Talk:Augusto Pinochet/Archive 7

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Trey Stone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Correcting

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

Hello Matias, I reverted your edit because you removed several facts and quotes which are sourced, without providing sources of your own. I'm not trying to prevent you from changing the article, but I don't think that removing sentences like "Some supporters still insist [Allende] was killed by Pinochet's military forces" does anything to make Wikipedia more neutral and true. If you have references to your assertion that Pinochet's forces did not arrest hundreds of members of the left-wing opposition and kill many of them, please post them. I do not think the fact that Pinochet has been cleared of his accused crimes by the same Supreme Court he appointed is reason enough to remove the accusations entirely. Of course it should be mentioned that he has never been found guilty. Eliot 15:10, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hello Eliot. I agree with you about the sources. I'm not very used to wikipedia, but I posted my sources here on the discussion page. I knew that this article needed to be edited (it has to be rewritten in some places) but I did it once I it was reverted. Leaving this article as it was or as it is destroys Pinochet's honor and is against the NPOV (that's what you use for neutrality, don't you?). I posted above about suppression of opposition, and just by posting information of the rettig inform it's obvious that his government wasn't trying to destroy the oppossition (even if those deaths where Pinochet's fault, something that hasn't been proved either). I agree that his trials should be posted, but you can't say that he's guilty for now.

About Allende's death, I also posted above my source: an interview to Allende's daughter (c'mon... her word is enough... maybe you should add that for Allende killing himself wasn't something bad but something brave).

BTW... Would you tell me where can I revert changes? (unsigned comment from 200.90.206.33)

Hi Matias. I'm glad you've decided to contribute to Wikipedia, but I think your contributions will be better received if you read the NPOV article and the policies, and create an account.

I think you have some misunderstandings about NPOV. For instance, you removed the phrase "However, some supporters still insist that he was killed by Pinochet's military forces while defending the palace." I don't see any justification for removing this, as it is true that some supporters claim this. Removing it in support of "Pinochet's honor" is very un-NPOV.

You may view older revisions of the article via the 'Page history' link. Eliot 21:58, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I will surely read the NPOV and the policies. Maybe I will understand better the idea of wikipedia (it's still difficult for me to think about this encyclopedia... It's missing many things). About Allende's death, his own family (inside or outside of Chile) agrees that he killed himself. I don't know what the point is about keeping that. Just because a few guys think something you'll put it on an article? maybe it should be posted at the very end, but I don't think that it's good for Allende's memory to say that he was murdered. I don't agree with his vission of the world, but he thought that killing himself was something good.

About Pinochet's honor, I referred to the part of suppression of opposition. I posted above here on the discussion page death tolls according to the Rettig inform. You can check it for yourself. Look at those numbers and please answer: Can you state that Pinochet wanted to suppress opposition? The comunist party at that time had some 1500 people and the socialist party had some 5000-7000 people (not sure about those numbers). The CUT (central unitaria de trabajadores - not a political party but definately oposition) had about 1 million of people (that number is tricky though, because workers where forced to join). At least the suppression of oposition should be posted as "some people say that Pinochet tried to eliminate oposition...". (Even though it's (very) probably untrue that Pinochet gave an order to kill someone). I agree to continue disscusing this. What do you think about adding a disscusion tag to the article?

Just wanted to say good bye. I'm leaving the Wikipedia project (I give up. Some articles are just way to biased, and what's worst, saying anything against what most people whant to think means a npov message). Eliot: I left some data here (some posts above, specially the one with the death toll). I'm not working here anymore. I hope that what you write about Pinochet is the truth and not what most would like to read (this encyclopedia is converting on a CNN info source...).

Matias, I have no interest in doing your editing for you. You say you have the facts right here. Nobody is stopping you from putting them in. You have no one to blame but yourself if you see problems in the article. Eliot 15:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

NPOV dispute

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

This article is primarily about Pinochet, not about Chile's relationship with the US. TDC June 29, 2005 13:56 (UTC)

Pinochet was the military leader of Chile, and as such, key government relationships which he pursued or which were related to his rise to power have a place in his biography. In summarized form, sure, but omitting them entirely reveals bias, hence the NPOV tag.--Eloquence * June 29, 2005 14:22 (UTC)

There was a similar issue with the Fidel Castro article, and the bulk of the information was redirected to the article on Cuba’s foreign relations. I would assume that this would be appropriate in this case as well. TDC June 29, 2005 19:21 (UTC)

If you want to bring up precedent as an argument, please try to find precise diffs for the incident in question.--Eloquence *

Ummm, Ok. All the following information [1] was removed from the Fidel Castro Article and placed in the Revolutionary government of Cuba article because it had to do more with the workings of the government of Cuba rather than the personal actions or life of Castro. TDC June 29, 2005 20:05 (UTC)

The analogy is inapplicable -- I am asking for a summary of information which already exists elsewhere, rather than a long section of duplicating or original material.--Eloquence * June 29, 2005 20:07 (UTC)

It is completely applicable, this article is about Pinochet's life primarily, and not about the government of Chile. TDC June 29, 2005 20:24 (UTC)

I refer you to my comments above in response to this earlier assertion from you.--Eloquence *

I would propose the following summary of the pre-coup relationship:

"Before Pinochet seized power, the U.S. government under Richard Nixon had established a strong CIA presence in Chile and had made several attempts to instigate a military coup against Allende (Project FUBELT). In addition, the U.S. had imposed economic sanctions on Chile, while increasing military aid from $800,000 anually in 1970 to $10.9 million by 1972. This combined strategy, as Nixon's advisor Henry Kissinger acknowledged privately days after Pinochet seized power, had "created the conditions as great as possible" for a military coup. While Nixon's government strongly supported Pinochet, there is no evidence that U.S. intelligence was directly involved in the preparations or execution of the September 11, 1973 coup."

I think briefly outlining that the U.S. government pursued a combined strategy of military aid, economic sanctions and direct support for potential coup leaders is important. Pinochet certainly benefited from this strategy. Therefore, a neutral biography that describes his rise to power should include it.--Eloquence * June 29, 2005 18:58 (UTC)

Remove Tag?

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

The tag was added by User:Mtad on 18 June. You can see my discussion with him down the page. He has since quit the project since he feels that it is "more biased than CNN." I am removing the tag for now. Eliot 16:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Eliot. I'm a pretty passionate hater of Pinochet, I don't understand what Mtad has against this article. It says he killed 3,000 people right there in the 2nd paragraph. My general feeling is that the use of these tags should be minimal, so I'm glad to see this one go. Next planned change is to add something about the CIA involvement ... Camipco 19:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

Why just not be honest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obviously not written by Chileans!

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

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

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

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

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

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

>> Allende never used force to accomplish anything

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

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

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

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

(...continued.)

Incredibly POV, Poor Quality and Long Winded

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

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

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

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

I changed it to the following:

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

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

Another example of a change I made is as follows:

Original: In addition, it embarked on a campaign of terror against leftist elements in the country. As a result, approximately 3,000 Chileans were executed or disappeared, more than 27,000 ¹ were imprisoned or tortured, and many were exiled and received abroad as political refugees.

Revised: Approximately 3,000 Chileans were executed or disappeared, more than 27,000 ² were imprisoned or tortured, and many were exiled and received abroad as political refugees. Most of those persecuted by the regime were affiliated with left-wing political parties.

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

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

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

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

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

File:20051216h.jpg

Coup edited

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

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

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

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

"Last count" of whom? --Mike18xx 04:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to tell you this but Tito was as bad as Franco. Both of them were dictators.

I fail to see how lowering a voting age so that conscripts (a fancy word for slaves pressed into military service) are enabled to have a say about their country's governance constitutes more rather than less dictatorship (a term which generally implies that nobody gets to vote anyway).--Mike18xx 04:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Military coup of 1973

Main article: Chilean coup of 1973.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carvajal: I spoke with him personally, i let him know he must surrender to the commanding chiefs. Eh... Answered with a series of cuss words, no more.

Pinochet: So, that means that at 11, when the first "parrots" arrive... you'll see what'll happend. AT 11 O CLOCK WE BOMBARD!

Carvajal: When La Moneda is evacuated, it will be much easier to assault it.

Pinochet: One it's bombarded we assault it with the Buin and the Infantry School. We gotta tell brady

Carvajal: Agreed. Lets wait till the helpers and Carabineros evacuate.

Pinochet: Agreed.

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

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

Carvajal communicates again with pinochet, asking him of a posibility of of another parle:

Carvajal: Ive just been informed of a possibility of parle

Pinochet: no, he must leave La Moneda with a small amount of people

Carvajal: ...they've retreated, but there...

Pinochet: ...to the ministry, to the ministry...

Carvajal: he is offering parle.

Pinochet: inconditional surrender, no parle!, inconditional surrender!

Carvajal: well, agreed, inconditional surrender, and we take him prisoner, offering no more than respect his life, shall we say.

Pinochet: Life and physical integrity, and next we send him elsewhere

Carvajal: Agreed... that means we keep the offering of taking him away from the country

Pinochet: We uphold our offering of taking him out of the country. But that plane falls, man, when its fliying.

Carvajal: Agreed... agreed. Lets propose that parle goes on.

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

"Give him more machinegun 'till the end and that his fire dont stop, man"

"its better to kill the bitch and the Levée en masse stops"

"This are not bullets, nothing more... that egghead wont shoot a rubber pill" (in Chile, Egghead is a mayor insult)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pinochet: Conforme.

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

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

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

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

Carvajal: me acaban de informar que habría intención de parlamentar

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

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

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

Carvajal: Que se está ofreciendo parlamentar.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I see so, but I'd like other people to look @ it and see whether or not it belongs/fits in here and if so how it should be incorporated. When I saw it, the 1st added paragraph looked so spurious, and the fact that it was a page on a controversial leader gave me enough reason to revert it. 68.39.174.238 07:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

This page shows very little info about pinochet, and the coup was, for us Chileans, only seeable by the Radio transmissions, as all radios were taken out by the rightists. No one could leave their houses, as it was a state of siege and courtfew, all tv channels and radios that were functional supported the coup. To use the narration is the best way to explain it, as it is well made in the Pinochet & Allende page. Today, all documentaries about Allende use the radio narration, starting with "La Batalla de Chile" movies & "La Caida de un presidente", both of them who feature this. On Chilean tv, every september 11, 1973 special uses this radio transmission, as its a must!, cos everyone knows about it.--Kessingler 07:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you have the narration moved to Wikisource and call it something like "Allende-Pinochet Coup Negociations" and link to it from this article. It seems rather long to include in the main article but should be kept somewhere. Also, the original paragraph might be merged into the new section. 68.39.174.238 07:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Allende-Pinochet negotiations??, they never even talked!!, Pinochet was never the mastermind of this, so he was the authoritary leader of the coup, he barely got in the coup just 2 days before it happend. After Pratts retired in the sake of keeping the democracy (after El Tanquetazo, a failed coup that happened just months before it), Pratts, who was a loyal militar to the goverment (no, he wasnt socialist), he choosed Pinochet himself to take his charge, thinking that Pinochet was going to serve in the army without betraying the president. Truth is, the masterminds of it are Leigh & Merino, who commanded the aerial & naval armies, respectively. Mendoza, the head of Carabineros, was just a pawn, as he never sayd anything and never really had a saying in it (he was just "necesary" as he controlled Carabineros).

Pratts was later assasinated by CIA operative Michael Townley, who is currently in prison for his crimes.

The page must stay in its entirely, even more info would be better. The narration is essential to all this. All of it were phrases spoken by Pinochet himself in the coup, they all belong here, as Pinochet's finest hour was the coup. Later on, he dedicated himself to an image cleansing, excersising just like your Jimmy Carter used to and using a pearl in his tie... just your Jimmy Carter used to (he didnt really masterminded any of the economical changes, the responsables for that were the "Chicago Boys", Pinochet was a Militar).

One thing though, theres a lot of words that are very hard to translate from spanish, such as "Huevon", wich literaly means "guy-with-big-balls", but here in Chile, huevon means stupid (wich is a big insult). Also, in one of the phrases Pinochet says "Leva", wich is a simple word in spanish that means conscription, as when Pinochet sayd "to kill the bitch... etc", he doesnt say any french words, but i couldnt find a better word for it, so ill better just put "leva", instead.--Kessingler 23:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding you edit comment, on wikipedia you are one of "you people". --Ezeu 01:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

well, this whole page has been made by americans, sorry if it sounded rather cold.

As well in should be. This is the english language wikipedia. It is basically an encyclopedia for Americans and other english speaking people. They are the primary users and so it makes sense they whould be the primary contributors.

Grow up, Cantus

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

Suggested alterations

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

Regarding: Pinochet's economic policy - The only criticism of Pinochet's economic results included in the article is one by Chomsky. While he undoubtedly is a scholar of major stature his field of formal studies does not include economics. His economic criticsms are mostly based on idealism, opinions and ideology rather than on academic economic studies. Just because he is well known and respected in certain fields of study does not mean that his views on other subjects should be referenced as scholarly sources. I am sure that there are other sources that dispute Chile's economic success and support it with formal economic research. These should be included in the article instead of the Chomsky figures. One can also easily make the argument that citing Chomsky on certain topics implicitly promotes a certain POV. A good analogy is the Black Book of Communism by Stephane Courtois et al. While certainly scholarly and respected it is generally frowned upon as a single source of communist atrocities due to the author's well known and publicized anti-communist stance.

Regarding: Military coup of 1973 - as to Allende's suicide: 'According to the junta's official version, he committed suicide with a machine gun'. This paragraph does not explicitly state that it is by now understood to be a historic fact that Allende committed suicide. The implication is still there that it only the former junta agrees on this. The 1990 autopsy report only glances over the fact. I think that this should be stated more explicitly.

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

The bit on Chomsky is highly suspect, for two reasons: 1) Chomsky is not an economist, and he's not an expert on economic policy per se (this is made more clear by point #2). If you really wanted to find someone critical of the Chilean Miracle, I'm sure Joe Stiglitz would fit the bill. 2) The figures that Chomsky cites are highly misleading. 1983 was the peak of the Latin American debt crisis; things were really, really bad everywhere in Latin America, but in fact they weren't that bad in Chile, relatively speaking. But choosing to look at unemployment over a period ending in a severe recession isn't fooling anyone--it's amateur at best. Also, one has to consider that Pinochet inherited an economy in ruins, and some unemployment was going to be necessarily to cure inflation >300%. The question is not how well Pinochet dealt with unemployment, but how well he did relative to what else he could have. There has to be some sort of baseline for comparison. John McAdams 10:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Lets review each point one of the time:

economic policy: up to this date Chile is still one of the countries with the most unequal wealth distribution, all of this comes straight from the Pinochet dictatorship, as numerous corporations were privatized along with the health and pension system. In the case of privatization of numerous industries there was much robbery in it, all of wich is reviewed in the Maria Luisa Monckeberg book "El Saqueo" wich is probably the best book about that subject. Pinochet didnt exactly made any of these policies, they were all made by a group of people called "the chicago boys" and were all forced into acceptance, as it is also the case for Pension and Health. Today the pension system is probably the most criticized in Chile, as it is an obscene way to lose your 10% income to later recieve a minimum amount of pension while watching corporations get richer by it (you are forced to do so, bank taxes & the crappy goverment 20 dollars pension makes it an obligation and surprisingly the best choice, as there is no other choice), the pension system is such a large business that to try to root it out would be an almost impossible task, as it is rooted in the country´s economy and as foreign capitals are invested in it. The health system is good only if you have the cash for it, as none of he 21 ISAPRES will give you coverage if you only make minimum wage (wich is what most of us chileans make), they will give a generous coverage if you have a salary over the 2 million pesos a month.

about Allende Committing suicide: was he assasinated/was he murdered?: the answer is: BOTH. Unless Allende's last words before committing suicide were "good bye cruel world", it is safe to say Allende didnt committed suicide per se, he was after all in a battle at the time of his death and decided to terminate his life before the militars took him, and as it was also the honorable thing to do in his position as president (the last president to commit suicide in Chile was Balmaceda, and it was right after he was deposed). Its no secret that Allende killed himself, but it was a suicide that was forced upon him.

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

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

Dr Sheila Cassidy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resolution of August 22, 1973

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

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

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

This "authorization," as the POV-filled page you link to plainly states, has no force of law behind it, and authorized nothing. The paragraph as written before was accurate. The resolution should of course be discussed in the article, but this tortured first paragraph is nothing but an attempt to push POV. Please, let's stick to the facts. More pre-September 11th information can and should be added to the article, although Chilean coup of 1973 is the main article for the events leading up to the coup. I've reworked the first paragraph into a compromise version, I hope you find it acceptable. Eliot 18:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Chile, as you may be aware, did not have any US-style "articles of impeachment" for the Chamber of Deputies to follow as de facto "force of law"; it's only recourse of action is the one it chose: imploring the nation's military to oust the President.

An analogy: It is about the same time in alternate history United States, where President Richard Nixon steadfastly refuses to resign in the face of growing demands he do so over gross misconduct in office. The US Congress, lacking a Constitutional means to impeach him, passes a resolution exhaustively detailing his various treasons and implores the US Army to address the grave national crisis; the resolution passes on a near 2:1 vote. Three weeks later, the US Army does so, and Nixon airs out his own head in preference to being arrested (and also to make a martyre of himself to his fervent supporters). General Westmoreland, rather than then going back to the barracks, uses the opportunity to establish a military junta ruled by him, and busies himself rooting out Nixon's supporters. Three decades later, Spanish-language historybooks and internet encylopedias still routinely present the Nixon's apologists' version of events in which the fact that an overwhelming majority of the Congress demanded he be militarily punted in the first place are buried way far down in the fine print if not swept under the rug entirely. Attempts to re-position the primary roll of the Congress in initiating the whole affair are ridiculed as "POV" and "misleading"; meanwhile, the apologists do not consider it "POV" to, variously, obsess over the "democratically-elected" "doctor" (actually a politician for thirty years) Nixon's "service" and "ambituous social reform projects", the contingency planning of his foreign adversaries, and especially, the "violent" details of the "coup" (which -- as opposed to the Congressionally-sanctioned removal of Nixon -- was actually bloodless, since it essentially consisted of Westmoreland just saying "No, I think I'll keep this brass-ring!" to Congress before dissolving it.)

RV'd with changes in the interest of pragmatic compromise. Also, an alternate source for the Resolution is now linked (it goes to a page sans any site-owner's editorializing).--Mike18xx 19:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm reverting again to the consensus version (which I had no part in writing, despite Mike calling it "my POV version." Mike, I hope you continue to edit the article constructively as well as respecting consensus. Eliot 21:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please make sure to cite appropriate sources for all your assertions. By 'appropriate sources', in case you don't read that article, I mean not just primary sources such as the text of the Resolution, but secondary sources such as history books or other encyclopedias. Eliot 14:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

"Appropriate" and "credible" are in the eye of the beholder, as Wikipedia itself observes via "...Although it may be advisable to follow it, it is not however policy. Feel free to update the page as needed..." right at the top of Reliable Sources. I.e., the Appeal to 'authority logical-fallacy is not codified here (and for an immense bellylaugh, this piece further down details: "Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers — like the New York Times... — are likely to be reliable, and are regarded as reputable sources, when anyone whose been seriously paying attention to the Grey Drunk Lady since it collected the lying Stalinist shitheel Walter Duranty's Pulitzer Prize recognizes it as arguably the least credible large media organ -- it's stubborn denial of reality over a great number of issues is legendary).

As indicated in the summary field of the last revert, I am attempting to acertain a repository for the original Resolution. I have so far learned that the Chamber of Deputies does NOT have its output converted into electronic form at present (although it is working on it, having finished 19th century up to early 20th century archives).
As far as I am aware, no one (particularly no one in Chile) disputes the accuracy of either the Spanish or the English renderings that are available on either of Chilean politician Jose Pinera's sites and/or mirrors.
In any event, for simple reasons of being closer to the source, I would rather "err" toward the assumption that documentation provided by Chileans is more "reliable" than than "err" toward the assertions of North American academics and journalists.
For that reason, until I see a dispute involving more than "technicalities", I'm going to keep the Resolution in there as relevant.--Mike18xx 01:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The accuracy of the translation of the resolution is not in dispute. The relevance is what is in dispute, and this is why primary sources are problematic. You can assert that Pinochet was motivated by the Resolution, but from the sources cited in the article, we don't even know that he read it. This is exactly what reliable secondary sources are all about, and it is not a technicality. Eliot 01:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

One the hand you stipulate "The accuracy of the translation of the resolution is not in dispute," yet on the other you accuse me of "...assert(ing) that Pinochet was motivated by the Resolution," -- But the obvious purpose of the Resolution, in its own unambiguous terms, is the removal of Allende by non-legislative and non-judicial means. Whether Pinochet was "motivated" by the Resolution, or merely found it convenient to pre-existing schemes, is something I do not comment upon.

The Resolution belongs in the article, top-front-and-center, because it represents the majority opinion of the Chilean legislature regards the forcible removal of Allende, and it is therefore considerably more relevant to the subject than, say, "strikes", or external opinions.--Mike18xx 03:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Pinochet had an early encounter with Allende

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

When did Pinochet begin to implement Chicago economics?

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

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

Recent edits

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

US aligned/Soviet aligned

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

exploiting role

I changed the first paragraph back from this:

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

to this:

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

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

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

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

Deletions

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

Please do not delete relevant links to other pages:

Chamber of Deputies of Chile Resolution of August 22, 1973

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

Fair use rationale for Image:Pinochetjunta.jpg

Image:Pinochetjunta.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

President?

Pinochet was not the president, presidents are chosen through sufrage. Pinochet was a dictator. Why is he then listed as a "president of Chile"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.236.11.56 (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Because he was President of Chile. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Videos about Pinochet

These sites: [Pinochet 1] , [Pinochet 2], [Pinochet 3], [Pinochet 4] and [Pinochet 5] are about Pinochet.Agre22 (talk) 02:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)agre22

Pinochet's economic policy and Chile's 2009 entrance into OECD

While I am not directly involved in the apparent edit war developing between Likeminas and an unnamed poster, it appears to me that Likeminas is deleting the other poster's comments on Chile's 2009 entrance into the OECD on the claim that it is sourced by a blog, and is therefore unreliable. Respectfully, in that he or she appears to be in error. According to Wikipedia:Reliable Sources, "Note that otherwise reliable news sources--for example, the website of a major news organization--that happens to publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be considered to be equally reliable as if it were published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format of a classic news story. However, the distinction between "opinion pieces" and news should be considered carefully." The other poster had linked to an blog article from Investor's Business Daily, a national U.S. financial newspaper. Blanket deletion of the comment and source seems at best premature.

Mikepurves (talk) 06:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Whether it is RS or not, the source used does not support the edit. The source does even mention Pinochet, so the edit is synthesis. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right that the deletion might have been too swift, but on (somewhat) contentious articles such as this one, any source that contains the word "blog" raises an immediate red flag. However, after reviewing the blog article, I have to agree with The Four Deuces. The IP's input is not supported so the info should still be removed. Likeminas (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Deleted external link

I added an external link to the Augusto Pinochet article from the Rotten Library, and it was immediately deleted. Despite personal objections some may have to the Rotten website proper, the Rotten Library is in fact an exhaustive resource of historical information, and its corresponding article on Pinochet is perfectly suited for inclusion. I am not in any way affiliated with Rotten, nor do I know anyone who is. I am simply a history buff and avid reader, and I appreciate the arcane articles contained on their website. Please reestablish the link. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC).

POV

The lead is heavily biased. It should be edited to remove the heavy dose of anti-Pinochet POV present here. Communism: A History by Richard Pipes is an excellent source to know the negative side of Allende. --Defender of torch (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The article is about Pinochet, not Allende. Also Pipes has a poor record of factuality. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The article is heavily biased, especially with regard to utter lack of discussion of the beneficial economic changes that happened under Pinochet. I encourage you to put a POV tag on it and work to clean it up.Warren Dew (talk) 05:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree.

wether the economic policies of Pinochet and his Chicago boys were "benefitial" is up for debate (See The Chilean "Economic Miracle": An Empirical Critique by James Petras) and even if that was the case, this is not the article for it. There's a good reason for the existence of Chile under Pinochet. Likeminas (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm doing no editing right now, trying not to be part of any edit war. However, the article currently seems more heavily biased toward Pinochet's defense than any veriably cited facts support.

This article needs better citations and a version of text that closely matches verifyable citations. Where necessary, wiki article should directly quote authors of original material, rather than attempting to characterize the different sides and their beliefs, which in situations like this can be nearly impossible to do without violating NPOV. jvol, may 4, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvol (talk • contribs) 22:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Unverifiable Citations

First an example

Under Pinochet, funding of military and internal defense spending rose 120% from 1974 to 1979. - Remmer, 1989

My curiosity was peaked by 'rose 120%' which is ambiguous, does it mean something like from $1000 to $1200 (ie increase by 20%) or does it mean something like $100 million to $220 million (ie increase by 220%). The citation is useless. Basically all it means is that in 1989 someone/something called Remmer wrote/editted/compiled etc something or had something published. There are more of these citations which give the illusion of having a citation, but are essentially unverifiable. I am thinking to delete the citations, and put in a citation needed flag. I'll think about it. 60.240.207.146 (talk) 01:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I noticed several of the numbered citation entries had dead links or were otherwise faulty (or bogus). I do not know if this is due to lack of maintenance or deliberate misrepresentation (the slanted current tone of the article causes me to wonder. it feels as if its been whitewashed by Pinochet supporters/operatives). Not doing anything about this right now, not wanting to start an edit war. just pointing out it needs cleaning up, definitely in the links, possibly in the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvol (talk • contribs) 21:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC) (didn't intend it to be unsigned. i thought it did that with the Jvol (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC) thing..)

Heart attack

link "AUGUSTO PINOCHET has been given the last rites after a massive heart attack left the former Chilean strongman clinging to life.

“His fate is in the hands of God and his doctors,” the former dictator’s son Marco Antonio Pinochet Hiriart said yesterday as his father remained conscious and in a stable condition.

Juan Ignacio Vergara, a doctor treating the retired general, said 91-year-old Pinochet’s life was “in danger”. State television later reported that doctors had decided to carry out heart bypass surgery."

someone should add a mention of this in the article and add the 'current event' tag.

I'm Catholic, and I suppose I should hope that God forgave Gen. Pinochet, despite the bad things he did. I guess none of us believers will ever know. The man caused so much pain though, on so many innocent people simply because they were not right wing. So sad to have lived his life that way.

==Pinochet's 91st birthday statement to the World

Why did Pinochet take full responsibility for his actions now at 91, its as if his offsprings made him write that so as to absolve all of them of their complicity in his crimes. What about that 3cubic meters of gold that was supposedly deposited in Hong Kong? How many tons of Gold did Pinochet deposit there? What was he trying to do? What is this guy doing writing statements now at 91 wasn't he declared unfit to stand trial about 6 years; didn't he have dementia.

Well my deer friend you are a complete ignorant. You can take the title. The gold that was deposited in Hong Kong was proven false and it was a plan to try and frame Pinochet. It was recognized and shown that he never deposited those gold bars. Pinochet saved Chile and my family from communism. Maybe you have never lived in a communist country but I ll tell you ask anyone in Eastern Europe, Cuba, Venezuela, or Chile you will see its nothing pretty when you have nothing to eat while your leaders travel around in luxury like Allende did. Hopefully I have enlighten you into this subject and I do recommend people from other countries to really inform themselves on the economic progress that Chile made and the hardships endured during the Allende government.

Article quality and cleanup

This article is generally pretty bad. Because of a very strong desire to crucify Pinochet within this article it has become long and bloated. A lot of the material should be moved to separate articles. For instance the article on the election is way too detailed and should just be put in a separate article. A lot of the article consists of unfounded opinions which are not attributed to anyone e.g. 1) Pinochet coup was done so he could implement neoliberal reforms, 2) All doubts about human right abuses have been stilled due to detailed reports etc. These types of things are stated in such a way that they have become opinions. Opinions cannot be original in an encyclopedia. They must be attributed to someone.

Ok I think Melromero has basically fixed this article up. It is very nice now. Thanks Melromero!

This article should remove text such as "took office", which implies attaining office via a democratic election. Such text should be replaced with a more accurate statement such as "seized office" or "seized power".

School of the Americas/WHISC

There is evidence of Pinochet's spending time at the school of the America's. Many who oppose the school cite his involvement as a reason to be against the school. I believe therefore that something should be mentioned.----georgiew

Thank You

Don't know if I can do this on this page but I would like to thank the administrator for doing a good job being impartial. Such as by not labelling Pinochet as a dictator but a head of military junta. If left wing strongmen like Castro are not labelled dictators than neither should right wing strongmen. Previously I noticed this trend (which was biased) in wikipedia but now it seems to have improved.

Comment: According to the Wikipedia definition of a dictator, Fidel Castro shouldn´t be called so because he wasn´t appointed by the senate or other government institution to take the place of head of state during a crisis. He actually took over the government and dissolved its institutions.

I went to the dictator page and Castro is listed as a benevolent dictator. Most dictators come to power due to putches and revolutions. Saddam Hussein came to power in this way and everyone calls him a dictator. So are Pinochet and Castro. But since the word, 'dictator' is so taboo better not to label anyone a dictator rather than just labeling right wing strongmen as such.

I wonder if all the political prisoners in Cuba’s prison view him as benevolent? Or how about the untold numbers of family members of those executed for speaking out against Castro’s government?

Please Observe Proper Flag Etiquette in Articles

Flag Etiquette:

A flag is flown on a STAFF when on land.

A flag is flown on a MAST when on a ship.

When a flag is lowered in mourning on land, it is flown at HALF STAFF.

When a flag is lowered in mourning on a ship, it is flown at HALF MAST.

Thank you . . .

Strange sentence

"Some political scientists have ascribed the relative bloodiness of the coup to the stability of the existing democratic system, which required extreme action to overturn." Seems to contraict itself. Rich Farmbrough, 13:48 11 December 2006 (GMT).

Proposed addition to intro

In accordance with the HTML comment, I'm submitting this here first. Suggested addition:

Original Spanish pronunciation [pinotʃet], in English usually /piːnoʊˑtʃɛt/ (US), /ˑpiːnoʊʃeɪ/ (UK), ^[1]

Error in sentence

Somewhere in the article it is stated that Allende was assasinated by Pinochet's Military Forces. Just so everybody knows, Allende commited suicide before he could be arrested.

Not neutral

If Castro being described a dictator qualifies as POV, then calling Pinochet a dictator, is also POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.146.137 (talk) 12:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Pinochet removed a President who was himself a dictator as he intentionally violated the county’s constitution and ignored its elected house and court. It was simply a military Dictator replacing an elected one (let’s not forget Hitler was also an elected dictator). As to Castro, he took control of the government by military force because he didn’t like the constitution, not because it wasn’t being followed. He then installed himself for life, something Pinochet did not do. Castro is truly a dictator and to deny that is absurd.

It's sad that wiki makes Castro, who murdered tens of thousands of Cubans, out to be almost a hero but treats Pinochet, who killed far less of his citizens and completely returned his county to a prosperous nation, as evil incarnate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.79.15.102 (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This post has been hijacked by market theocrats. I think we need to dispute the nuetrality of this article. 71.252.208.46 (talk) 09:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This article is not neutral, he was a dictator, not a president. --190.164.177.56 (talk) 08:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

He was both. The article explains that. Raymond Dundas (talk) 08:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

If he wasn't president but dictator (no problem with it), same should be indicated under Fidel Castro ( but it isn't... strange, isn't it? ) --194.203.215.254 (talk) 08:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Fidel Castro follows a constitution democratically ratified approved by the Cuban Population by a national referendum on February 15, 1976, Pinochet didn't. CmrdMariategui 22:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Which does not imply that Castro is not a dictator. Democratically established constitution is completely compatible with dictatorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bungimail (talk • contribs) 02:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Per the irrelevant matter of Castro, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS & WP:OTHERCRAP. Redthoreau (talk)RT 02:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Firstly the links you provided are about whether articles should be included or not included in wikipedia, not about the treatment of subject matter. The treatment of political subject matter should be consistent over the encyclopedia. Otherwise the claim of NPOV does not make sense. You cannot apply one set of logic to your favored people and another set to people you hate. Its not fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.177.112 (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The title of this section could not have been chosen better. The article about Pinochet is certainly and by no means neutral. There are too many partial statements that should be supported by facts. One of them is for example about the death of president Allende: "The cause of his death is disputed". This is probably true, but in Chile there is currently a consensus, even amongst his supporters, that he commited suicide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.72.246.178 (talk) 20:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Good Article Debate

Article is really good, and I suggest it be nominated under good article criteria. Please state whether you suport or oppose the precedent. Thanks.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Bias in the Opening Paragraphs

Here is Pinochet's current introduction:

Augusto José Ramón Pinochet Ugarte[note 1] (25 November 1915 – 10 December 2006) was a Chilean army general and president who assumed power in a coup d'état on 11 September 1973. Among his titles, he was the Commander-in-Chief of the Chilean army from 1973 to 1998, president of the Government Junta of Chile from 1973 to 1974 and President of the Republic from 1974 until transferring power to a democratically elected president in 1990.[2]

By early 1972, Pinochet was abducted by General Chief of Staff of the Army. In August 1973, he was removed as Commander-in-Chief of the Chilean Army by president Salvador Allende.[3] On 11 September 1973, Pinochet led a coup d'état which put an block around Allende's democratically elected socialist government. In December 1974, the military junta appointed Pinochet as President by a joint decree, with which Air Force General Gustavo Leigh disagreed.[4] From the beginning, the government implemented harsh measures against its political opponents.[5] According to various reports and investigations 1,200–3,200 people were killed, up to 80,000 were interned, and up to 30,000 were tortured by his regime including women and children.[6][7][8] The new government also implemented economic reforms, including the privatization of several state-controlled industries and the rollback of many state welfare institutions. These policies produced what has been referred to as the "miracle of Chile", but the government policies dramatically softened economic inequality[9] and some attribute the devastating effect of the 1982 monetary crisis in the Chilean economy precisely to these policies.[10] Pinochet's economic policies were continued and strengthened by successive governments after 1990.[11]

Pinochet's presidency was given a legal framework through a highly controversial plebiscite in 1980, which approved a new Constitution drafted by a government-appointed commission. A plebiscite in 1988 (which saw 56% vote against continuing his presidency) led to democratic elections for the Presidency and Parliament. After peacefully stepping down in 1990, Pinochet continued to serve as Commander-in-Chief of the Chilean Army until 10 March 1998, when he retired and became a senator-for-life in accordance with the 1980 Constitution. In 2004, Chilean Judge Juan Guzmán Tapia ruled that Pinochet was medically fit to stand trial and placed him under house arrest.[3] By the time of his death on 10 December 2006, about 300 criminal charges were still pending against him in Chile for various human rights violations, tax evasion and embezzlement during his 17-year rule and afterwards.[12] Pinochet was accused of having corruptly amassed a wealth of US$28 million or more while ruler of Chile.[13]

Now here is the current introduction for the article on Vladimir Lenin:

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (22 April 1870 – 21 January 1924), born Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, was a Russian Marxist revolutionary and communist politician who led the October Revolution of 1917. As leader of the Bolsheviks, he headed the Soviet state during its initial years (1917–1924), as it fought to establish control of Russia in the Russian Civil War and worked to create a socialist economic system.

As a politician, Vladimir Lenin was a persuasive orator, as a political scientist his extensive theoretic and philosophical developments of Marxism produced Leninism, the Russian application of Marxism.[1] He was also named by Time Magazine as one of the 100 most important people of the 20th century.[2]

And for Fidel Castro:

Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz (born August 13, 1926) is a Marxist Cuban politician.[1] One of the primary leaders of the Cuban Revolution, Castro served as the Prime Minister of Cuba from February 1959 to December 1976, and then as the President of the Council of State of Cuba and the President of Council of Ministers of Cuba until his resignation from the office in February 2008. He served as First Secretary of the Communist Party of Cuba, from 1965 until 2010, when he retired for health reasons.[2]

While studying law at the University of Havana, he began his political career and became a recognized figure in Cuban politics.[3] His political career continued with nationalist critiques of the president, Fulgencio Batista, and of the United States' political and corporate influence in Cuba. He gained an ardent, but limited, following and also drew the attention of the authorities.[4] He eventually led the failed 1953 attack on the Moncada Barracks, after which he was captured, tried, incarcerated, and later released. He then traveled to Mexico[5][6] to organize and train for an invasion of Cuba to overthrow Batista's government, which began in December 1956.

Castro subsequently came to power as a result of the Cuban Revolution, which overthrew the U.S.-backed[7] dictatorship of Batista,[8] and shortly thereafter became Prime Minister of Cuba.[9] In 1965 he became First Secretary of the Communist Party of Cuba, and led the transformation of Cuba into a one-party socialist republic. In 1976 he became President of the Council of State as well as of the Council of Ministers. He also held the supreme military rank of Comandante en Jefe ("Commander in Chief") of the Cuban armed forces.

Following intestinal surgery from an undisclosed digestive illness believed to have been diverticulitis,[10] Castro transferred his responsibilities to the First Vice-President, his younger brother Raúl Castro, on July 31, 2006. On February 19, 2008, five days before his mandate was to expire, he announced he would neither seek nor accept a new term as either president or commander-in-chief.[11][12] On February 24, 2008, the National Assembly elected Raúl Castro to succeed him as the President of Cuba.[13] Castro is currently most active in commenting on world affairs, commonly in the form of his regularly published Reflections, articles offering his view on world events from US foreign policy to global warming.[14]

In addition, the Lenin and Castro are currently semi-protected. It is odd how we are immediately told in Pinochet's opening that "According to various reports and investigations 1,200–3,200 people were killed, up to 80,000 were interned, and up to 30,000 were tortured by his regime including women and children.[6][7][8]" and that "some attribute the devastating effect of the 1982 monetary crisis in the Chilean economy precisely to these policies." when no similarly negative statements can be found in those of the Lenin's or Castro's even though the latter two regimes presided over a larger death tally and implemented far more dubious and costly economic programs. I cannot edit the Lenin or Castro articles, so instead I am removing these passages from the Pinochet intro. I have no objection to placing them in the body of the article, but they should not be ostentatiously displayed in the opening unless this standard is applied consistently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.201.194 (talk) 11:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Communist propaganda

This article is clearly written from Communist Point of View. Communist Point of View is clearly not the same as Neutral Point of View. It contains lots of defamatory material against Pinochet and does not mention crimes and murders committed by communist terrorists against Pinochet's supporters. Please change, as whenever I am correcting, some communist propagandists revert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.89.170.22 (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I semi-protected this article for 3 days because an anonymous editor, perhaps yourself, kept reverting to their own preferred version without discussion here. Please outline your specific objection to specific pieces of text, and your preferred alternatives, and outline your reasons for each change, with reliable sources. We can look at each point individually and make changes as agreed. Franamax (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

IP85 (who is also the blocked sockpuppet User talk:217.113.225.18), the conservative National Review, which you keep on removing is hardly "communist". Also please read WP:3RR as you've gone 5RR in a matter of minutes and reverted 5 different editors (who have reverted your Wp:POV insertions) over 10 + times. Redthoreau -- (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Did I say 3 days? This time I mean 3 weeks. Franamax (talk) 05:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

@Franamax - well that simply proves you are a communist vandal if you block the article instead of removing the blatant communist propaganda and defamation85.89.170.22 (talk) 01:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Flushing the Chamber of Deputies Resolution of August 22, 1973 down the memory-hole

Editors please keep an eye on the concerted efforts of (Marxist?) revisionists to erase or at least marginalize the importance of the Chamber of Deputies call upon the armed forces to physically remove Allende.Mike18xx (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Whilst the issue is clearly relevant here, let's please keep this discussion in one place, at Talk:History of Chile, and not across so many talkpages, and come back here when things are clearer at Talk:History of Chile. Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 11:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Marxists abhore mainstream revisionists. Marxists understand real history in a social scientific context. Neutrality mmeans distortion, it neuralizes the truth. It's the editors like the two above that are revisionist. Just listen to some of the comments. You all are so caught up in the minutiae of form and semantics and "neutrality" that you are forgetting about context and substance.

“Radical views that are outside the mainstream generally (but not always) are more reliable than the dominant view because they are more regularly challenged and tested against evidence. They do not get to float freely down the mainstream; they must swim against the current. They cannot rest on the orthodox power to foreclose dissent, and they are not supported by the unanimity of bias that passes for objectivity.” Dr. Michael Parenti

If you want the real truth about Chile read his books or any Marxist Leninist analysis. I can't believe that there is not one world about capitalism or Imperialism in thise article. So much for objectivity

English pronunciation

The article currently reads "in English usually pronounced /piːnoʊˑtʃɛt/ (US), /ˑpiːnoʊʃeɪ/ (UK)". This sentence apparently makes its first appearance in Talk Archive 7.

I don't know what evidence this was based upon, but when Pinochet was in power, and in the news time and time again, the US and Canadian media pronounced his name PEE-no-shay, much to the confusion of those of us who had studied Spanish. That pronunciation is now in the article but it is labelled UK. (See above.)

Varlaam (talk) 06:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Why is pronunciation important? Are users going to read the article aloud? Either form--SHAY, or SHET--is acceptable.--205.155.65.226 (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Using the words of Pinochet himself to define his government?

Quoting words uttered by Pinochet is not encyclopedic if it is done in attempt to present his government as Pinochet saw it. Pinochet's view or how he defined his government is too bias - putting a quote made by him that said: "my government protected chile from totalitarianism" is a joke. He also said: "not one leaf moves in Chile without me knowing". It just doesn't convey any useful information about the figure Pinochet or his government. Such funny quotes made by Pinochet could be added in wikiquote. Etc. Cerroblanco (talk) 11:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

what are you taling about????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obligatto (talk • contribs) 20:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Relationship with UK

Should it be "According to Chilean junta _member_ and..." (etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.13.203 (talk) 03:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Adville (talk) 05:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Dictator (president)

An IP-number (70.35.208.98) says it is vandalism to call this person for dictator (according to NPOV). According to that he took the power in a coup and was not selected it is hard to not call him dictator. I reverts that edit and would like to have a discussion here before more edits are done. It is this part I write about: "was an army general and dictator of Chile from 1973 until transferring power to a democratically elected president in 1990 Adville (talk) 08:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

See here and here. The administration of Sebastián Piñera has removed the word "dictator" from school textbooks when making reference to Pinochet's rule. To use the word "dictator" as an unattributed description, it has to be a word universally used that way. As seen, it is not. Then, we should either point who considers him a dictator and who does not, or drop the usage of the word altogether. Cambalachero (talk) 18:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not agree with you, Camalachero. He is called a dictator and according to all textbooks about what a dictator is you'll find that it is true. BUT you are right that it should be written in the article that the pseudofacist Piñera tries to wash Pinochets name clean from the blood of all the people he had killed and made disappear during his time in power, by trying to change the historybooks. I believe that Wikipedia shall not let the "winner" write the history, but the history is written by those who participated. Adville (talk) 15:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

"All textbooks"? That's not what the references I pointed say, and the country's national administration is not a minor view that we can dismiss. It's not up to us to say what is "right" and what is "wrong". Cambalachero (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that the government in North Korea do not describe themself as a dictatorship, but Wikipedia writes "North Korea has been described as a totalitarian, Stalinist dictatorship" with sources. The sources to this dictator is pretty clear too, although the government now tries to wash it away-But we as a comunity must not interact in politics by changing, but as I said it must be written that Piñera tries to change the attribute on his former leader. That does NOT mean that Pinochet wasn't a dictator. We shall write the trueth and nothing else.Adville (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

What I mean with every textbook is that every textbook explanation of what a dictator IS makes him a dictator, this encyclopedia for example (no names mentioned). Adville (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

We do not consider the opinion of the government of North Korea about itself because that opinion has a conflict of interest. For the same reason, we do not consider the opinion of Pinochet about himself, as pointed at an earlier thread. But Piñera is not Pinochet, and there is no conflict of interest in this case. As for the "truth", check Wikipedia:Verifiability: "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. When reliable sources disagree, their conflict should be presented from a neutral point of view, giving each side its due weight". Cambalachero (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

And where does that part say I am wrong and you are right? I said that it should be written that the present president has said that the dictator was not a dictator. There is a great conflict of interest here with Pinera who had a brother as a minister during pinochets dictatorship. It is also written in the article about pinera (enwp) "An additional project titled Grupo Tantauco: Derechos Humanos was proposed with the hope of beginning a reconciliation between the Chilean people who suffered human rights violations during Augusto Pinochet's dictatorship". I think we should look att all the writings about the dictator in books and other places and not in a country who tries to "make friends with the past". Why shall Chile be forced to forget all the people who were killed by the dictator and forced to flee from the country, while we do not listen to the neonazis who tries to say that Hitler was not a bad guy? Adville (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

"I said that it should be written that the present president has said that the dictator was not a dictator". That's a loaded question, as whenever he was a dictator or not is precisely the point in dispute. As for the neonazis who praise Hitler, none of them is a chancellor of Germany; if some day there is one, then that day we would have to reconsider the focus on Hitler. Cambalachero (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you are completely wrong here. You are trying to POV-push this article according to a politically statemnt by a government. Wikipedia is NOT a place to write politics. The link I gave, Amnesty International is not in the party-politics in Chile, and is therefor a better source than a gavernment who tries to wash their dirty history from the books. Adville (talk) 19:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

That's not the way things work here. This is not a thing on who is "right" and who is "wrong", but on whenever the term "dictator" is universally used to reference Pinochet (in that case, we may use it) or if it is disputed by some sector which is notable enough (in that case, we can't choose a point of view over the other). The dispute exists, and the use of the term is not rejected by a minor and unimportant writer, but the current administraton of the country where Pinochet ruled. Have in mind that avoiding to use words that label does not imply a support, it only implies the lack of an explicit rejection, and the description of the things that took place during Pinochet's rule does not need to be changed. Instead of calling him a dictator, point all the things that turn him into a dictator, and let the reader arrive to that conclusion himself. Cambalachero (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

What I say is approxemately as you. Write that he was a dictator, according to the descriptions about what a dictator is and even other sources (like Amnesty) and the in the article you have to (I have already said that, we shall not hide things) write that the current leader do not think he was a dictator. It is very hard for a reader, lets say a pupill in a school to understand how a country in a dictatorship did NOT have a dictator as a leader. Can you please explain to me how THAT works? I doubt that. It is not a dispute, but a leader from the rifht wing tries to hide the history of the extreme right in Chile, and you seems to think it is right to hide the truth. Adville (talk) 06:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The solution for this discussion is simple: Add a scentence there it is written, with your first source, that piñera-the current leader- is forbidding schoolbooks to call the former dictator for a dictator. (and that is a way of censoring what you are allowed to say, but that is another discussion) Best regards, Adville (talk) 06:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Well then why is he described in Wikipedia as a "dictator," While Gamal Nasser, Saddam Hussein, and Fidel Castro are all refered to as the "president?"John Kaine (talk) 04:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Good question. Saddam is, according to svwp a dictator. Best is if you ask on their articles, or find sources for it, like I showed relevant sources here. Best regards, Adville (talk) 05:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Chile

Chile is a developed country today due to government of Pinochet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.92.83 (talk) 09:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

This section has nothing to do to make the encyclopedia better, just a personal opinion. Therefor it should be removed. Adville (talk) 13:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

If the IP editor above has reliable sources showing that a notable commentator has said such a thing, then perhaps it could be incorporated into the article (that someone has said it). Otherwise it would not be appropriate for the main article. ... discospinster _talk 00:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Allende was not good for Chile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgx8253 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Pinochet was no good either. But our opinion is worthless here, you could follow discospinster's advice above regarding that opinion. Küñall (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Economic policy

The article mentions: Although he was authoritarian and ruled dictatorially, Pinochet's support of neoliberal economic policies and his unwillingness to support national businesses distinguished him from classical fascists.[60] I don't know what the fascism encynclopedia precisely mentions but this is obviously, wrong!! Ypovoleas (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

According to a Swedish book I read recently about the developement of Fascism Pinochett was no fascist (more than when the word is used as an invective). He was an extreme right conservative dictator ("worse than a fascist"). This because the fascism wants the whole people to interact politically in the cause of fascism, while this dictator wanted the people to do their work and not interfere in politics (like the conservatives)... Observe that I do NOT defend him, just tries to explain the work according to that book. Best regards, Adville (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Augusto Pinochet

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Augusto Pinochet's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "The Pinochet File":

From Presidency of Richard Nixon: Kornbluh, Peter (2003). The Pinochet File: A Declassified Dossier on Atrocity and Accountability. New York: The New Press. ISBN 1-56584-936-1.
From Dirección de Inteligencia Nacional: Kornbluh, Peter (2003). The Pinochet File: A Declassified Dossier on Atrocity and Accountability. New York: The New Press. p. 171. ISBN 1-56584-936-1.
From United States intervention in Chile: Kornbluh, Peter (2003). The Pinochet File: A Declassified Dossier on Atrocity and Accountability. New York: The New Press. p. 28. ISBN 1-56584-936-1.
From Henry Kissinger: Kornbluh, Peter (2003). The Pinochet File: A Declassified Dossier on Atrocity and Accountability. New York: The New Press. ISBN 1-56584-936-1.

Reference named "Legacy of Ashes":

From Presidency of Richard Nixon: Weiner, Tim (2007). Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA. New York: Anchor Books. p. 361. ISBN 978-0-307-38900-8.
From United States intervention in Chile: Weiner, Tim (2007). Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA. New York: Anchor Books. p. 361. ISBN 978-0-307-38900-8.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

DONE. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

CIA in lede

My edit was reverted with the explanation: "On the contrary, there is every need, seeing as many scholars state that he would not have become president without the CIA."

So say that. Currently the lede says that the CIA "supported" the coup, which is far too broad to be meaningful and, in light of the number of things the CIA is alleged to have supported, totally uninteresting. There is a section in the article dealing with American involvement, even though this is Pinochet's article, not the coup's. As it stands, the sentence is totally out of place and has, I suspect, the opposite effect as intended: it looks like an attempt to force this factoid into any place in the encyclopedia it can go. The discerning reader will question its veracity. Srnec (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough my friend. I did re-insert the sentence with a better source, as at first your edit seemed like an attempt to whitewash the article, as has very often been the case here. If it was not, I apologize. I stand by my statement, backed up by the source, that the support of the CIA was critical to the coup and ergo to the ascension of Pinochet to the presidency. What wording change would you suggest to overcome the problem you pointed out? Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The quote from the second source you inserted is about an assassination in 1970, not the coup.

The Wikipedia article on the coup states: While declassified documents related to the military coup have shown that the CIA "probably appeared to condone" the 1973 coup, there is no evidence that the US actually participated in it., which is sourced (although to a CIA report?). The whole issue is a lot more complex than your sentence in the lede suggests.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

You clearly did not read the second part of the quote. "the coup was set up by a three year covert US involvement from 1970 - 73" which is then sourced to a couple of primary sources that specifically mention the CIA. In any case, though, the dispute would be about the use of "CIA" and not the gist of the sentence, so why are you repeatedly reverting me? Having studied Latin American history for a bit, I can say that leaving that content out would be a serious NPOV violation. Please self-revert. I am willing to discuss phrasing, since that is all that you have actually objected to. Especially since the original user who removed the topic is willing to discuss it. I would be willing to insert "covert US operation" in place of CIA, although the two are synonymous in this case. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Since you're latest revert, I re-checked the original source, rather than the reference I had stored. The article very specifically mentions CIA involvement in the events leading up to the coup, and the subsequent propaganda campaign to justify it; read pages 266-7. In any case, the source is a well reputed academic one (Duke University Press, for god's sake) and you have no business reverting it repeatedly. Like you yourself pointed out, the source that says that the CIA only "condoned" the coup IS A CIA SOURCE. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with Vanamonde93 in this subject. It is important and it is sourced. Adville (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The quote you were using was "Significantly, the first political killing of the era (...) was promoted by the CIA, which recruited, paid and armed the killers", which was about 1970, not the 1973 coup. You put that (...) in there to hide that fact. That comes pretty close to constituting a deliberate misrepresentation of a source. This on the heels of trying to use a source which didn't even talk about CIA and Pinochet together.

As to the broader issue, as indicated above, the level of CIA involvement is subject to a lot of controversy. This particular source claims "the coup was set up by a three year covert US involvement from 1970 - 73". And this is *not* sourced to a couple of primary sources. Other sources say otherwise. That's why this shouldn't be in the lede - at least not in this phrasing - but in the body of the text where the question can be covered in adequate detail.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Quit flinging accusations around. The ref was a stored ref, as I mentioned; the quotes say what they do, because I obviously cannot type up several pages of content. And at this point, you are nitpicking. Since you clearly have access to the source, can you honestly deny that Winn explicitly mentions that the support (not simply tacit) of the US and the CIA was crucial to the coup? No, you can't. If you still think it controversial, then we can modify wording to fit. Leaving it out altogether is ridiculous, as Adville also agrees. I invited suggestions for wording in my first post above; why are you unwilling to discuss this? If it is controversial, then present it as such, as I asked Srnec to do above. Don't just whitewash the article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

VM, if you refuse to talk about this, I will replace the content you removed. I am trying to have a discussion in good faith; if you refuse to talk, and only revert content that had been there for several months before the current argument, then I have to assume you're only interested in whitewashing the article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

There has been no response from the reverting parties here for several months, I am assuming nobody has issues with mentioning US support for Pinochet in the lead. Academic consensus, which the article reflects fairly well, states that US support was critical to Pinochet; the lead needs to mention this, both to reflect the sources as well as the article itself. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation (clarification needed)

The note in the article says that "Pinochet pronounced his name with a silent t" but does not indicate whether he pronounced the ch in his name as [pinoˈtʃe] or [pinoˈʃe]. Can somebody clarify this? Doremo (talk) 08:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Pro-dictatorship book

A rare book exist, that supports the government of Pinochet. Written in Chile a few years after the end of the dictatorship. It speaks of the events leading up to the coup, from the perspective of the people who supported Augusto Pinochet actions.

Its name is: "¡Gracias, presidente!" (Thank you, President!), Author: Hector Duran. Editor: Empresa periodística La Nación S.A. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.100.164.87 (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

^ Wells, John C. (1990). Longman pronunciation dictionary. Harlow, England: Longman. p. 537. ISBN 0582053838. entry "Pinochet"

[1] Wells, John C. (1990). Longman pronunciation dictionary. Harlow, England: Longman. p. 537. ISBN 0582053838. entry "Pinochet"

[1]