some of us will openly admit it, some won't, but no one will ever think of picking up a fight over such an issue. Of course my opinion may be biased because my family supported the coup (I wasn’t even born back then, so all my information is second handed) so it would be nice you could confront it with someone else’s view. Yours sincerely, a 28 years old Chilean.

Allende's death

The article says that "...Allende's personal doctor claims that he committed suicide as the palace was being surrendered, but others believe Allende was killed by military forces

The believe that Allende was killed during the assault to La Moneda was a rumour coined by the GAP, Allende's personal guards to discredit the coup even when they knew that Allende had commited suicide with his AK-47 during the coup. This rumour was used by Pinochet detractors throught the world in 70's and 80's and even today people, specially from Europe and USA believe that Allende "might" have been kilLed by the Chilean army. The forensic report after his dead, the testimonies of his doctor and several guards (The same guards that denied it, but told the truth of it in the 90's, in democracy), the radio-communications of Pinochet and the high command the day of the coup, the report of the soldiers that found Allende and Allende's own family veredict SHOW IN A VERY CONCLUSIVE AND UNDOUBTFUL WAY that Allende took his own life with a gunshot and was not injured in any way during the coup. I think that the subject is something to change as it creates a mist of Pinochet's participation in his death.

You got any evidence/links?

Interview with Allende

After reading a recent column by Georgie Anne Geyer, I was intrigued by the following:

When I interviewed Allende just before he became "the world's first elected Marxist president," I asked him whether, if he were elected, there would be elections again. "You must understand," he answered carefully but revealingly, "that by the next elections, everything will have changed." This threat of Marxist change in a country unprepared to deal with it assured that his regime would not last.

http://www.uexpress.com/georgieannegeyer/?uc_full_date=20030131

How and or should this be incorporated into the article?

Fed up with the edit wars

Hey folks, I'm fed up with the edit wars, and I can't understand *WHY* some folks (last time it was Cantus) remove the links they don't like. I appeal to you: it's not up to you to decide whether *external* sources are biased or not. They aren't wiki and don't have to fit our standards. It's better to give the person reading wikipedia more choice in sources than less. My decision to restore the links (not to revert; I have just copy-and-pasted them from the earlier version) is based on the ground that Cantus made the article anti-Pinochet POV (only the anti-Pinochet links, about his alleged crimes were allowed to stay). Not that I'm a big fan of Pinochet (though I support some of his reforms as Pension reform, but I want the openness of mind to rule here. And besides, someone could tell that the anti-Pinochet sources *are* biased. Many people do. But until now, nobody removed the links to their sources. Look at the article on Miracle of Chile. One anonymous person removed all external links except one to Greg Palast's works, which IMHO are very biased (I find Palast to be just the anti-capitalist leftist). Thus, this person wanted *us all* to treat the subjective view of Palast as some kind of "objective" and "supreme" truth. I restored all the removed links and left the one pointing to Palast's as well. But I'm not going to do it again; so, if anyone wants to make articles on Pinochet biased, very well, go ahead. I won't lose my time again on the edit wars for I'm a hard-working man. But I'm going to point the attention of some pro-Pinochet, anti-communist, classical-liberal, conservative and simply pro-truth groups on wikipedia, hoping that they will put a journalist spotlight on the bias some wikipedians disguise as truth and disseminate. And besides, I *DO LOVE* wikipedia as a project, but I find it *very very* biased on politics (mythology is a better part). With Respect To All, Critto

Quotation Marks

It seems that Cantus really doesn't like any sources that aren't openly anti-Pinochet. While last time he didn't removed my links again, he distorted the title of one article "The Truth of Chile Under Salvador Allende" by putting the quotation marks ("") around the word "Truth", thus POV-ly suggesting the article is untrue. It's even more bad: distortion of the title of a copyrighted work is illegal. It's like someone changed "Lord of The Rings" to "Master of The Rings", or something alike. Nobody except the work's author himself is allowed to do so without the author's permission. And besides, I could change the link pointing to the source about the alleged (because not proven by any court) crimes of Pinochet, changing its name to "Crimes" of Augusto Pinochet -- A Case Study. I think that we could make a good compromise: to put who title of all articles quoted here in quotation marks. And tell that they are articles I started with "The Truth o Chile Under Salvador Allende", changing the link description to "an article called "The Truth Of Chile Under Salvador Allende". I hope that the opposing side here will show the equal quantity of good will. As for the "unrelated" articles on economics: Okay, I may move them to "Miracle of Chile". They may fit there better. Bye-bye, Critto

Drugs

Maybe others can expand, confirm, correct this information? It is certainly relevant. 213.208.107.91 04:55, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You ask us to confirm this information. Why is a piece of information that needs confirmation even here? This is an encyclopedia, not a rumor site. Plus the added text is badly written in itself and in the context of the article. I will remove it, and if you add it again, I will take the issue to RFC. —Cantus…☎ 13:24, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay between editing the article and writing these promised comments.

The criterion for inclusion of material in an encyclopedia must be that it is true and relevant. My addition on drugs comes from a newspaper report, which I reference. My contribution is, indeed, badly written; I intended it essentially as a stub, so that others could expand and improve it. As far as TRUTH is concerned: see the reference in the article. Also, U.S. Senator Carl Levin (http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=223965) refers to Pinochet as being "accused of involvement with ... drug trafficking" and the United States Senate PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS report on MONEY LAUNDERING AND FOREIGN CORRUPTION: ENFORCEMENT AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PATRIOT ACT (govt-aff.senate.gov/_files/ 071504miniorityreport_moneylaundering.pdf) mention "allegations of involvement with narcotics".

Pinochet's involvement in large-scale drug trafficking must be RELEVANT to an article about him.

What I wrote was:

---

"A report in 2000 states that Chilean army and secret police exported cocaine to the U.S. and Europe, and were still doing so when the report was published.

According to report on Pinochet drug smuggling link

-12 tonnes were exported in 1986 and 1987 alone.

-There can be no doubt that Pinochet was a party to trafficking.

-The information is supported by US court documents, Chilean police files and depositions by a former US marine involved in the trafficking. 213.208.107.91 15:34, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Significance

As I said regarding another item: The criterion for inclusion of material in an encyclopedia must be that it is true and relevant. Until Pinochet's arrest, nobody had been subject to legal process abroad for human rights abuses carried out when in power in their own country. Since then, there have been several cases. I cannot claim the credit for realising that this is of comparable significance to bringing to justice those who commit human rights abuses in wartime, at Nureneberg (see referecne I quote below), but this is arguably the case.

I would certainly agree that the text of my contribution can be improved upon, but the topic is too important to ignore.

it is not my intention to comapre Pinochet to the accused in the Nurenberg trials, but to point out that this is a precedent for human rights law.

What I added (slightly modified here), and has been deleted, was

---

The arrest of Pinochet, a senator and former head of state of Chile, in a foreign country, for crimes against humanity committed in his own country while he was head of state, mark one of the most important precedents in international criminal law since the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals. Since then, there have been several arrests abroad of perpetrators of human rights abusers while in a position of authority in their own country. This topic is discussed in

• The Ripple Effect of the Pinochet Case

213.208.107.91 15:34, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I will now contact Cantus regarding resolution of our disagreement on Drugs and Significance (above). I think that mediation might be simpler than RFC, but am happy with any procedure. 213.208.107.91 15:48, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

Can anyone substantiate the real wages declinged 40% claim. I've seen it elsewhere but again without footnotes. It seems to contradict other claims i've read that by 1995 real wages were up 250% over what they were at the end of the Allende regime. Did they rise 290% in five years after Pinochet's regime without any major economic changes? Rossamus 06:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think it is fascinating this particular question was never answered. Why is that? Because this entire article, and the press material at large, is a huge propaganda smear against Pinochet. A casual stroll through Santiago will make clear to anyone with an open mind that Chile is the most normal and prosperous country in South America. We don't need dishonest statistics to prove prosperity, the evidence is clear and obvious.

What were his memoirs called?

Photo not Fair Use, Violation

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

Lack of NPOV in Economic Policy Section

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

Uruloki 16:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandals

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

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

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

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

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

London, England, The United Kingdom

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

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

England.

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

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

Eliminating Information in Order to Create Consensus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit War

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Presidency table

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

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

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

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

As i said before, i say again: Wether you (or me, or anyone) like it ot not, the appointment of "President" is a formal category defined only in reference to an organization, like a national state. After the coup of 1973, the Government Junta established an interim government in which they assumed (controversially) the legislative power, and then used this power (controversially) to proclaim Pinochet President of the Republic on December 16, 1974. He was swore into exercise the next day, and these are the dates that are reflected in the infobox. In the constitution of 1925, in times of emergency a president could be appointed by a the legislative organ, and it is under this provision that his presidency was, within a (very) broad interpretation of the institutional basis of the chilean state, legally president. This interpretation was later solidified even more when 1.- the 1980 constitution recognized his possition as president and estalished a legal term for his presidency, and particularly 2.- when Chile decided to upheld the legal and institutional consequences of the dictatorship after the return of democracy. So he was, at some point at least, president of chile, although this does not say anything about his condition as Dictator, and is, of course, open to historical and political debate, as are most facts relating to the overcome of legal institutions by the use of force. Gorgonzola (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC) ps: In Chile, the President is the Head of State.

Cocaine Business

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

That link is not working, but try this one: [8]

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

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

Vatican not Pope urged Pinochet release

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

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

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

Sweeping the CoD's Resolution under the rug

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding your four points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copper

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

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

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

Double spaces?

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

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

The header/ intro is too long

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

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

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

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

Recent edits by POV-pushing anon

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

Lies About "Expanded Economy"

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

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

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

Deleted text

In this edit [9] by anonymous user 200.27.31.129 (talk · contribs), much text was deleted. Maybe it should be reverted. Vints 07:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Potential Reversion

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

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

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

Pronunciation of "Augusto"

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

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

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

Clogs popped

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

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

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

SProtect

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

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

Augusto Pinochet official portrait in Commons

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

Vandalism

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

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

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

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

Arrest and traial

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

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

Dictator

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Freemason?

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

This article claims he was a freemason briefly: http://www.pepe-rodriguez.com/Masoneria/Masoneria_Pinochet.htm

External Links

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

Neutrality of Library Of Congress Country Report

This report: [10] is cited as a source. I question whether it is neutral. Can anyone with a better knowledge of the commissioning and authorship processes of such reports comment on whether it can be considered objective? I fully appreciate that given the subject matter, it may be near impossible to achieve neutrality. DavidFarmbrough 12:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Freemason

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

Pronunciation of Pinochet

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

which is contridicted by the same source: [11] plus you just said his daughter uses CHAY, why assert that she is incorrect? To be very clear - I am not pushing to say shay is correct, only that CHET and CHAY are commonly used. Bcostley 18:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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