Talk:2019–2022 Chilean protests

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2021 and 7 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eangreenberg.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

Hello from Chile! Shit is unfolding right in front of my eyes. I added a longer opening paragraph and some sources; I began with the ENEL HQ fire last night. Will add sources as I find them. Please leave your comments here. Thank you! --201.239.97.53 (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC) Found Instagram media of the supposed casualty: https://www.instagram.com/p/B3x-t8kpGMg/?igshid=vjd4a00ucsit (WARNING: blood) Removing statement for now as I can't find a source in notable media. --201.239.97.53 (talk) 16:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

As it stands now this article does NOT have a neutral point of view or at least present both sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncobin (talk • contribs) 02:03, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I second the comment above. The tone is not neutral. Nastycwhite (talk) 03:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Article name change to "October 2019 Chilean Riots/Protests"

The main focus of media and other attention is not on the peaceful protests, rather on the violent Riots and looting that started in Santiago but have since spread to many cities across the country (Especially Valparaiso, where they have been burning down metro stations like Santiago). It would be a more accurate name for the article.

PS, I really hope this all ends soon, stay safe if you're down there! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.248.177.103 (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I live a couple blocks down from Baquedano Square in Santiago-that's the most media-visible "warzone" down here. People stopping AFVs like Tiannamen, staring down fully armed troops. Then again, half the grunts down there looked real uncomfortable. The city's gone full Joker, man. They're burning supermarkets, the whole metro is disabled, no bus transit, curfew enforced by the military, and everybody and their mother is out there stirring shit, even in the wealthy suburbs. Really, they want Piñera's head on a plate. And it's not just in the capital -- there's been uprisings in the north and south, too. --201.239.97.53 (talk) 02:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I also currently in Valparaiso and protests are pretty heavy and serious here as well and the region of Valparaiso has been under the state of emergency and curfews since Saturday. I have a number of photos that I am happy to share if helpful. But I also agree that this seems to be beyond Santiago, and much larger in the country. Rostaf (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 20 October 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: snow moved. With a preference ratio of nearly 10:1, I don't think we need to wait the full 7 days. But a new move request is permitted to be launched sooner rather than later to offset this expediency El_C 21:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

---

2019 Santiago protests → 2019 Chilean protests – Protests and riots have expanded and don't include only the capital. B1mbo (talk) 02:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support for the same reason. The Spanish article is also for Chile rather than only Santiago. Jim Michael (talk) 04:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support' merge as the title more correctly reflects the broad scope of the protests outside of and including in of Santiago.Ndołkah (talk) 05:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support as per above. MSG17 (talk) 12:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support as protests are ongoing in, at least, three cities. --MarioGom (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

This doesn't need an RM - no-one's opposing this move. Jim Michael (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Santiago represents Chile for the purposes of this article because the protests originated in Santiago and sources refer primarily to Santiago. For instance as of just yesterday, October 19th 2019, a source reports "Santiago on fire". Yes, it takes place elsewhere, but we should adhere to the common name. Reliable sources mostly focus upon the capital city as in "Chile protests: state of emergency declared in Santiago as violence escalates" and "A state of emergency has been declared in the Chilean capital after simmering protests against a rise in metro fares spilled out into widespread vandalism and violence fuelled by rising cost-of-living pressures." Bus stop (talk) 15:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

With that reasoning, the 2011 England riots should be at 2011 London riots. Jim Michael (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I perceive the proposed WP:MOVE as purposeless. Beyond that I perceive it as inflammatory. I think it constitutes exaggeration. A common name exists—the Santiago protests. Even if you were to expand the article's content to cover geographical locations outside of Santiago, the current title would still suffice. Does anyone not know Santiago is the capital of Chile? Bus stop (talk) 21:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

There are many other Santiagos. A bigger issue is that the protests have extended way beyond Santiago, so having Santiago rather than Chile in the title means that it doesn't cover the scope of the protests or our article about them. Jim Michael (talk) 21:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• Strong Support: Most sources use "Chile protest" or "Protest in Chilean capital" or a variation of these. Few sources mention Santiago by name. Even in the above oppose vote, one source starts with "Chile protests". TryKid (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I will remove the template, as reasoned in the following section. --Jorge (talk) 19:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Should and riots be added to the (proposed) title? Calling them mere protests is euphemistic since they've escalated into looting, arson & killing. Jim Michael (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Jim Michael: I don't think so. Riots is often a contentious label and sources are usually split on its usage. There were recent discussions about this on 2019 Hong Kong protests, where arson and other violent actions took place, but reliable sources were not really supporting such primary name. I think it is the same case here. We can always reconsider this, but only if there is clear support from reliable sources. --MarioGom (talk) 21:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• Indifference – The situation is still in flux, there's talk of a general strike tomorrow, the situation is still far from settled. It's acquiring national dimensions, but the article's focus is still largely on the capital. Also aware that arguing about the location of the article is so much easier than improving it. Moscow Mule (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support Most sources (see BBC News for example) now seem to be prefacing their articles with 'Chile protests' or similar. Sam Walton (talk) 11:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support it's clearly not just Santiago Mujinga (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support, there are acts of protest and violence across Chile. The fact that most protest happen in Santiago and that it originated there, does not change the fact this is a natiowide phenomenom. Said this, the article title should be reviewed again in the future. Dentren | ^Talk 19:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support, First of all "Santiago" suggest Chilean POV, there are many cities in the Hispanic world called Santiago, Spanish speaking people outside of Chile would say "Santiago de Chile" unless the context is clear. Additionally, there have been protests in many other Chilean cities, and the article itself is already mentioning it. I had about 33 million google hits for "2019 Santiago protests" VS 115 million for "2019 Chile protests" JRSP (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved to "2019 Chile crisis"

I have moved the page to that title. I'm sure everyone will understand this as it has been acknowledged as the worst crisis since 1990 by the President of the Senate. --Jorge (talk) 19:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted the move. There is an ongoing discussion about it above, feel free to add your proposal there. --MarioGom (talk) 20:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Title

What is the main cause to called an article as Protest or Riots as in December 2001 riots in Argentina — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.168.78.89 (talk) 14:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Starting when?

The lead doesn't say. The article has "The protests began on Monday, 7 October..." (but not sure whether the cite confirms that). Infobox has "Date: 14 October 2019 - ongoing". Perhaps regular editors would kindly agree what the sources support - and then also replace the un-encyclopaedic lead opening "Civil protests are taking place ...." Davidships (talk) 14:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit request, 23 October 2019

Hi! :), shouldn't among the "goals" be "Resignation of President Sebastián Piñera"?, It's double-sourced sourced in the Spanish Wiki :). Love & Peace :) --CoryGlee (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I already added it Jasdez (talk) 08:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I already added it Jasdez (talk) 08:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Number of people Dead, Injured and Arrested

On the third paragraph of the article, it says that there are 18 people dead, 2.500 injured and 5.000 arrested, but the CBS article that is used as a source does not mention where the information came from. If you ask me, this does not counts as a reliable source.

Can we please use reliable sources for this kind of information? A good place to start is the National Institute of Human Rights (https://www.indh.cl) and their daily Twitter reports (https://twitter.com/inddhh). --Justalemon (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for limitng editing rights

hello, i have noticed that there is constantly point-of-view editing (sometimes hardly sourced) on political issues regarding the protests specifically, and chile's political system in general by different ip-adresses (hence people that don't own a wiki-account). could we somehow limit the editing rights to not-new-users? at least for the moment. things seem to heat up pretty much and this could be a way to limit edit-wars and a possible war over opinion through wikipedia. thanks and greetings, --LH7605 (talk) 21:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I would like to know who keeps deleting my edits andy why? What is the point of putting a one-sided narrative with largely non-academic source writers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncobin (talk • contribs) 02:02, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I reverted your edits because they are highly provocative and POV, and often contain no sources whatsoever. As far as I can tell, you appear to be an WP:SPA here to push an agenda. Additions such as this, especially without citations, are unacceptable: "Augusto Pinochet's military administration ousted Chile's communist regime and set Chile on a course of being the most properous country in Latin America, dramatically reducing poverty."--C.J. Griffin (talk) 03:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I again reverted your additions because they constitute WP:OR and blatantly violate WP:NPOV. Placing such provocative materials in the lede in particular only serves to trigger reverts and edit conflicts. Please refrain from adding such material.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 04:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Johncobin, you have violated the WP:3RR rule with your persistent edit warring, and continue to add wildly undue material with no citations, and change material for which cited sources exist. For example, You keep changing the number of arrested to 2840, even though the cited source (CBS News) says the number is "some 5,000". And again you reinserted the above quotation about the Pinochet regime without any citation with this edit, which is unbelievably unencyclopedic and biased.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 04:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I've made a request at RfPP. I just warned the user about 3RR, so an AN3 report might be a bit premature. El_C 04:51, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I have carefully cited what I stated in the text. Cite about Vallejo and Cariola https://www.msn.com/es-cl/noticias/chile/que-se-vayan-los-milicos-vallejo-y-cariola-encabezaron-protesta-en-el-congreso/ar-AAJfXdG 80 metro stations damaged source https://www.bnamericas.com/es/noticias/metro-de-santiago-80-estaciones-danadas-o-destruidas-durante-protestas the 81st is here https://www.biobiochile.cl/noticias/nacional/chile/2019/10/23/incendio-afecta-a-la-estacion-de-metro-plaza-de-maipu.shtml and also here https://www.radioagricultura.cl/nacional/2019/10/23/usuarios-reportan-nuevo-incendio-en-la-estacion-de-metro-plaza-de-maipu.html The August 23 declaration is at https://www.bcn.cl/obtienearchivo?id=documentos/10221.1/13377/1/mj_00061.pdf also https://www.elmostrador.cl/noticias/opinion/2013/08/23/40-anos-del-acuerdo-de-la-camara-que-declaro-la-ilegitimidad-del-gobierno-de-allende/ About poverty rates https://www.emol.com/noticias/Economia/2018/08/21/917723/Casen-2017-Pobreza-cae-y-llega-a-un-86-pero-empeora-la-distribucion-del-ingreso.html About the FPMR and bombings https://www.casadellibro.com/ebook-historia-de-la-revolucion-militar-chilena-1973-af-1990-ebook/9789567855131/6555460 About the attempt to impeach Piñera https://www.cnnchile.com/pais/javiera-parada-destitucion-pinera-cuidado-bajar-estandares-democraticos-cuando-conviene_20191024/ About the million protesters https://www.elpais.com.uy/mundo/personas-protestan-santiago-chile-medio-estallido-social.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncobin (talk • contribs) 05:03, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted a lot of single-point-of-view edits aswell (not sure if they were from you). As I see it, we can put a sub-chapter named Reactions to the protests (or some similar name) into the article where we can gather positive and negative reactions, support and refusal for the protesters' goals. But I reverted changes that were far off and way beyond single critics, such as the conspirency theory that the Foro de Sao Paulo was acting as the main force behind the protests (not proven at all), that Piñera was centre-left (combined with other dubious usage of left-right-evaluations) und comments about Allende/Pinochet when they were not relevant at all. Stated this some times also in the comments to my "undo"-edits. I think it should be clear, that/why these coments are missplaced in this article. edit: Besides that, constantly naming earned university degrees in order to appear more credible and to appear as some kind of authority is realy not how this works... --LH7605 (talk) 06:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

@Johncobin: I have noticed you have claimed several times that you have a PhD and live in Chile to justify changes. I'd like to inform you that this doesn't mean anything at all as Wikipedia has no credential policy, and that does not make your changes more warranted or more important, so could you please refrain from further repetition of this statement. Thank you. BeŻet (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2019 (UTC) @BeŻet: Thank you for pointing that fact out. My purpose in stating that was point out that I am a qualified writer and I was being treated otherwise. Please note that the article as it stands contains many non-neutral and questionable "loaded" statements. Some things are not sourced well or cited, unlike my comments when are. Also, there are figures cited by news sources like CBS which contradict the Chilean press and Chilean news sources. So, even though there is a citation, it is inaccurate. The same is true for poverty and inequality. I cite a government source. Others cite information that is biased. Also, if we look at Gini figures, remember that Bolivia has a "better" Gini figure than Chile does, yet Chile's GDP per capit is triple that of Bolivia's and the poor there are far poorer than in Chile. There is also no question that Chilean poverty affected half the population under Allende and was reduced drastically under Pinochet, being as low as 4% in recent years. My statements are backed up by good sources. Why is my edit edit being deleted? It appears that there is bias on the part of other editors. The same is true for the motivation of the communist party reported in the press to carry on the class struggle in Chile through violence. Why do you refuse to note this as a reason? You even deleted references I made to support the number of metro stations damaged and the agreement and declaration of the Chilean House of Representatives in August 1973 asking the military to intervene and depose Allende. So what do you say? Are you willing to allow more cites and precise info?

May I remind you that this article is about the 2019 Chilean Protests and not about the 1973 Coup d'état? And to call other authors biased when not seeing (or admiting to) your own biases is pretty bold....besids that, you do not seem to be able to read neither the talk page carefully nor the edit-comments. The reasons why your edits were reedited are stated there more than once. I, for myself, will not feed the troll anymore. --LH7605 (talk) 15:19, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I’m still under 3RR, so I’m asking that someone update the number of arrests in the last paragraph of the lede. The current number given, 2840, is not backed by either of the sources cited there.C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

The CBS-sources sais its "some 5,000". sounds a bit vague, doesn't it? --LH7605 (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps, but even the other source gives a higher number than what is currently in the article.C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

La Tercera also gives 2,840 arrested people (see here). As I see it, there is no need for an update (yet). (won't undo it anyways, if some other person wants to change it, obviously). edit: just saw that it is from thursday. anywys, I prefere a stable, concrete, verified number from thursday over "some 5,000" information. Greetings, --LH7605 (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

"36% of the urban population live in extreme poverty"

The statement "It is estimated that around 36% of the urban population live in extreme poverty." is hard to believe. Can we have more sources than an opinion piece at OpenDemocracy.net to back this up? Dentren | ^Talk 18:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree that the number seems high. This reuters news states 11,7% of all Chileans living in extreme poverty. Even though the article is from 22 September 2016, I don't now how much it changed in the past three years. I also don't know, how they would define "urbane population" in the source / opinion piece at opendemocracy. Maybe Cepal has some answers to it? This study should provied answers, I personally currently don't have time / capacities to look further into it. --LH7605 (talk) 22:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

(I've originally included this information) While I don't find it hard to believe, I concur that an additional source would definitely help, and we should probably wait before including that information again. BeŻet (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Poverty decreased dramatically under Lagos and Bachelet, I don't know if it has remained flat risen or downspiked since however.Ndołkah (talk) 13:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2019

Add updated of protests as of Monday October 28, 2019, in particular there were documented massive fires in the downtown of the city near La Moneda. https://www.biobiochile.cl/noticias/nacional/region-metropolitana/2019/10/28/incendio-afecta-a-locales-comerciales-en-santiago-centro-bomberos-acuden-al-lugar.shtml Pepelani (talk) 01:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.--Goldsztajn (talk) 12:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Article is markedly slanted, hiding the monstruous extent of unleashed vandalism

As it is now, this article reeks of hypocrisy all over. Phrases like "Human rights organisations have received several reports of violations conducted against protesters". What about the savage, unjustified, destructive fury shown by vandals in abhorrent scenes, filmed by the hundreds and spread through social networks? Those are no "protesters", those are criminals! What about the Human Rights of the Metro commuters, now stranded after such modern & convenient resource has been utterly & wantonly destroyed by agents disguised as “enraged youngsters”? Also, the obvious simultaneity of savage attacks against the Metro cannot be casual, they can only be explained through investigations analyzing the links between this fabricated violence and the guidelines set forth by the Foro de São Paulo against Chilean Democracy. Attaching tag right away. AVM (talk) 00:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

First impression I got as well. Lots of unsubstantiated claims made,too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.12.1.254 (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

While there are qualifications that I don't share, I agree that it's important to stress the vandalism in the Santiago Metro, the looting of hypermarkets and claims of foreign interference, albeit properly attributed. Donald Trump has warned against foreign interference in the protests, and Venezuelan politicians have responsabilized Maduro's administration for the current unrest. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't see the point of the tag, isn't it true that human rights organisations have received those reports? You came here and presented an extremely biased view of what's happening with some conspiracy theories included. We are presenting what reliable sources are saying, there is no slant. If you feel something is missing, include the content, but the tag is not justified by you presenting an extremely opinionated viewpoint. Removing tag for now. BeŻet (talk) 13:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I affixed a template that was designed by Wikipedia Admins toward the goal of achieving neutrality, and in my explanation in the Talk Page I gave my reasons for doing so, which is my right as an editor, regardless of whether you see the point or not, or like it or not. But you abusively removed it, heedless of any rules, because in your opinion my viewpoint was "extremely opinionated" (Preposterous!). Such reasoning, typical of a socialist, is totally inacceptable --even revolting. So, are your opinions more valid or authoritative than mine? Do you claim to be the only one who can have an opinion? Is that what you think is a neutral point of view?

PLEASE ABSTAIN from undoing what other editors rightfully do, pay some respect to this Encyclopedia! I'm reinstating said template. --AVM (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The article cites The Washington Post, CNN, BBC, Time and myriad other media organizations considered WP:RS by Wikipedia's standards, along with reports from human rights organizations including Amnesty International and others. In fact, the phrase you italicized is based on reports from the BBC, Time and AI, so this is reliably sourced material. Right now your tagging of the article screams WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Your opinion about my tagging is no surprise at all, coming from a contributor to WP:WikiProject Socialism articles. --AVM (talk) 02:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

That is not appropriate. Discuss the edits not the editor. El_C 02:37, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

A bit unrelated, but I just noted that this account (possibly) belongs to John Cobin, an American-Chilean economist and counter-protester who was arrested in November 2019 for shooting at unarmed protesters... Wow! First time I'm seeing something like this happen on Wikipedia! AgeOfPlastic (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

What happened to the infobox?

Why does the infobox appear so thin? Is it the formatting or is this a special infobox? Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 14:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2019

On: October protests sección, paragraph 7 says: Hours shortly after the President's speech, chief of national defense Javier Iturriaga del Campo spoke against this declaration, asserting that "[he] was calm" and that the country was not waging war against any group of citizens.

Hours shortly after the President's speech, chief of national defense Javier Iturriaga del Campo spoke against this declaration, asserting that "look, I'm a happy man, I'm truly, not in war with no body".

Will be a way better translation as keep the words and sentiment of: "mire, yo soy un hombre feliz, la verdad, no estoy en guerra con nadie", less textually could be "look, I'm a happy man, I'm ain't in no war with nobody" VeraSativa (talk) 01:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

 Partly done: Thanks. I think the literal translation would be "Look, I'm a happy man, the truth, I'm not at war with anyone." ("ain't" is far too informal here). However, in this context, I think content (as in contentment) is a better translation of feliz than happy - his intention is to express a view about whether he will take action - he is making a statement that he intends not to act... content conveys this better than happy.--Goldsztajn (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Article heavily sided with power-abusive police against protesters

I'm not a wikipedia editor but there have been several videos where police are shown setting fire to buildings, shooting people outside restricted zones, setting fire to barricades, looting, and any other kind of dastardly actions just so they can justify their own violence. I believe everybody should be aware of this.

The president himself is being investigated for crimes against humanity.

It would speak truth to power if these facts are added to the article so you can show what really is happening on both sides of the fence.

Don't get me wrong, vandalism isn't that cool, but things can be fixed later, lives are lost forever though.

Protests aren't a nice experience either but that's the point of protests, they have to be noisy and disruptive to draw the institutions' attention so they can focus on the problems at hand and make the changes constituents demand.

Just stop to think about it for a moment, if the only forces who are supposed to guarantee your safety are actively using their powers to suppress, kidnap, disappear/murder you, who's going to stand up for you? There's a reason these protests are happening. I also understand there's people taking advantage of the situation to loot or whatever. There's a bigger problem going on though.

Sidenote, for everything I didn't cite, it's easily up-lookable. 186.50.75.102 (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Your "contribution" to this Talk Page is obviously heavily sided. --AVM (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Referendum

The government and the protesters agreed to hold a referendum to change the constitution. This should be included in the infobox and article a well. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2019

4th paragraph.

Change "As of 26 October, 19 people have died, nearly 2,500 have been injured, and 2,840 have been arrested.[22][8]" to "As of 10 November, at least 24 people have died - including 5 killed by the police -, [...]"

Change "nearly 2,500 have been injured, and 2,840 have been arrested" to "nearly 2,500 have been injured, 200 have sustained eye injuries and 6,000+ people have been arrested."

Sources: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-50459961 https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/11/month-protests-chile-persist-gov-concessions-191118231609475.html Bherrerac18 (talk) 03:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

 Note: This article is no longer Semi-Protected, so you can now edit the article yourself, but please ensure that any additions are properly sourced, to reliable sources and you maintain a neutral point of view - Arjayay (talk) 10:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

many newsources have stated that the eye injuries are a symbol of the protest can we include this?

Ndołkah (talk) 13:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ndołkah: Which sources have you found? --Jamez42 (talk) 14:18, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Here's oneviceNdołkah (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Also NY Times

The Indepenant also mentions itNdołkah (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: May I suggest we add, "various news services have reported that an injured eye or eye patch has become of symbol of the protests"?If so what is the best section for this?Ndołkah (talk) 01:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ndołkah: Since it is covered by several different sources, I think it's safe to state it as a fact. I have gone ahead and added it. Best regards :) --Jamez42 (talk) 02:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Ground coverage

I have removed the pov check template since the article wasn't properly nominated for a POV check (only thing on the matter was a politically motivated complaint from a user in November), though I do believe there is ground to cover that this article hasn't as of yet. The Spanish Wikipedia article particularly goes into detail on the various acts of looting, fires, and other violent acts that have been happening during the protests that aren't covered here, and is overall more complete. I will be adding the Expand language template at the top of the article because of this. --letcreate123 (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

What paragraphs would you like me to translate? I am bilingual! I do honestly get dizzy by the size of the article and also regarding all the markup for the citations and such but if you copy and paste a paragraph or two at a time I am happy to translate it, I will check the references however to make sure they support the statements/Ndołkah (talk) 07:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I can also help with translations if needed. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Revert March 11 2020

Hi 190.163.76.104, I made this revert because although you gave an edit summary you haven't really persuaded me the statements in the citation from the North American Congress on Latin America are untrue. That's doesn't mean I totally believe NACLA but if can you look at it this way, why should I believe your assertions over the published source? If you can provide sources to back up your assertions, I'm all ears. Mujinga (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi 190.215.1.131 it's the same point as above Mujinga (talk) 19:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Fake News by Mujinga

Carabineros didnt burned (at least there are is no evidence and the fires are under investigation). Cine Arte Alameda or Violeta Parra Museaum. Fake News. The sources are in Spanish. According to the PDI, Carabineros didnt burned Cine Arte Alameda, causes under investigation. [1]. Violeta Parra, also under investigation, no results yet. https://www.cooperativa.cl/noticias/pais/manifestaciones/investigan-nuevo-incendio-en-museo-violeta-parra-en-el-centro-de-santiago/2020-02-28/200138.html https://www.latercera.com/nacional/noticia/museo-violeta-parra-vuelve-a-incendiarse-en-medio-de-incidentes-en-cercanias-de-plaza-baquedano/LDPTV6FJENDFBA6G7KKKWOML6A/ --190.215.1.131 (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

If you want to ignore the evidence of eyewitnesses (backed up by a citation) about Carabineros firing tear gas canisters into Cine Arte Alameda , that's your choice, but please don't keep removing cited information from reliable sources. Thanks for providing some extra links, I've incorporated them into the article. We should take care with Violeta Parra to remember there have now been two separate arson attacks on Feb7 and Feb28. Mujinga (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Name of the article

I think the article refers to the social phenomena that includes protest, as well as many other manifestations and events, thus the article should be renamed as in the spanish (and original) version of the article, called "Estallido social", meaning Social outbreak or outburst. By the other hand the protest have continued since october 2019 and probably wont stop until president Piñera leave the office no sooner than march 2022. 2019-2021 Chilean protest or Chilean social outbreak should be the correct name. Thanks. Tommy Boy (talk) 02:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 8 April 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

---

Moved by editor HandIsNotNookls as shown below. This is a procedural close. Kudos to all editors for your input, and Happy, Healthy Publishing! (nac by page mover) P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 20:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

---

2019–2020 Chilean protests → 2019–2021 Chilean protests – I think the article refers to the social phenomena that includes protest, as well as many other manifestations and events, thus the article should be renamed as in the spanish (and original) version of the article, called "Estallido social", meaning Social outbreak or outburst. By the other hand the protest have continued since october 2019 and probably wont stop until president Piñera leave the office no sooner than march 2022. 2019-2021 Chilean protest or Chilean social outbreak should be the correct name. Thanks. Tommy Boy (talk) 02:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC) 05:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 09:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• By "manifestation" the IP probably means "demonstration"; it's a false friend between Spanish and English. (t · c) buidhe 06:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Support It's ongoing. Note to IP: Next time, just create an account and do it. Firestar464 (talk) 10:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Support This could've been moved without a discussion though. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose We cannot rename the article by its Spanish name as the most common English name must be used, so "Social outbreak" is not an option (but it can be mentioned as an alternative name). In addition, the article in Spanish says that these protests as such ended just when measures were taken due to the pandemic, so there does not seem to be any continuity to date. --2x2leax (talk) 04:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Done Y I moved everything from this page (a.k.a. the old page) to the new suggested page, with updated dates in the infobox and lead. That would create duplicate pages, though, so I'd suggest this page be nominated for speedy deletion. HandIsNotNookls (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@HandIsNotNookls: that must have been a cut and paste move, since none of the article history was preserved at the new article; that will have to be fixed. I'll try speedy deleting the new version so that a proper move can be done. --- Possibly (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, the copy-paste move has been deleted and you can do a regular page move with history.--- Possibly (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the clarification. Page has been moved. HandIsNotNookls (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mapuche tribes as protesters?

Parties to the civil conflict: mapuche? the source don't say anythig about it, just say

"The flag of the country’s Indigenous Mapuche people, who will seek greater recognition in the new charter, was ubiquitous."

"Among issues likely to be at the fore are recognition of Chile’s Mapuche Indigenous population, powers of collective bargaining, water and land rights and privatised systems providing healthcare, education and pensions".

there weren't organized groups of mapuches in protests, and most of people who carries those flag weren't mapuches, mapuche as a part of some conflict could be Land-reclamation at the south of Chile but not in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pancelott (talk • contribs) 23:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree, Mapuche tribes is bios, not accurate at all. Should be deleted. Tommy Boy (talk) 02:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

"Increased corruption"

Currently the article states:

Civil protests took place throughout Chile in response to a raise in the Santiago Metro's subway fare, the increased corruption, cost of living, privatisation and inequality prevalent in the country.

But I a have so far failed to find a source that states corruption has increased. So I added a "dubious" tag. For those that don't remember there were also corruption scandals in the 1990s and 2000s. Dentren | ^Talk 15:09, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 4 September 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus.

It is possible this would be better dealt with via an RfC as to the appropriate scope of this article. Either way the discussion needs to be grounded in the way the subject is treated in RSs. (non-admin closure) Havelock Jones (talk) 09:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

---

2019–2021 Chilean protests → 2019–2020 Chilean protests – The previous move was wrong. Albeit there are sporadic protest in Chile there have been such in almost all years of the 2000s and 2010s. The existence of small sporadic protests in 2021 is in it self not proof of the 2019–2020 Chilean protests continuing into 2021. The events of October 2019 will likely shape politics in Chile for various years to come but the big event ended in 2020. So it is written in the Spanish language Wikipedia article, which as usual receive much more scrutiny than English language Wikipedia on these topics.

It is a well-known fact that the Covid epidemic in Chile ended the protest by such degree that President Piñera could in April 2020 stand in Plaza Dignidad, the epicenter of the protest that had been occupied for months by Primera Línea and alikes.

Anyone one who would like to extend the title to include 2021, 2022 or even beyond should prove their case an not the other way way round. The previous "requested move" was very slopy in its arguments as no examples or sources were given to extend the date to 2021. For all these reasons I propose to move the article back to 2019–2020 Chilean protests. Dentren | ^Talk 19:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

• So you are saying that trying to tear down the statue of Baquedano in the homonymous plaza on march 2021 doesn't have anything to do with the 2019' protests? or that the protests of every friday afternoon demanding the liberation of the prisioners of the revolt are unrelated things?. Argue that please. It has been uninterrupted protests for almost 2 years, the pandemic only decreassed the intensity. Tommy Boy (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Tommy Boy, it requires more than a hundred dedicated protestors gathering on Fridays to claim 2019–2020 protests are continuing. Most people who went out in late 2019 are not at home, studying and working. Life goes on, and big protests don't last forever. At which point are you actually going to concede the protest is over, when only 10 people gather at Plaza Dignidad each Friday? Dentren | ^Talk 09:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose The protests have continued well into 2021, despite the pandemic. For example, the protests during the inauguration of the Constitutional Convention, sure, they can and should be considered part of this set of protests beginning October 2019. Their goals haven't changed at all. --Bedivere (talk) 23:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Bedivere, by the scale and people who participated —that is a small group of dedicated protesters— the protests you mention are not part of the Social Outburst. The 2019–2020 social outburst was characterized by its size (millions of people), revolutionary momentum (recognised even by opponents of the protests) and widespread looting and violence. Not every protest in Chile since October 2019 is part of the 2019–2020 protest. If you think so the burden of proof is on you. Dentren | ^Talk 08:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

No, no, of course they are part of the protests against the government. if they aren't, what are they? The protests had their peak between Oct 2019 and March 2020, granted, but they have continued with less intensity in later months. --Bedivere (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

What happened after March 2020 is the aftermath of the 2019–2020 protests. These protests are in difference to the ones of 2019 and 2020 carried out by small groups of dedicated activists. The 2019–2020 were widely held to be representative of Chilean people, even by right-wing politicians (Joaquín Lavín, etc.). The scope of the sporadic protests of 2021 is much more restricted, if it was not for the insistence of a small group of Primera Línea nostalgics who still try to find the occasion to occupy Plaza Dignidad/Baquedano there would be little doubt that the 2019–2020 protests have. Dentren | ^Talk 11:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

You have not provided any source supporting your point of view. From the sources on the article it is clear these "separate" protests as you call them are part of the major event. Bedivere (talk) 15:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

P.S. I have to note that, if there was an accepted translation of the Spanish name "Estallido social" I would support having that name instead of this one which contains the so-called-controversial years. --Bedivere (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support I agree with Dentren, despite of there were sporadic protests during 2021 it doesn't mean that there is a continuation of the protests that started in 2019. Indeed media in Spanish don't speak about that as if the protests are the same as in 2019, for example La Tercera and CNN, both sources speak about a Second Social Outbreak instead of a main Social Outbreak (name that the protests were sourced in Spanish). Also, the sources about this topic in Wikipedia in Spanish say that the protests finished in May 2020. --2x2leax (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The scope of this article as it stands includes 2019–2021 Chilean protests#2021. There seems no good reason to remove this material, and every reason to expand it. For example, the article currently reads in part In late November, security forces announced the suspension of the use of rubber pellets as a crowd control method in the protests. Presumably that means November 2021? It doesn't actually say, nor whether the rubber bullets were to be replaced by live ammunition. I would fix it but the reference is in Spanish. Andrewa (talk) 01:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Andrewa, the Death of Francisco Martínez is a different incident that arose not from people protesting about living conditions in Chile as was the case of the 2019–2020 protests, but from law enforcement negligence. The Baquedano statue incident was caused by a few numbers of vandals, is any vandalism in Paza Dignidad now a continuation of the protests? It was not even clear why the statue was targeted. In any case, any pretence of continuation of the 2019–2020 can be covered in an aftermath section, making it clear that for all Chileans except dedicated ones such as Primera Línea the protests were actually over by the time of lockdowns in late March 2020. Dentren | ^Talk 14:44, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification of your views. I respect them and it's quite possible that you are correct that for all Chileans except dedicated ones such as Primera Línea the protests were actually over by the time of lockdowns in late March 2020.

But that is irrelevant here. All that is relevant to the article title is what it means in terms of reliable secondary sources in English. And I do not think that this is in doubt here in any case.

So the point here is rather that the title should match the article scope. Again, in deciding this scope we take a global view, which is not necessarily the Chilean one. I can see no reason to exclude events of this year from the article scope, as you propose, at this stage. It may become advisable later.

Instead, if reliable secondary sources do distance this year's protests from those of 2019 and 2020, then that should at this stage be noted in the article. But it can still mention them, and unless there is to be a separate article on them, it should do so at some depth, giving them due weight.

And these sources can be in Spanish, but we should not use Chilean ones in any language for supporting any claim made in the voice of Wikipedia as to the connection or lack of it. Chilean sources are too close to the action for that. Instead we report what they say and cite them as saying it but neither endorse nor reject their view. Does that help? Andrewa (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on those who insist Chile is or was still in the Estallido as late as in 2021. The previously requested move did not provide any proof that this is the case. As such the article should be reverted in the previous namespace, which refers to the dates most people can agree for sure was that of the Estallido protests. Dentren | ^Talk 20:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Date

The end date is disputed in the article. --BonsMans1•talk, 17:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

BonsMans1, yes, unfortunately, it is. The main reason for this is a lack of WP:RS stating end dates and the apparent acceptance of the thesis that as long as a few hundred or dozens of people gather at Plaza Baquedano on Fridays the protest has to be considered as ongoing. Some people accepting this are likely ignorant of the magnitude and revolutionary momentum the protests had from October 2019 into the first months of 2020. They are also likely unfamiliar with the fact that Chilean sources and analysts overwhelmingly refer since long ago to the "Estallido Social" as something that has already happened. Dentren | ^Talk 09:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Minister Fontaine (2019-10-07): ... those who get up early can be helped with a lower rate

I'm missing the controversial statement from the Minister for Economy, Juan Andrés Fontaine, on 7th October, 2019, in light of the fare rise: "Se ha abierto un espacio para que quien madrugue puede ser ayudado a través de una tarifa más baja" => "... those who get up early can be helped with a lower rate". This statement provoked an outcry on social media:

• https://www.cnnchile.com/pais/reacciones-ministro-fontaine-alza-metro_20191008/
• https://www.t13.cl/noticia/nacional/ministro-economia-recomienda-madrugar-pagar-menor-tarifa-metro

The minister clarified on the morning of October 18th (the day when the protests erupted) that he had not chosen the correct words.

• https://www.latercera.com/politica/noticia/fontaine-llamado-madrugar-ahorrar-metro-preferiria-haberlo-dicho-una-manera-distinta/866433/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.162.149.13 (talk) 00:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the information and links: I will incorporate unfortunate episode. Dentren | ^Talk 12:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Name

It think it is widely clear that "Estallido Social" already happened, it is not a continuos phenomenon since 2019 to 2022-23. The aftermath effects such as vandalism, urban decay, and crime are a different subject also related with de Covid pandemic, the inflation crisis, the inmigration crisis. I propose to renamed this article after the series of events that ocurred from october 2019 to march 2020. Events from abpril 2020 to december 2022 should be pointed as isolated events or waves, but something apart. Tommy Boy (talk) 16:10, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed Bedivere (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2022 (UTC)