Talk:Augusto Pinochet/Archive 4

message: 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)
replies: text: Both links refer to the same article, which I largely wrote. --Uncle Ed 19:16, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coup in Chile 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Edits to discussion of prosecution 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree. I'm busy reverting this guy as we speak. --Cantus 06:29, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Modifications to introduction 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Plan to resolve duplication? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  pov war 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Constitution 

message: 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. 
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)
thread_title:  Personal Remarks 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article protected: was this ''really'' necessary? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Human rights abuses 

message: 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)
thread_title:  US-backed again 

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Ruhrjung's Latest Edit 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Coup d'ètat 

message: 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)
thread_title:  ow-GOO-stoh pee-noh-CHEHT oo-GAHR-tay 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Let's avoid personal remarks 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The intro 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Birthdate 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Photo not Fair Use, Violation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lack of NPOV in Economic Policy Section 

message: 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)
replies: text: At what price?Boris Crépeau (talk) 07:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandals 

message: 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)
thread_title:  London, England, The United Kingdom 

message: 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)
thread_title:  England. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Eliminating Information in Order to Create Consensus 

message: 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:
# Objecting to information because it does not square with one's preconceptions. 
# Eliminating facts in order to passively cement a particular POV. 
# Calling someone's facts biased when they are accurate. 
# 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Edit War 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Presidency table 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cocaine Business 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Vatican not Pope urged Pinochet release 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Copper 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Double spaces? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Go for it, baby; I hate doing all the work around here! ;-P --Mike18xx 09:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The header/ intro is too long 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recent edits by POV-pushing anon 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lies About "Expanded Economy" 

message: In this edit  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)
thread_title:  Deleted text 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Potential Reversion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pronunciation of "Augusto" 

message: 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  or , 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  pronunciation acceptable or not? 89.240.193.45 17:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clogs popped 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Augusto Pinochet official portrait in Commons 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: 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)
replies: text: See Augusto Pinochet#Arrest and trial --Yakoo 23:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arrest and traial 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dictator 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Freemason? 

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

message: This report:  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)
thread_title:  Neutrality of Library Of Congress Country Report 

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

message: ^ 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)
replies: text: (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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: which is contridicted by the same source:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Pronunciation of Pinochet