Talk:Augusto Pinochet/Archive 6

message: No article on Pinochet would be complete without mentioning doing murders outside of Chile. There should some mention of the audacity of doing a terrorits hit inside Washignton DC. John wesley 14:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is operation Condor and the murder of Ronni Moffitt? 

message: Okay, I have adopted the compromise suggested above and I even allowed the "violent" adjective (which I think is a POV addition because tell me about a coup that is not violent), but I seriously object to my compromise edits being reverted as "vandalism".  That is serious abuse on the part of Cantus.  I have tried to compromise, I have discussed by changes and objections, and I am not blindly reverting, I am working my edits towards some middle ground.  Please do the same.  If you disagree, call for a vote on one of my last set of changes and see how you fare.  Actually, I'll call for a vote right now to see if we cann putput an end to this. Daniel Quinlan 09:43, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
=== Vote: "violent coup" ===
* violent coup
** I have bigger issues with the edits, although I think violent is redundant POV, clearly only inserted for POV reasons.  Daniel Quinlan 09:43, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
** The English Restoration and the Glorious Revolution are two good examples of non-violent coups, as was the Velvet revolution.  Coups are not always called coups. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:25, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's be grown ups 

message: * violent coup
** I have bigger issues with the edits, although I think violent is redundant POV, clearly only inserted for POV reasons.  Daniel Quinlan 09:43, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
** The English Restoration and the Glorious Revolution are two good examples of non-violent coups, as was the Velvet revolution.  Coups are not always called coups. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:25, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote: "violent coup" 

message: * Marxist
** Reading biographies of Allende, he is clearly best described as a Marxist or a Communist.  To be sure, he was anti-Russian domination, but he was no Socialist.  Daniel Quinlan 09:43, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
** The distinction is really non-existent.  Allende was a marxist in that he was a progressive who implemented land reform and partial nationalization with the purpose of empowering the workers, the producers of his country.  This also fits the modern definition of a socialist. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:25, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote: Allende: Marxist or Socialist 

message: * Reference inline
** I think this works best.  Daniel Quinlan 09:43, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
* Reference via footnote
**This is the standard way to quote sources in scholarly articles. There are even special tags on wiki to use when quoting sources, which I did not use this time. (See 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake.) —Cantus…☎ 00:13, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
** I think footnotes should be used rather than in-line references where possible. That is the standard academic and encyclopaedic notation. FearÉIREANN 01:15, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote: Referendum quote 

message: From Wikipedia:Manual of Style:
::Philosophies, doctrines, and systems of economic thought do not begin with a capital letter, unless the name is derived from a proper noun: lowercase republican refers to a system of political thought; uppercase Republican refers to a specific Republican Party.
Thus: Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, Luddism; but capitalism, neoliberalism, fascism. "Socialist" appears with a cap in the article, because Allende was a member of a specific Socialist Party (and perhaps that word should link to the Chilean Socialist Party, if we have such an article, and not to "socialism" in general).  It's not an expression of bias, and writing Neoliberal with a capital letter Just Looks Unprofessional. Leaving the other disputes to one side, can we at least follow these  grammatical rules? –Hajor 01:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalisation 

message: happened to the Marxism article? J. Parker Stone 07:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the hell 

message: "(about allende's death)(...)The exact circumstances of his death are being disputed"
There's NO ONE who still says that Allende was murdered or killed on combat. Even Allende's family agrees that he killed himself.
Where's the damn evidence?
I'll say a book first and then some webpages. I've selected webpages that say that Allende's government was something excellent and other things. You can search for reputable sources for yourself (I wouldn't use the rest of these pages as a source, as they are obviously biased in favor of Allende) (everything is in spanish... I think that I may find some chilean sites that are written in english):
Book: 
"Páginas en blanco. El 11 de septiembre en La Moneda"
Webpages:
http://www.puntofinal.cl/010915/nactxt.html (they are deffending Allende's legacy saying that suiciding isn't bad at all)
http://www.puntofinal.cl/010302/esptxt.html (interview to Luis Fernández Oña, husband of Allende's daughter, saying why did Fidel Castro didn't say anything about the suicide, but then he adds that accordingly to what Allende thought, he had to kill himself before leaving the power to his enemies).
Then you have Isabel Allende Bussi (relative to Allende (how do you call your sister's daughter? nephew?)), who said for El Mercurio (biggest and most reliable newspaper in Chile)on august 17, 2003 that she was convinced about Allende's suicide.
Also note that Allende's body was unburied a few years ago (2000-2002... I can't remember the year right now) and that the official version was only confirmed with new tests that where made to the body.
-------
Isabel Allende Bussi, ´diputada'and former President of the Deputies Chamber, is Salvador Allende's daughter. The Isabel Allende you mean is the world-famous writer (cousin of each other).
Baloo rch 22:47, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  And this is NOT being disputed 

message: Pinochet is HONORARY member of the Rotary Club Santiago. See Rotary International wiki page
and "Famous Rotarians" Rotary site  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.102.229.176 (talk) 12:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pinochet as a Rotarian 

message: And I admit I am guilty of being part of it by making a revert myself, but I felt that Marmaduque's latest revert did more harm than good, and I didn't have time to restore the good. I'll completely assume good faith on the part of Marmaduque, since this is probably the umpteenth content dispute on the page, but I am completely appalled by the lack of discussion on this latest tiff, though I note a good deal of political discussion on the talk pages on the users involved. Marmaduque and the others involved (Tazmaniacs?), could you please discuss the issue here please. In the meanwhile I'll try to address Marmaduque's concerns. Some of the categories do deserve a second looking-over.  
I will however say that if Pinochet has been accused of something formally -- like being being indicted, for example, then it deserves to be on the page. How much mention deserves to be on the page (before being shuttled to a subpage) is a legitimate issue to be looked at however. A classic NPOV dispute on this page, plain and simple. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 19:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  surprise, surprise, another revert war in the making 

message: Hi, do you know if www.huppi.com is a reliable source?, new Veritatis splendor (talk · contribs) (see diff here) yesterday removed some content which may lead to controversy, who knows? --Andersmusician VOTE 04:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, there is another source, which is James Petras and Fernando Ignacio Leiva, Democracy and Poverty in Chile: The Limits to Electoral Politics. Second, Veritatis Splendor has deleted it without explaining how it would be unreliable. Third, that Chile witnessed economic growth during the so-called "Miracle of Chile" is not discussed; but that Chile also witnessed a large increase in income inequalities is also not discussed. If someone wants to show that these statistics are lies, he should perhaps provide others; in any ways, NPOV requires various points of views, and not the imposition of one ideological POV over others. Tazmaniacs (talk) 15:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  about the economic policy section 

message: Wikipedia supports Pinochet... why you don't call him a dictator? AntiPinoshit (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you should remove it from the Stalin article too, if it can't say dictator here. Or better still, call all dictators dictators, both left and right wing, regardless of the editors' political preferences. Vints (talk) 06:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I support the non-use of the weasel word "Dictator" for this article. Wikipedia should list "verifiable facts" not POVs. User Kwertii wants to include "opinions" to support his point of view. The only verifiable fact is that Pinochet was "President of Chile", position confirmed by at least one election. How he got there, and his legitimacy or lack of is amply described and discussed in the article. The reader should be able to form his/her own opinion without any "help" from biased "editors" with an ideological agenda.  --Mel Romero (talk) 07:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think that the mountain of reliable sources that call him a dictator are non-neutral? Can you find a reputable source that supports your view that he should not be called dictator? What do you think of the leads in Hitler and Stalin...? Not mentioning the fact that Pinochet was a dictator is much more POV. Vints (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I Support the use of the word 'Dictator' in this article. There are mountains of sources, from all sides of the political spectrum that call him a dictator, and have repaired the article acordingly. Gorgonzola (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

text: this is the talk page of an encyclopedic article, and in this section we are discussing the use of a word to describe the role of pinochet in chilean history, in the extent in which this controversy has a real and direct impact on the wording of the article. Please leave your fascist rants to your talk page or somewhere else. Thank you. By the way, i am a chilean too. Gorgonzola (talk) 19:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complaint over article not making unqualified statement that Pinochet was a dictator 

message: I was having a look at the introduction with the purpose of understanding an issue on the french article about Pinochet when I saw this strange last sentence: "Pinochet is a "Famous Rotarian" Honorary Member of the Rotary International."
How come this strange pointless sentence is in the introduction, I do not know. To be more precise, I know how it arrived there (surely thanks to that strange guy who edited the Rotary International article with the sole purpose of pushing his anti Rotary POV - see also this  RfA he made that was rejected), but I do not understand how it could be left there.
I could understand that this be mentionned in a "Miscellaneous" section, but there is no such section, and even there I would doubt this information is relevant. So I propose to delete this sentence.  Bradipus (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No opposition, I delete the sentence.  Bradipus (talk) 09:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last phrase of introduction 

message: He was declared "president of the republic" by the military junta on 16th, december, 1974. His term as president, as pertinent for the info box, starts on this day, consequently. Gorgonzola (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: apparently he took possetion of the presidency the next day, so the term starts on the 17th.Gorgonzola (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presidency term 

message: Pinochet is, was, and always will be a military figure in the history of Chile. Presenting a photo of him in civilian suit is misleading, inconsistent with wikipedia use in other articles of similar figures, and plain wrong. He always wore military uniforms, even in his role as president of the republic. His official presidential portrait show him in military uniform, his supporters usually prefer photos with military uniforms (see the galleries at www.fudacionpinochet.cl), etcetera. Gorgonzola (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: He did not "initiated a campaign against polityical opponents that included repression of civil liberties". this is extremely euphemistic an POV, so i reworded said paragraph to be more historically acurate and neutral, trying to stick to "non-morally-charged" words, like "human-rights violations". I also believe that stating clearly that these measures resulted in criminal prosecution until the very end of his life is relevant to put things in context, instead of presenting said measures as minor "repressions of civil liberties", wich is evidently inacurate. Gorgonzola (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human rights violations 

message: I have made several edits to the text, mainly traying to give it a little more internal consistency. I have marked several unreferenced claims, and revised up to "Supression of oppossition", which i believe to be in terribly bad form and bad written in general. A rewrite of this section is needed, and although i know that all the claims in that section are true, i doubt we need to list, anecdotically, every notorious victim of the regime (the mentioning of Carmen Gloria Quintana's case, for example, is completely anecdotical and out of context). 
I have tried to document every change in their respective summary, to the best of my abbilities, i hope this little snippets are self explanatory, but i can elaborate if needed. Gorgonzola (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Changes 

message: Nicolas Girala nacio un 29 de julio de 1988, Se cree que le quedan pocos años de vida.. 3 o 4 para ser exactos. Nicolas, de aspecto muy parecido a bilbo del sr del os anillos lleva una vida muy agitada, no por sus actividades, sino porque el pucho le esta consumiendo los pulmones. Nicolas es llamado "hueco" por sus amigos, este singular sobrenombre aparecio hace un largo tiempo en la secundaria, (no tanto tiempo para mi) y se debia a su grupo de amigos, integrado por 3 huecas cuyos nombres no pueden ser relevados.
 Nicolas es uno de los prestgiosos dueños de "la Piadina"
 una especie de "restaurant"... bastante caro. Hueco es estudiante de Derecho, estudia en la facultad de Mendoza y parece que le va bien....para el orto!
se dice tambien que Nicolas es cantante, realiza covers de Alejandro sanz, Lerner, fito, entre otros..no vallan a pensar que es traviolo, simplemente le gusta esa musica.
esta es toda la vida de nicolas girala por el momento  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.48.33.150 (talk) 05:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicolas Girala 

message: I removed the last line from the last version by JoeCarson. I agree that the relation of the economic measures to the monetary crisis should be relativized and stated as refered opinion rather than fact to ensure NPOV, but giving extra contextual information exceedes the scope of the article intro; if needed, it could be mentioned in the corresponding section of this article, or even better, thru a link to the 1982 crisis, either in chile or worlwide. Gorgonzola (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: UPDATE: i think i came up with a better wording that keeps all the necessary info. I think the intro is rather long, though. Please comment, or propose improvements. Gorgonzola (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your update is an improvement.  Unfortunately, the article on the 1982 crisis focuses on the United States. JoeCarson (talk) 12:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  1982 crisis mentions in the intro 

message: Please do not remove the references to the official reports on political prison and torture when discussing human rights abuses, and produce complete references if you want to add sources with different figures (eg using phrases like "others have said..." "some sources put this number up to..." or any other encyclopedic formula). Thanks. Gorgonzola (talk) 20:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human rights abuses sources 

message: I have reviewed the recent changes made by the user Francerec, and finished mopping up the remaining unsourced material and POV statements in accordance to consensus reached in this talk page. Francerec: you are welcome to contribute to the article, but please avoid pov statements, add sources for the claims you want to introduce, use an encylopedic language excempt of weasel words, avoid removing referenced sources not in accordance with your own opinions and respect consensus on issues already debated. Thank you.
ps: i am asuming good faith on part of the last two editors, but i must confess that i'am finding it hard to believe so, given 1.- the nature of the edits made by user Francerec and 2.- the sloppines of the "cleaning" made by 82.143.201.125. A traditional vandal tactic implies using one account to introduce vandalism and a second one to "revert" the most blatant parts leaving the rest hidden in the articles. One could think so of these edits, but in honor to WP:AGF, i'm only stating my concerns, so other editors take care in reviewing reverts and edits. please see "sneaky vandalism" in WP:VANDAL. Gorgonzola (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest changes by Francerec 

message: This talk page is getting rather long, and i was thinking of archiving it topically as well as chronologically. I am proposing this change and volunteering to do this work, and i ask all lurkers of this talk page to please pronounce their opinion on this issue, and ask any questions you might have with my proposal (e.g. "topically? whatdayamean topically?!?" and the like). Thanks. Gorgonzola (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motion to Archive 

message: In Pinochet&redirect=no&oldid=228956141 the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) 
* "NYT" :
**  Larry Rohter, Colonel's Death Gives Clues to Pinochet Arms Deals, The New York Times, 19 June 2006 
**  Larry Rohter, Colonel's Death Gives Clues to Pinochet Arms Deals, The New York Times, 19 June 2006 
DumZiBoT (talk) 12:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot report : Found duplicate references ! 

message: I have removed the sentence "Pinochet is known in Chile as "El Tata" (The Grandfather or The Grandpa)" form the abstract beacuse:
1.- it is unencyclopedic and not precise. He is called by that name by very few of his most extreme suporters, and by his detractors when mocking this supporters. He is not generally refered to as "el tata".
2.- it lacks context. without a proper explanation of the (humorous) use of the expression in Chile, its inclusion is confusing and potentially POV, as its meaning is very subtle, even in spanish.
3.- if included, it should not go in the abstract, but in some other part of the article.
4.- is not factually acurate: he is not "known" as "el tata". some people call him like that, and most uses of the phrase in conection with his name are mockingly and humorous. if in disagreemnt, please cite sources.
Until the issues mentioned above have been dealt with (NOT in the abstract), i will keep removing this phrase, as i truly believe that it diminishes the quality of the article, and is misleading.
And since i am not the one including the reference (i wouldn't even mention it) i do not think that i should rewrite it. My rewriting it is its removal. Thank you. Gorgonzola (talk) 22:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  'El Tata' 

message: Description of results of Pinochet's economic policy is extremely one sided and possibly factually incorrect. I'm putting NPOV tag up until I, or someone else, manage to address this issue. -- Vision  Thing -- 20:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Compare the Castro and Pinochet articles.  The Pinochet article is very poor.  It is very heavily focussed on his human rights abuses and nothing else.  The Castro article is far more balanced.  I think the reason for this is that the article has been hijaked by left wing editors. Castro committed as many human rights abuses as Pinochet.  I don't see why Pinochets article is so focussed on this one thing.
The article is bad because left wingers like Bukharin have destroyed it.  This needs to change.  I would say over 80% of the article is devoted to human rights abuses.
::please leave your personal attacks to my userpage, and don't use ad-hominem arguments in discussions. thank you. Gorgonzola (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Left Wing Bias Has Destroyed This Article: Castro vs Pinochet 

message: === President infobox ===
Sat macphisto: 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 the legislative power, and then used this power 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. Gorgonzola (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Sat macphisto: 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 the legislative power, and then used this power 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. Gorgonzola (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  President infobox 

message: it is a photo a young person saluting a dead guy. To say that this is the salute of a new breed of young far-right is a little overstretched. Gorgonzola (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funeral Photo 

message: Thanks to user AVM for his help. I have changed two small details in his wording:
1.- Pinochet did not "step down to allow for democratic rule". He lost a plebiscite and was forced to resign in accordance to the 1980 constitution. The above sentence implies that he voluntarily ceded power back to civilian rulers, when in fact this was not the case. Actually, on the day of the plebiscite, Pinochet had to acknowledge his defeat only because general Fernando Mathei revealed the results on his own initiative. Until that time, around 8:30 pm, the government had only made public the results of tables in Easter Island and Antartica, that gave a 58% advantage to the "Sí" option (note that in chile, election results are usually nearly 80% complete around 6:30 pm), and precisely at the moment when Mathei made his announcement, Pinochet was in the presidential Bunker pondering whether to accept defeat or not. See General Humberto Gordon's Memoires for info on this.
2.- I personally think that it's irrelevant to put Allende's political affiliation in the abstract, but I won't oppose it in principle. I will oppose, however, the POV designation of Marxist, when discussing the political affiliation of a President of Chile. Marxism is a philosophical perspective, not a political affiliation. Socialist is Allende's political affiliation as a member of the Partido Socialista de Chile. If describing President Bush, for example, would it be proper to say that he is a Christian President? Wouldn't it be more correct to state that he is a Republican President? Using Marxist in  the case of Allende, just like christian in the case of Bush, is POV pushing: the POV that "marxist" is a quality of Allende that justifies, explains or compliments the exposition of the events mentioned in the abstract of the article to Pinochet. Again, I wouldn't even mention his political affiliation, and if i were to mention it, I'd leave his political affiliation as recognized officially by the electoral college of Chile, i.e. his political party, not his philosophical views.
Gorgonzola (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AVM's cleanup 

message: 1.- "national security agencies" is misleading because 1.1.- not only national security agencies participated in the imlpementation of repression. 1.2.- the repression was part of a goverment policy of which the DINA and its exceptional powers were only one of many institutional tools used. So the subject should be "the military government", not "National security agencies. Sin the military government is mentioned here in the context of the article on pinochet, it makes sense to say "The military government led by pinochet"...
2.- Criminal processes are not "unsuccessful" or "successful" if prescribed by the death of the accused. This processes are discussed in detail in the article. If the idea that there was never a formal conviction is to be introduced in the abstract (i don't think it should), care should be taken to state an NPOV version of facts: he was prosecuted at the time of his death, this criminal processes were moving forward, and in previous processes he was only spared conviction on humanitarian basis in attention to his health and old-age. no court of justice was ever able to drop the charges brought against him. I personally believe that such detail is unnecessary in the abstract, but if someone wants to include it, please make sure to put a neutral, factually correct version of facts.  Gorgonzola (talk) 22:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abstract wording 

message: It is not correct to say that the political opponents to the dictatorship of Pinochet were mainly militants of the communist party, nor it is to say that the repressive measures implemented at the beginning of the dictatorship were particularly directed to militants of the communist party.
There are various stages to the implementation of an apparatus of political repression in Chile in the beginning of the dictatorship. Immediately after the coup, the first target of the repressive forces were the officials of allende's government, mainly militants of the socialist party. In the months following, the repressive effort was directed to disarticulate the organic structures of all leftist parties, starting with the socialist party, then following with the communist and MIR party, but eventually targeting the whole spectrum of the militant left in Chile.
This phase of selective persecution of the middle structures of opposing political parties was sructured in cycles, by year, until the end of the first stage of repression in 1975, and the formation of more permanent repressive structures until 1978. In this successive efforts, first the regime focused on the socialist, then the communist, and then the MIR parties.
So it's misleading to say that political opponents against whom the dictatorship implemented repressive measures were mainly communist militants; there were at least two other organic structures that were initially targeted just as strongly, if not so permanently, as later the Socialist party was pretty much dispersed, and the MIR anihilated, but that's only after 1978 or so.
Now on the second round of repression, in the 80's, it is more accurate to say that the communists took most of the heat, mainly because of their ties to the FPMR, particularly after 1986.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bukharin (talk • contribs) 18:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political opponents 

message: the 1980 plebiscite approved the constitution that called for a plebiscite in 1988 to determine if he would serve another term as president. the 1980 plebiscite had nothing to do with the return to democratic rule, hence the phrase is factually incorrect. He did not stepped down from office "voluntarily", he lost an election, but this details are out of place in the abstract, and are discussed at length in the body of the article. Gorgonzola (talk) 15:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Return to ddemocratic rule 

message: In the first paragraph describing the coup, the article contains the phrase "La Moneda was shelled and Allende perished."  The implication of the article is that Allende was killed by the shelling (and thereby killed on Pinochet's orders), rather than having committed suicide.  As mentioned elsewhere on this Talk page, Allende's suicide is, for better or worse, beyond question.  I've looked through the talk page trying to find discussion on this; if this has not otherwise been resolved, I intended to change the article to reflect this.
98.221.157.109 (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  La Moneda was shelled and Allende perished 

message: This page is getting long, can anyone archive this?--Megaman en m (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: i had the intention of doing that, but wanted to take time to make a thematic archive. Guess a simple chronological archive will have to do... Gorgonzola (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  archive 

message: I have reverted several edits made in the last two days. 
1.- Photo: Pinochet is a military figure. picturing him as a civilian in his later years is uncharacteristic, so a photo in military uniform, from the time where he acquired most of his notoriety is preferred. This photo is already linked in the article, and has been removed under allegations of it being "non-free". This is false: under Chilean law, all photos of person acting in official capacity, are free for educational purposes. As this is a photo of a Chilean military officer wearing the official Chilean army uniform, this photo falls in this category, and is thus free for use in a encyclopedia, as it is stated in the photosś fair use rationale.
2.- I'm having a lot of trouble assuming good faith from a streak of edits that tried to remove every mention of human rights abuses in the intro, without even a minor mention in the talk. this section has been thoroughly discussed in this page, and i take it as a disrespect to all the editors who have worked in this article to just come here and make this particular changes without any consideration for prior discussion, WP:BOLD notwithstanding.
In this same vein, the abundance of  tags in the article is absurd, and specially in the intro, where all the issues mentioned are discussed at length in rest of the article. I think it is completely unnecessary to include references to facts that are well known and accredited in several books like the suspension of civil liberties and the ban of political parties, but if needed, i can produce the official documents and decrees to support them. In any case, i have removed the tags from the intro, as this references, if needed, must be put in the corresponding at-length section of the article.
3.- I don't think i need to even address to the use of "dictatorship" to allude to his government. This has been already discussed at length. Gorgonzola (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necesarilly. Color and resolution are not always valid criteria for editorial decisions in the context of an encyclopedic article. The subject depicted in the image is a better criteria, and given that this is an article about a Chilean Military officer and dictator that gains notability because of his role as military figure and controversial head of state, a picture that depicts him in this quality is superior from an editorial point of view than a picture of his later years after retirement (inclusion of which, incidentally, could be taken by an external observer as an effort to blank his image and POV pushing, like his advisors did for the 1988 electoral campaign). Similar examples can be seen in the article about a nun pictured as a nun, a US president pictured in a official photo in the oval office, yugoslav marshalls and a british generals pictured in uniform from their time of active military service, etcetera. Gorgonzola (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The image should show facial features so that the person is recognizable.Luis Napoles (talk) 09:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Edits 

message: This article is awful.  It should make clear from the first paragraph what kind of person Pinochet was - a monster.  It should also make clear his connections with western governments especially the UK which kept him in power for so long.  I know that Wikipedia articles for other madmen and dictators (Hitler, Stalin, George W Bush, Amin, etc.) also don t emphasize the most obvious necessity but that's no excuse.  Who the hell controls Wikipedia?  It's the very small number (relative to number of users) of admins who control and decide everything and the influence of these people is destroying so many Wikipedia articles and making this into an encyclopedia that nobody will trust.--217.203.185.53 (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  some much pro-Pinochet, pro-USA/UK bias 

message: Pinochet was not a fascist. He was a right-wing dictator, but not a fascist, contrary to what the cited sources say. Most people these days throw around "fascist" like a swear word, without having any idea what fascism exactly is or what it entails. Pinochet did not set up a corporatist state, seek a revolutionary transformation of society, or establish a single-party state. His regime was conservative, not fascist. I am not arguing the fact that he was a dictator - an exceptionally brutal and venal one - but he was not a fascist. It's entirely possible to be an anti-communist tyrant without being a fascist. Josh (talk) 08:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your opinion Josh, but saying contrary to what the sources say doesn’t work very well in Wikipedia, as it relies heavily on verifiability, not opinions from editors. You’re right, however, that Pinochet did not set up a one party state. He actually shut down congress. Likeminas (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Did Pinochet consider himself a fascist? Did he actually implement fascist policies? No, he did not. Francisco Franco was a fascist; Antonio de Oliveira Salazar was a fascist; Benito Mussolini was a fascist; Adolf Hitler was a fascist; Antonescu and Pavelic were fascists; Getulio Vargas was a fascist. Do any of the sources listed provide any evidence of Pinochet's "fascism?" Wikipedia's own article on fascism:
Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, comprises a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology[1][2][3][4] and a corporatist economic ideology developed in Italy.[5] Fascists believe that nations and/or races are in perpetual conflict whereby only the strong can survive by being healthy, vital, and by asserting themselves in conflict against the weak.[6]
Fascists advocate the creation of a single-party state.[7] Fascist governments forbid and suppress openness and opposition to the government and the fascist movement.[8] Fascism opposes class conflict, blames capitalist liberal democracies for its creation and communists for exploiting the concept.[9]''
Pinochet did not advocate a single-party state. He was not anti-capitalist. He did not believe in the national/racial "perpetual conflict." He opposed class conflict (as can be seen in the original version of the 1980 Constitution) and forbade and suppressed openness and opposition to the government, but the latter is a hallmark of all (or almost all) dictatorships, not just fascist ones.
Calling someone a "fascist" does not make it so. Many radical libertarians call Barack Obama a "fascist," and likewise, many on the left (and a few on the right) called George W. Bush a "fascist," as well.
While some have called Pinochet a fascist, have they provided any evidence of him subscribing to fascist ideology or implementing fascist policies? Josh (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fascist? 

message: {{|editprotected}}
Please remove the line <ref name="fascist"> from the references section, because that reference is already brought inside the article, and with its present formatting it causes an error message. Debresser (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved it to the line discussing Pinochet's purported fascism for now.  Skomorokh  21:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's fine with me. Thanks for fixing the error message. But you missed the point that we have that reference already in the article. Just that it is not called name="fascist" there. So it would have been better to give that unnamed reference the name "fascist" and remove the above mentioned reference altogether, so as not to introduce unusual (and in this case unneeded) forms of references. Debresser (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite; the citation named "fascist" contains eight different references, of which The Independent is only one. I have removed the second reference to that particular article, as it was cited in the same line. It's an unusual style because it's just been implemented. Regards,  Skomorokh  22:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 10:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request 

message: Why is Pinochet in the categories "Generalissimos" and "Anti-intellectualists"? Has he ever been referred to as "Generalissimo," and did he ever display anti-intellectualist tendencies? I'm not arguing for or against inclusion in these categories, it's just that this is news to me. I thought Pinochet only went by "Captain General." Josh (talk) 01:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, and I have removed it. There has been previous talk of making him look exclusively like a military man, even going so far as to remove his official presidential portiat and replacing it with one in which his is authoaratatively gesticulating. I have also moved the fascist side bar.--Die4Dixie (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two more questions 

message: As per this request Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Unprotect_Pinochet_request I have unprotected this article. If this unprotection causes further disruption, please alert the admin team via AN/I. Manning (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotect request 

message: A so well referenced fascist needs to be part of the Fascist portal. Please do not remove with out s\discussion and consensus and reason for not including it in such a well referenced article.--Die4Dixie (talk) 13:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not disrupt Wikipedia in order to try to make a point.Likeminas (talk) 13:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Feel free to add Pinochet and all the sources into the portal under the subsection people but not into this article. Otherwise seek consensus for it here.Likeminas (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If that square of portal info is going to remain, I'll suggest it should be put underneath the photo / personal info of Pinochet. It's not too aesthetically pleasing as it is right now (and it is overlapped with some text from the article). Frank Pais (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Frank, I'm afraid he's not doing that in good faith, but rather to make a point. Likeminas (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Going to keep an eye on this article for a while.  See if we can keep things WP:CIVIL as we get the article on this notable fascist dictator up to snuff.Simonm223 (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  is now claiming it is my responsability to find references claiming Pinochet is considered a fascist.  As this was already done by others a while ago I will disregard his request. Simonm223 (talk) 14:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am requesting evidence to have the portal section remain. Please familiarize yourself with the request for comment below. I have taken this to the greater community for their input. Specious use of "fascist" as a pejorative should not take the place of scholarly evaluations. All I have asked for is some scholarly sources for such a inane position----Die4Dixie (talk) 21:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  So well referenced for fascist 

message: As I had previously mentioned, I had removed the inappropriate side bar.  Anyone wanting to reinsert, please discuss.--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How is the side-bar inappropriate? As has already been demonstrated, there is a wealth of discussion on fascism being present within the Pinochet regime in Chile. You added the side-bar. Unless you added it in bad faith, I see no reason to remove it. It is highly pertinent to the subject matter at hand. Frank Pais (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely added it in bad faith. Where were you? That is why Likeminas removed so many times. >He recognized the inappropriateness of the sidebar, but seems unwilling to contradict you directly. Let´s try to be a little more intellectually honest. Or point to the massive amounts of academic literature that establish the corporatist nature of the regime. As a political scientist, you should have no problem substantiating this. It was you above who said this was a textbook erxample of what he did. if he did, and you can show it, I wont have any problems conceding the point.--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would refer you to WP:POINT. Simonm223 (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, this is a moot issue now. Please review the history, and if you don´t understand it, I would be happy to explain the point Now if you have any information to support the other prongs other than authoritarian, to support the side bar, we would welcome your constructive additions.--Die4Dixie (talk) 06:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Side Bar 

message: I'm agnostic regarding whether Pinochet was a fascist, I'm merely (at the moment) interested in improving the appearance. An editor asked (Help desk) if there was a way to improve the appearance when there are multiple references for a single word (e.g. fascist). The answer given at the help desk was that it couldn't be done, but I found a way to do it.
I could be bold and just do it, but I want some feedback first. 
Here's an example
I just worked with the first paragraph of the Pinochet article. The word "fascist" had eight references. I used the new citation style as documented in wp:LDR, and separated each of the references by a line feed. (I also converted the website references to the proper citation style, although I don't know whether the publisher of Google Books references should be Google Book or the publisher of the book).
It isn't beautiful, but it removes the ugliness from the main text, and makes it reasonably clear that the citation is made up of multiple references. 
I also added bullet points—does that add or detract?
If there's no objection, I can make the change to the article, but again, I'd like to hear opinions whether this is an improvement.--SPhilbrickT 13:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually implemented the changes already as it seems like good improvement. But all the credit goes to you, thanks again. Likeminas (talk) 13:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I had just decided to be bold and implement it, but I see you did. Unfortunately, as you know, it isn't working quite right, so I won't take any credit until it is fixed. Will keep looking until it is resolved.--SPhilbrickT 13:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Pheww, found it.--SPhilbrickT 13:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Great work Sphilbrick, thank you for your time. Likeminas (talk) 13:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks well sourced.  Should stay in this time. Simonm223 (talk) 20:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fascist referencing