Talk:Augusto Pinochet/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

False and misleading information in the intro

The statement Several academics have stated that the support of the United States was crucial to the coup and the consolidation of power afterward. is utterly inappropriate to be in the lead section. What "several academics" happen to think about any given matter does not merit their inclusion in the introduction of an article. And for good reason, considering that their opinion is disputed by others and their case is so weak that literally no evidence is provided anywhere else in the article. So it should either be removed, or information should be presented indicating that their opinion is disputed.

CJK (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The "several academics" phrase was inserted because some editors felt that not all academics support that view. Having surveyed the literature, though, there is literally no source denying the fact of support. If you would rather start the sentence "The support of the United States was crucial...." I would be comfortable with that. As for the rest of the article, there are three academic sources provided, I would suggest you start by reading those. The Church report also acknowledges post-coup support. I might also suggest reading the sources in the main articles linked here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Um, the Church report that I read denies the "fact" of support. There is no evidence that any support was provided, let alone that it was "crucial". If there is evidence it ought to be presented.

The CIA report states:

The CIA continued to collect intelligence on Chilean military officers actively opposed to the Allende government, but no effort was made to assist them in any way. Some CIA assets and contacts were in direct contact with coup plotters; CIA guidance was that the purpose of these contacts was only to collect intelligence. As coup rumors and planning escalated by the end of 1972, CIA exercised extreme care in all dealings with Chilean military officers and continued to monitor their activities but under no circumstances attempted to influence them. By October 1972 the consensus within the US government was that the military intended to launch a coup at some point, that it did not need US support for a successful coup, and that US intervention or assistance in a coup should be avoided.

On 21 August 1973 the 40 Committee approved a $1 million supplemental budget to increase support for opposition political parties, bringing the total amount of covert funding spent during the Allende period to approximately $6.5 million. In late August the Station requested authorization to provide maximum support for the opposition’s efforts to encourage the entrance of the Chilean military into the Allende cabinet. The resignation of Army Commander General Carlos Prats (whose actions were strongly constitutionalist) and his replacement by General Augusto Pinochet (not a coup plotter, but apparently willing to concede to a coup) appeared to further unify the Armed Forces and strengthened the institution as a political pressure group. The UP Government appeared to fear a possible military coup and was unsure how to react to such a development.

The Station realized that the opposition’s objectives had evolved to a point inconsistent with current US policy and sought authorization from Washington to support such an aggressive approach. Although the US Ambassador in Chile agreed with the need for Washington to evaluate its current policy, he did not concur in the Station’s proposal, fearing that it could lead to a de facto US commitment to a coup. In response, CIA Headquarters reaffirmed to the Station that there was to be no involvement with the military in any covert action initiative; there was no support for instigating a military coup.

On 10 September 1973—the day before the coup that ended the Allende Government—a Chilean military officer reported to a CIA officer that a coup was being planned and asked for US Government assistance. He was told that the US Government would not provide any assistance because this was strictly an internal Chilean matter. The Station officer also told him that his request would be forwarded to Washington. CIA learned of the exact date of the coup shortly before it took place. During the attack on the Presidential Palace and its immediate aftermath, the Station’s activities were limited to providing intelligence and situation reports. [1]

CJK (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Please do not mis-represent what I said. To repeat, the Church committee report acknowledges support to Pinochet after the coup. There is no serious academic source that denies the fact of support to the military through the period. The extent of this support is debated, hence the phrase "some academics." (As per Wikipedia policy on sourcing (I will not patronize you by linking to it) academic sources are the gold standard here. I mention the Church report merely to show that even that report acknowledges support to Pinochet after the coup. Also, you may want to glance at WP:INDENT. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I would also note that you added a sentence to the lead about a comparison with the Argentinian dirty war, that was purely original research. You did not provide a source, and such a comparison is not made anywhere in the article. The content you removed, on the other hand, is sourced, although you do not seem to be interested in reading those sources. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

How did I misrepresent what you said? You said there is literally no source denying the "fact" of support. Clearly there is. The post-coup support mentioned in the Church report was described as propaganda and economic advice, not anything related to the consolidation of power afterward. as you put it.

There is no serious academic source that denies the fact of support to the military through the period.

What does that mean? Your point is about supporting the coup, not the military. The U.S. routinely sold supplies to the Chilean military, with the consent of the Allende government, but that is a completely different matter than supporting the coup.

CJK (talk) 00:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

You are being obtuse, and also not following WP:INDENT as I asked you to. Let me try one last time. Scholarly sources are much more reliable than the Church committee report, per Wikipedia's policy on sourcing. There are three such sources provided in the article text, one of which is also in the lead, all of which explicitly support the statement in the lead; ie, all of which say that the United States government provided crucial support to the military coup. Therefore, if you wish to contest that, you should begin by reading the sources provided. A failure to do so would be a prime example of WP:IDHT. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

How on earth do you get to elevate these three "scholarly" sources over actual detailed investigations of the matter? Your three sources (which I cannot read because there is no internet link) do not get to dictate history to the rest of us. Why don't you present the evidence they have, if it is so solid? Besides, there are other scholars who concur with the Church report and say that there is no evidence. You must be aware of this. There is no academic consensus that the coup was supported in any way by the U.S.

CJK (talk) 01:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I am "elevating" nothing. Scholarly sources, ie those published by an academic publisher, are Wikipedia's gold standard for sourcing, as you would know if you had actually read WP:RS. If you believe otherwise, feel free to take it up with Jimbo Wales. Short of that, the policy exists, and you follow it, or leave. There are no academic sources which deny support outright. If you do not read the sources, then you have no real objection (I cannot provide internet links, because I do not have electronic copies, but the sources are quoted or paraphrased in the article, and you should not require anything further. They have also been verified many many times; if you believe I am lying about what is in them, then you can take the issue to RSN, but source verification is not sufficient grounds for a tag. If you do not raise any real objections in your next post, then I intend to remove the tag. I repeat, a lack of an electronic copy is not my problem. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand that Wikipedia is guided through consensus. There is no academic consensus for your statement, just several people claiming that.

There are no academic sources which deny support outright

That is obviously false, unless you contort "support" as meaning any aid to the Chilean military in which case Salvador Allende is also culpable for the coup. Furthermore, if you acknowledge that there is a dispute over the importance of the so-called "support" why only include the point of view you want?

CJK (talk) 13:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I am getting absolutely sick of this. There is a statement in the article, backed by an iron clad source. Find an equally weighty source that disputes it, or leave. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree here with Vanamonde93. There are several good sources in the article which acknowledge US intervention before, during, and after the coup d'état. CJK, you are the only one who seems to state the US did not intervene at all. I suggest you, for example, watch a documentary called "El diario de Agustín", in which people from nationally-distributed newspaper (El Mercurio) acknowledge to have received US money to publish stories against Allende and develop a media strategy against him. That's just an example, but there are tons of sources to prove US intervention. Küñall (talk) 15:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Küñall, thanks for playing straight. If you would be so kind, would you explain Wikipedia sourcing policy to our friend here, as I seem to be having little success with that? Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Find an equally weighty source that disputes it, or leave.

Um I did give a source, and you ignored it.

you are the only one who seems to state the US did not intervene at all

I never said they did not "intervene at all". I said they did not support the actual coup, which is what is being charged.

By the way, the insinuation that primary sources are irrelevant here is utterly preposterous.

CJK (talk) 16:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Once more unto the breach.1) WP:RS says secondary sources are better than primary sources. 2) The primary source is a US government source, and so in this case needs to be taken with a fistful of salt; it is certainly not reliable enough for the lead. You haven't actually read WP:PRIMARY, have you? Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what your point is. Primary sources are perfectly permissible. But even ignoring the primary sources, there are certainly secondary sources that disagree with your sentence. Are you seriously trying to argue that nobody disputes that the support of the United States was crucial to the coup and the consolidation of power afterward?

And why must the primary sources be taken with a "fistful of salt"? The Church report was authored by anti-Nixon Democrats, they would have been happy to report Nixon was behind the coup if there was evidence, and they did report that he attempted a coup in 1970.

CJK (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Because of the policy governing these. I quote; "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." In this case, there is no secondary source that is not out of date, that denies US support for the coup. If there are other sources, as you claim, then find them. Without those, you have no argument. As for the authorship of the primary source; the type of conclusion you are drawing is exactly what is meant by "an original analysis of the primary-source material," which is explicitly forbidden by the policy above. Since we are on a talk page, I can explain why the Church report may be problematic; it was written by democrats, but they were still members of the US government, with a decidedly anti-Allende stance, and a stake in preserving the image of the US as a whole, even if they wished to discredit Nixon. tl;dr; Read the policy, and find a source! Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

that confirms, rather than disconfirms exactly what I said; primary sources are admissible.

John Lewis Gaddis, a Cold War scholar, writes that that "CIA complicity was never established". The Cold War: A New History (2005)

Marc Falcof,, an AEI scholar, criticizes "the myth of a CIA-inspired overthrow of the democratic forces". [2]

This Foreign Affairs article criticizes "The myth that the United States toppled President Salvador Allende of Chile in 1973." [3]

It cites The Pinochet file which argues that u.s. officials tried to destabilize chile but that they weren't involved in the coup, let alone the support of the United States was crucial to the coup and the consolidation of power afterward.

your statement about the church report is too ridiculous to merit a response.

my shift key is broken.

cjk

"sigh" I do not know how many times I have explained this to you. All of these sources dispute the extent of CIA support for the coup and the coup plotters; none of them deny the connection. The view presented in the article is that which gives due weight to all the opinions about the subject; and there is nobody in academia that denies a connection. If you had read the sources yourself, you would have seen this. The foreign affairs article you source does not deny the connection, only the extent of support; and it contains a rebuttal as well, which you conveniently ignore. Falcoff does the same thing; he trains all his guns on the idea that the US was completely responsible, without ever denying the connection between the coup plotters and the CIA. Fernandois (I know you didn't source him, but he will come up, soon enough) tears into Kornbluh, while making the disclaimer that any notion that the CIA had no responsibility is nonsense. The quote from Gaddis, which you use so gleefully, has been taken out of context, as you know very well; he also says that "Nixon and Kissinger openly welcomed and sought to cooperate with the new leader," ie helped him consolidate power; that "What the [US] did in Chile differed little from what it had done two decades ago in Iran and Guatemala," which is an explicit statement the the US fomented regime change (The coup in Guatemala in 1954 and in Iran in 59, both of which he discusses above). That the CIA had done things in Chile which "fail the daylight test." As you can see, you've taken the quote out of context; Gaddis is very much of the opinion that the Nixon administration was responsible for Regime change. Moreover, even the statement you mention is a consequence of when it was written; there was a surge in declassification in the time period 2003-04 (30 years after the coup) and these came a bit late for Gaddis who wrote through that period, but at an ideal time for Peter Winn, who published in 2010. Your sources merely confirm the statement in the article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

All of these sources dispute the extent of CIA support for the coup and the coup plotters; none of them deny the connection.

Um, yes, they do deny the CIA was involved in the actual coup. Nobody disputes that the CIA supported Allende's opponents, what is being discussed is the actual coup.

The view presented in the article is that which gives due weight to all the opinions about the subject; and there is nobody in academia that denies a connection.

The complete opposite in the intro, it presents one narrow point of view and disregards all others. What is this mysterious 'connection' you speak of?

"What the [US] did in Chile differed little from what it had done two decades ago in Iran and Guatemala," which is an explicit statement the US fomented regime change

He was primarily referencing the abortive 1970 coup plotting, not the 1973 coup. Nixon did indeed order a coup in 1970, but that isn't proof that he ordered it in 1973.

As you can see, you've taken the quote out of context; Gaddis is very much of the opinion that the Nixon administration was responsible for Regime change.

Here's what Gaddis writes: "That made questions about responsibility unavoidable. Could Allende have remained in power if there had been no American campaign against him? .... There are, even today, no clear answers: Washington's role in Chile's horrors remains a hotly contested issue among both historians of these events and participants in them."

Moreover, even the statement you mention is a consequence of when it was written; there was a surge in declassification in the time period 2003-04 (30 years after the coup) and these came a bit late for Gaddis who wrote through that period, but at an ideal time for Peter Winn, who published in 2010.

Really? What do these new documents say if they are so damning?

Your sources merely confirm the statement in the article.

The statement the support of the United States was crucial to the coup and the consolidation of power afterward is supported by "CIA complicity was never established", "the myth of a CIA-inspired overthrow of the democratic forces", and "The myth that the United States toppled President Salvador Allende of Chile in 1973."?

CJK (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I have no need to explain what these new documents say; Peter Winn does explain, in one of the best sources you can get on the topic, and he is sourced in the article. If you insist on exhibiting WP:IDHT, then there is little I can do. You should also read WP:CIR; being able to read, parse, and paraphrase scholarly historiography is a skill that you evidently do not possess. You are also cherry-picking quotes once again. When they say the "myth of a CIA inspired overthrow," all they are actually talking about is the myth of a coup entirely run by the CIA; which is not what this article, or any serious article, claims. I have already explained what Gaddis says. It is Washington's role that is debated, ie the extent of its involvement, not the fact of its involvement. Yes, of course he was "primarily" talking about 1970; he also mention 1973, as you yourself acknowledge, and also draws links between the two; they are hardly disconnected events. Also, any denial of US involvement in the coup is based on defining the coup as precisely the moment when the armed forces marched into the palace, which is not the definition used by most historians, or by this article. The common definition, as you should know by now, is the entire sequence of events that began with the plotting of the coup and ended with the death of Allende. Winn says that the "coup was made possible by a three year long US intervention." None of your sources contradict that. That is what the statement in the lead says; the support of the US was "crucial," ie "necessary," (in a logical sense), to the coup. It does NOT say "The United States toppled the regime of Allende" or the CIA "installed" Pinochet in power. Such language is used in the Guatemalan coup article, for instance, because it was the case there; it is not used here. You have also been told to examine the sources and the language more carefully by two different editors, so I really would suggest you do so. There is really little more to discuss here; if you raise a different issue, I will, of course, respond to it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

None of the sources remotely confirm that the support of the US was "crucial," ie "necessary," (in a logical sense), to the coup in fact the diametric opposite. The Foreign affairs article claims that there was no evidence of "U.S. support for the military coup".

The common definition, as you should know by now, is the entire sequence of events that began with the plotting of the coup and ended with the death of Allende.

Okay. Where is the evidence of their being involved in the plotting of the coup? Nobody denies that they were involved in supporting Allende's political opposition, you are alleging support for the coup which is a completely separate matter.

CJK (talk) 21:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Nope, that's not how it works. There are sources explicitly stating that the support was crucial; namely, the ones already in the article, including Peter Winn. The sources you brought in do not need to confirm this, because it is already sourced. Your sources do not contradict this; all they say is that the CIA was not solely responsible. Therefore, the statement remains, until you come up with something new. You should be content with what is there; some of the related articles, written by people with a very strong leftist POV, do in fact say stuff like "the US carried out the coup" and such. This is as neutral a portrayal as you can find. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Preposterous. They do not say the CIA was responsible at all, in fact quite the opposite. They certainly do not believe it was crucial, and in fact the Foreign Affairs article says there is no evidence for any involvement beyond political donations:

What the United States did in Chile, from Allende's inauguration in 1970 until his violent downfall at the hands of the Chilean military three years later, was a pinprick by comparison. Washington funneled $6 million in secret subsidies to the opposition press and parties (which Allende was trying to shut down). Washington tried -- and failed -- to block the restructuring of Chile's foreign debt. Washington reduced bilateral aid (although Allende found relief by unilaterally shutting down debt-service payments and opening lines of credit with other, friendlier nations). And it counseled international financial institutions to reduce their lending (although the World Bank needed no persuading: Chile was bankrupt). That was it.

You are splitting hairs in a truly ridiculous fashion. Are you seriously arguing that Gaddis, Falcof, and Rogers think that the support of the United States was crucial to the coup and the consolidation of power afterward?

CJK (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Why can you not read my comment carefully? I did NOT say Gaddis and company said that; I said Peter Winn said that, as you bloody well know. The foreign affairs article is not of the same caliber as the rest. Winn says that US support was crucial; Gaddis and company do not dispute US support, nor do they say it was not crucial. End of story.

Also, having been in this argument for way too long, I looked at your userpage, and what do I find? A significant history of battleground behaviour, and a block log with several entries. That does not invalidate your contributions in any way; but when you have been hammering away at the same point for several days despite your concerns being addressed, this history would indicate that you should take a step back and recalibrate. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Gaddis and company do not dispute US support, nor do they say it was not crucial. End of story.

So you acknowledge that not everybody believes that the alleged support was crucial. SO why do you persist in pushing that POV in the intro?

CJK (talk) 22:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Once again, you are mis-representing what I said. Read it more carefully, and then ask what you have to ask. I am not repeating the same argument ad nauseum simply because you are unable, or unwilling, to understand it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

You keep going on about this "support" which you persist in providing absolutely no evidence for. Neither Gaddis, nor Falcof, nor Rogers agrees with you that this support existed. The only "support" was to the Chilean political opposition to Allende, not the coup. Are you saying that supporting Allende's opposition should be equated into supporting the coup?

CJK (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I will not belabor the points made above. Suffice to say that there is more to the coup than a bunch of soldiers walking into the palace on the 11th of September; there were years of planning and destabilization before, and years of consolidation after. If you had read, as opposed to googled, the sources, you would understand that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

You have been asked (repeatedly) to produce evidence regarding the years of planning and destabilization but you never did, because it doesn't exist.

CJK (talk) 21:50, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The evidence is present in the three sources in the article. I even quoted one of them for you. I do not intend to reproduce pages and pages of text here simply because you do not believe me and are too lazy to find the source for yourself. If you cannot read them, it is not my problem. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand that the so-called "destabilization" you reference was political destabilization, i.e. undermine Allende's electoral appeal by channeling money to political opposition and organizations. It had nothing to do with mounting a military coup.

CJK (talk) 01:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

There are sources supporting the notion that all political de-stabilization helped Pinochet, and was in fact designed to help Pinochet. Your sources do not contradict this, even if they say helping Pinochet was not the primary motivation. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

And there are sources that disagree with that. What about that do you not understand?

CJK (talk) 14:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

No there are not. I asked you to produce such; but none of the sources you found disagrees with the fact that assistance to the Chilean opposition helped Pinochet. Nor do they deny that the US helped with the "consolidation of power" part of it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Um, none of the sources claims that they helped Pinochet. The statement in question reads: the support of the United States was crucial to the coup and the consolidation of power afterward. You are once again confusing the coup for support of the democratic opposition.

CJK (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:IDHT all over again. They don't need to support it; all your sources have to do is not contradict that statement, because there already are sources which support the statement that support to the opposition helped Pinochet. Anyhow, I have said this several times, so I am not going to respond if you keep going in the same circle. This is not a real debate; this is either a deliberate refusal to read the sources, or a lack of competence, and I'm inclined to think the latter. This is also an asymmetrical situation, because another editor already pointed out the flaws in your reasoning. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

They do contradict it. Gaddis says "CIA complicity was never established" (not just involvement but "complicity"), Falcoff criticizes the "the myth of a CIA-inspired overthrow of the democratic forces" and Foreign Affairs says:

What the United States did in Chile, from Allende's inauguration in 1970 until his violent downfall at the hands of the Chilean military three years later, was a pinprick by comparison. Washington funneled $6 million in secret subsidies to the opposition press and parties (which Allende was trying to shut down). Washington tried -- and failed -- to block the restructuring of Chile's foreign debt. Washington reduced bilateral aid (although Allende found relief by unilaterally shutting down debt-service payments and opening lines of credit with other, friendlier nations). And it counseled international financial institutions to reduce their lending (although the World Bank needed no persuading: Chile was bankrupt). That was it.

In addition to this, the Church report says there was no evidence, and the CIA report says they explicitly rejected a request for help. If you don't accept this, I can't help you.

CJK (talk) 17:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

And what utter garbage is it to claim that They don't need to support it; all your sources have to do is not contradict that statement. You know very well that they reject your POV statement, this is nothing but truly breathtaking dishonesty on your part.

CJK (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Wrong again. Find me a quote that says "US assistance to the democratic opposition did not benefit Pinochet in the slightest" or alternatively "The US recognition of Pinochet's government did not benefit his consolidation of power." If you had had such a quote, you'd have produced it long ago. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

You charged that it was "crucial" not that it slightly benefitted him.

CJK (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The sources in the article say it was crucial. In order to contradict them, you have to produce other sources saying that "US assistance to the democratic opposition did not benefit Pinochet in the slightest" or alternatively "The US recognition of Pinochet's government did not benefit his consolidation of power." Or any variant of those. What your sources do say, is that the US did not bear sole responsibility; which is fine, but the article doesn't say that. Do you see what I'm driving at? The article could say "Some academics believe the US holds sole responsibility for the coup, whereas other scholars doubt that." This is true, but it would be a useless statement. The current version, much milder than that, says "US support was crucial," and qualifies it with "some academics." Which is why it is as neutral a statement as you are going to get. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The most Gaddis says is that scholars disagree:

That made questions about responsibility unavoidable. Could Allende have remained in power if there had been no American campaign against him? .... There are, even today, no clear answers: Washington's role in Chile's horrors remains a hotly contested issue among both historians of these events and participants in them.

And we aren't discussing the support to the democratic opposition. Responsibility for the coup is what is being charged. If you use "some academics" that is an implicit acknowledgement that other academics disagree, which is what I am trying to tell you.

CJK (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

It is not an implication that some disagree; it is an implication that not every academic will discuss it. Falcoff is too busy proving that Allende made life difficult for himself, and that the Soviets gave him money; Rodgers is too busy tearing down the "the US was solely responsible" straw man. All of those things are accurate, which is why the article doesn't say "Pinochet was a US puppet." If you read the article of Castillo Armas, for instance, it does say that; in that case, because a US invasion put him into power. Rather than looking at where the academics disagree (ie what effect did Soviet intervention have? How popular were Allende's policies? etc) the lead summarizes their area of greatest agreement (albeit in some cases unstated), ie the US supported the coup, and their support was important to it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Your interpretation is, once again, extremely ridiculous.

Here is a very simple question: do you believe that Gaddis, Falcof, and Rogers believe that the support of the United States was crucial to the coup and the consolidation of power afterward? Yes or No?

CJK (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

What you fail to see is that the only position Gaddis and Falcof take is that the US was not completely responsible. The article does not say that, so there is no conflict between them and the statement in the article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

No, that is crass misrepresentation of their argument. Gaddis said the responsibility was debatable, not that it was "crucial". Falcof denies that there was a "CIA inspired overthrow".

I still want an answer: do you believe that Gaddis, Falcof, and Rogers believe that the support of the United States was crucial to the coup and the consolidation of power afterward? Yes or No?

CJK (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Gaddis says responsibility was debated, not debatable, two very different things. You're the one misrepresenting stuff here. Falcoff denies there was a "CIA inspired overthrow;" which is why this bloody article does not say there was a CIA inspired overthrow. "support was crucial" and "CIA inspired the coup" are very different statements; you have successfully disputed the latter, but the latter is not in the article. Does Falcoff deny support existed? Does he deny it was necessary? Of course not. Because Falcoff, unlike yourself, is a historian who knows what he is doing. Go bring something new. The question you ask is a useless one, because they don't have to say that for the statement to remain in the article; all they have to do is not deny it." Find me a quote which denies it. Of course, you can't do that, because such a quote does not exist. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Ludicrous. Why should anyone waste their time with this ridiculous hair splitting?

How about we write

Several academics have stated that the support of the United States was crucial to the coup and the consolidation of power afterward, while other academics have noted that a CIA inspired overthrow is a myth.

According to you, this a sensible statement.

CJK (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

This is not hair-splitting, buddy, this is history, that is how it works. No, that is not an acceptable variant, because there are sources which directly contradict it. There are no sources which state that CIA support was not crucial, therefore there are no sources directly contradicting the statement in the article. If you believe otherwise, find me a quote! Don't keep repeating stuff about "myth of a CIA inspired overthrow," because absolutely nobody is claiming a CIA inspired overthrow. Falcoff is not after Peter Winn; he is after Chomsky, and LaFeber, and other more leftist people, whom we are not citing here anyhow. Peter Winn is sourced because he is the middle ground on this debate. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:22, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

They do not have say the exact phrase "it wasn't crucial" to contradict your source and you know it.

You keep falsely imputing to my sources that their denials of responsibility are exclusively confined to "sole responsibility". Nowhere do they restrict their argument to "sole responsibility". This is something made up by you to drag out this ridiculous debate.

CJK (talk) 23:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an idiot; I'm not looking for the word crucial, I am looking for what it implies; that is, the coup would have been impossible without CIA support. Do any of them say it would have been possible? No! Since you object to the word crucial, I am open to replacing it with "indispensable, which is a little more precise. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

You know very well that "CIA complicity was never established", "the myth of a CIA-inspired overthrow of the democratic forces", "The myth that the United States toppled President Salvador Allende of Chile in 1973." by necessity implies that the support was not "crucial". No reasonable human being would interpret it otherwise.

CJK (talk) 00:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The "CIA complicity was never established" is a dated statement, as you very well know; the bulk of the relevant documents were declassified around 2003-2004, so realistically you have to find a source post 2005 making the same claim. Winn and Greg Grandin, two of the most respected historians in that field, both say that explicitly in their recent publications. The second and third statement are again attacking a straw man; nobody is saying the US toppled him, nobody is saying the CIA "inspired" the overthrow. Any interpretation you make is original research; you have to go off explicit statements, as I said. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Please stop misinterpreting the evidence. "CIA complicity was never established", "the myth of a CIA-inspired overthrow of the democratic forces", "The myth that the United States toppled President Salvador Allende of Chile in 1973." implies that the supposed support was not crucial. anything else is ridiculous hair-splitting. Your statement about classified documents in 2004 is obviously false since they aren't mentioned anywhere and you won't provide any evidence.

CJK (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

If you're unable to read my evidence, that is absolutely not my problem. I have provided the sources. And if you insist that those statements are contradicting what is in the article, you are violating not only WP:AGF but WP:OR as well. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

the words "complicity", "inspired", and "myth" imply that it was not crucial. I would consult a dictionary.

CJK (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

And I would suggest you take your own advice. "crucial" means "Vital to the resolution of a crisis; decisive" to quote one dictionary, or "Decisive or critical, especially in the success or failure of something" to quote another (Oxford English, no less), which is precisely what I have been arguing all along. There is no source claiming the coup would have succeeded without US support; ergo the current version is accurate. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm wondering if your entire purpose is simply to procrastinate the discussion until you can claim victory. Far from there being 'no source' Gaddis explicitly writes that historians are in disagreement. You refuse to acknowledge this.

That made questions about responsibility unavoidable. Could Allende have remained in power if there had been no American campaign against him? .... There are, even today, no clear answers: Washington's role in Chile's horrors remains a hotly contested issue among both historians of these events and participants in them.

CJK (talk) 23:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

How typical. Bring up some notion that you think is contestable; when proven wrong, shift to something else, and keep going in a circle. Serious historians are in disagreement as to the degree of responsibility, but none of them actually denies support was crucial; that is the lowest common denominator. Gaddis' quote is taken out of context, as you well know; more importantly, it is taken from a history of the entire cold war. Of course he cannot discuss nuance there. As for delaying tactics, I am delaying nothing; you're the one stonewalling, so as to let the POV tag remain as long as possible. Remember, we already got a third opinion, and @Küñall: agreed with me. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I've been reluctant to comment here because it's not a topic I feel strongly about, but here's my two cents, which you may take with a grain of salt. As an outside observer, I would advise CJK to take this matter to Rfc/arbitration or drop it entirely, because this long drawn-out conversation is going nowhere. Although I agree with Vanamonde that the facts are not in dispute, there may be room for interpretation, and if I were him I would be careful before accusing CJK of original research: I fail to see how one could interpret Falcoff or Gaddis as saying that US support was unquestionably indispensable. It should also be noted that the Church report had access to the declassified documents as well as to the officials involved, and is therefore not invalidated by any cherrypicked records subsequently made available for public consumption. That said, the current sentence refers to "several academics" and is reliably sourced, so I'm not sure after reading through these walls of text what precisely CJK wishes to change.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Because its unfair to represent the views of only one set of academics when others disagree with them.

CJK (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging:Hello there, old friend. The point I am trying to make, is that the disagreement among academics is along the lines of "Was the US completely responsible (The line that Chomsky, Zinn, and their ilk would take) or were there other factors involved (which is what Falcoff says). The statement currently gives a much milder view, namely that US support was indispensable, ie the coup could not have happened without it, but there were many other factors involved. This is sourced to the relatively very middle of the road Peter Winn, and represents the lowest common denominator, so to speak. I am claiming Falcoff is saying this; I am saying this is not the position he is arguing against. Gaddis is a much more complicated issue, because of the scope of his book, but broadly the same thing may be said. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

gaddis is very clear that the nature, not merely extent, of u.s. responsibility is disputed.

cjk

Image revert

I just reverted a change in the image used in the infobox, because it seems to me that the current image, which is full color and more recent, is a more appropriate one. Rather than reverting, would the IP please discuss the change here? Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Is the article about Pinochet or the dictatorship?

The article contains much content that is already discussed in Military dictatorship of Chile (1973–90). I suggest this article should focus on his persona more than the general developments in Chile in the 1970s and 1980s. Therefore some content on aspects where the link to Pinochet is not direct nor sourced should be removed. Dentren | ^Talk 14:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

In principle, yes, but it's easy to go too far with this. If you had specific things you wanted to removed, I'd like to discuss them here first. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

To begin.. the role of the US in instigating the 1973 coup is well attested in various Wikipedia articles (1973 Chilean coup d'état, United States intervention in Chile). Pinochet did not participate in the coup planning and essentially joined at the very last moment. No contact between the US and Pinochet is known before the coup. Therefore I suggest to remove US involvement in the coup making from Pinochets article. Dentren | ^Talk 19:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

With due respect, I disagree. Pinochet is notable because he was the dictator of Chile; scholarly sources suggest he would never have done so without the US intervention, and as such it is essential background information. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe a total removal of US invlvment is not the best.. but a slight shift of focus in that section towards Pinochet. Anyway I am not sure that the US "help" was imprescindible for the coup. My impression is that that view is commonly read in English narratives, in Spanish language accounts the coup is commonly presented as a largely internal phenomenon. Dentren | ^Talk 09:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, I have not read many Spanish descriptions of it. Something to watch out for, though, is that sources published approximately before 2003 tended to underestimate US influence, because there were a number of documents declassified around then which supported the view of heavy US influence. I'm amenable to discuss wording changes; what are you thinking of? Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Pinochet

According to all three Chileans who have pronounced Pinochet on Forvo, the t in Pinochet is silent. Therefore the pronunciation section in the article needs to be corrected.

• I just listened to the three clips, and they differ. For the final syllable, the first sounds like "shay", while the second and third sound closer to "chet". That variation matches this article . I will change the article, unless someone has more information. Rks13 (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Augusto Pinochet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for fpmr.org/heroes8.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

pronunciation of 'pinochet'

The article currently gives one pronunciation in -/ʃā/, which is strange for both IPA and Spanish. Based on the use of /ʃ/, being mostly a foreign phoneme in Spanish, I imagine this is the Spanish approximation of the French pronunciation, but in that case I would have anticipated /e/. I'm not an expert on Spanish linguistics, but the /ā/ phoneme was unfamiliar to me, and checking both a grammar and the wiki page on Spanish phonology finds nothing relevant. Someone should clear this up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Telmac (talk • contribs) 02:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

American backed coup and background to take over

United States-backed coup d'état on 11 September 1973.

The authorities deny they caused the coup. The view that they caused it is not a mainstream view and should not be in the lead. WP:Fringe WP:Prove

Interestingly enough they were told about the coup just before it was due to happen but instructed the CIA office in Chile not to interfere.

Propose removal of WP:unverifiable information.

People1750 (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The article is carefully written to suggest a direct American role in the coup without actually saying so, and to suggest a disagreement between the official U.S. government reports on the matter and several far-left "academics" where none exists. The propagandizing is so laughably transparent that I wouldn't lose much sleep over it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

User talk:TheTimesAreAChanging

Minor point but important, if the CIA state they were not involved its good evidence they were not involved. They are part of a respectable government. The academics benefit from being published so sometimes publish WP:Fringe work. CIA is mainstream, therefore unless we find solid evidence we cannot slant the article : WP: Weight.

It reads like they did - "a United States-backed coup d'état on 11 September 1973" - that is pretty clear to me. It is misinformation ! WP:Prove it.

People1750 (talk) 21:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Negative Bias WP:DONTREVERT

User : Vanamonde93

There seems to be a negative bias in the lead. There are many quoted supporters on Pinochet who believe he has a brought a positive outcome to Chile.

I understand where your coming from but I want to write with a different view point and add some explanations that were missing from the text.

Your comment " few dodgy and misrepresented sources " is not a balanced view reflective of the BBC. Neither does the reversion treat the changes as good faith.

A total unrevert is unnecessary because of the additional explanations, evidence and differing view do not reflect your view.

WP:DRNC

People1750 (talk) 22:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

People1750, Welcome to Wikipedia. I am glad you are interested in presenting a balanced view. Here's the issues with your edit, however. WP:DUE requires us to present all views in reliable sources, duly weighted. What that means here is that a point of view presented in scholarly sources, of which there are many, take precedence over something in a news source. This is doubly true because the BBC is not stating that Pinochet "rescued the country from socialism" for instance; the BBC says that "a small but ardent group of right-wing supporters" are making this claim. Therefore, your edit to the lead misrepresents this source, and gives undue weight to this small group. Similar problems are found throughout your other additions; the BBC is also not arguing that Pinochet prevented civil war; once again, it is the small group of right-wing supporters making this argument. The phrase "To restore order" that you add is not sourced. Likewise the piece about how Allende introduced chaos. The "Economic policy journal" source is actually an extensive quote from a blog, and therefore completely unreliable; the small group of right wing supporters should not be given any significant weight either. In short, your edit misrepresents several sources, adds some unsourced content, and also adds some very unreliable sources. You need to find better sources, and summarize them better. Also, you need WP:CONSENSUS to make changes to this page, which you do not have at the moment; so I would strongly suggest you propose changes here before making them, as suggested at WP:BRD. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Vanamonde93

I agree with WP:DUE. So we can discuss and review. Although I consider many of the comments to be good improvements.

WP does not ignore evidence because it does not fit a view.

People1750 (talk) 22:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

You are correct in saying that Wikipedia does not ignore evidence based on a point of view. However, it does require evidence to be presented by reliable, secondary sources. The right wing group referred to by the BBC, and the blog, are neither of these things. The BBC itself is reliable; but if we use the BBC as a source, all we can say is "A small group of right wing supporters still believe..." etc, which would still be undue weight in the lead. What his supporters feel about him is conceivably useful in the body, but I would still like to see more thorough coverage of this support, preferably in an academic source. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Augusto Pinochet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070930013136/http://www.plenglish.com/article.asp?ID=%7B1D9E9839-D2D8-4255-8D40-68053E9D60B0%7D)&language=EN to http://www.plenglish.com/article.asp?ID=%7B1D9E9839-D2D8-4255-8D40-68053E9D60B0%7D)&language=EN

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

NPOV Bias against Right Wing Dictators

I don't understand why there is a very marked bias when dealing with dictators depending on if they are from the Right or the Left. Pinochet overthrew the government and ruled as a dictator. This is true. But Fidel Castro also overthrew the Batista government in Cuba. Fulgenico Batista was a dictator, this is true. But that doesn't make Castro and the Cuban Communist regime in Havana a democracy. The WP page on Fidel Castro says that he established a one party state, which is a dictatorship. But WP insists on calling him a leader, and only including the word dictator in the criticism, quote "Critics call him a dictator." But on the page for Pinochet it is stated that he is a dictator. I have no problem with this label for Pinochet, it is factually true. But why not apply the same label to Castro? There is the U.S. Congressional Church Committee report on the Pinochet coup in Chile which concludes that the U.S. government didn't take a role in the coup. Then right after that there is a statement about academics saying that the support of the US was instrumental to the coup. I just feel that the same policy should be applied evenly to dictators of the Right and the Left. Call a spade a spade. Call the Right Wing Dictators Dictators, but also call the Left Wing Dictators Dictators.NapoleonX (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

If you have issues with the Fidel Castro page, fine; bring them up on the talk page of that article. The Church Committee report is a primary source from the US government, which is certainly not a neutral party here; for both these reasons, it cannot form the basis of the narrative presented here. Secondary academic sources are much preferred. Please read WP:RS, in particular WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The whole article smacks of antiamericanism. --Thomas de Mowbray (talk) 19:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Just a glance at the articles on Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong dispels the notion of some "marked bias" on Wikipedia in favor of "left-wing dictators." Vanamonde93 is right, if you have an issue with the Castro page, take it there. --C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The article actually praises Pinochet for making Chile perhaps the most prosperous and developed nation in Latin America. The current poverty rate in Chile is between 11-19% (national standards said 11%, UN reports said 18%) and Chile joined the OECD, the 34th and only Latin American nation in the group so far. Before 1970 when Allende was elected president, about 40% of Chileans lived in western (i.e. comparable to European or American) middle class standards. Chile is 3rd place in both western (the US and Canada) and southern (Australia and NZ) hemispheres in the standard of living as well. And finally, when poverty rates were 58% when Pinochet came to office in 1973, but said to "risen" to 45% by the time he left power in 1989-90, either this is going by UN standards (probably the earlier) or Chilean standards (the latter), since Chile is still rather an underdeveloped nation, even though it's close to other large Latin American economies Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Costa Rica, pre-1990s Venezuela, and even Mexico's standings. + 67.49.89.214 (talk) 01:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Economic reforms biased?

There's a lot of objective fact going on about how expropriated property was returned to private owners and business moved back to Chile... But really, besides one sentence mentioning substantial economic growth that happened, there is a distinct bias in the interpretation of that section. "Shock Doctrine" (a decidedly un-academic source) is referenced alongside one or two others in a critical way. The poverty rate is brought up, but no mention of how the poverty rate went from 45% to around 15% in the span of 15-20 years. Nor how Chile has the highest economic income-per-person in South America currently; by a large margin in fact. There seems to be too much inaccurate criticism in that section and in the interest of being bias-free, that ought to change. 174.103.178.14 (talk) 00:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Conflict in casualties reported: 3,000 or 60,000?

Throughout this article, and notably under Human Right abuses" the number of 3,000 deaths is quoted often, but it should include the deaths by DINA during its "Operation Condor", s stated in the article:

"DINA led the multinational campaign known as Operation Condor, which amongst other activities carried out assassinations of prominent politicians in various Latin American countries, in Washington, D.C., and in Europe, and kidnapped, tortured and executed activists holding left-wing views, which culminated in the deaths of roughly 60,000 people.

Thank you, BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

No, because not all of the deaths during Op. Condor can be attributed directly to the DINA (i.e., the 30,000 in Argentina during the Dirty War). The 60,000 deaths associated with Op. Condor are already mentioned as you pointed out above, and in proper context.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. Since DINA led the international assassination campaign (Operation Condor) in various Latin American countries, then the article should clarify in no uncertain terms that there were about 3,000 deaths in Chile and about 60,000 outside the country. See, if DINA led the campaign, as stated in the article, then the casualties must be attributed to DINA. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Operation Condor as described on Wikipedia is basically a hoax. There were 3,000 deaths in Chile, and 8,000-30,000 deaths in Argentina. None of the other countries involved in Condor—Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay—experienced political killings that numbered greater than hundreds. Even if we use the highest estimate for Argentina—and accept the conflation of all democide in the participating countries with assassinations specifically attributable to Condor—there are no sources that explain where the missing tens of thousands of killings took place. (The blog Wikipedia cites to enumerate "Victims of Operation Condor by Country" certainly sheds no light on the matter.) Wikipedia's article on Condor may have taken on a life of its own through citogenesis, but even a cursory examination reveals that many of its sources are simply being deliberately misrepresented. For example, Wikipedia cites McSherry's "Tracking the Origins of a State Terror Network: Operation Condor" for the estimate that "possibly more" than 60,000 individuals were assassinated in connection with Condor: The actual figure McSherry gives is "at least" 402. (Unsurprisingly, Augusto Pinochet's claim that DINA "led" Condor is also not supported by the cited sources, which instead merely testify to the fact that Condor existed; even if it were true—I claim no expertise on the matter—did Chile still "lead" Condor after DINA was abolished in 1977?)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Augusto Pinochet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604160510/http://www.faqs.org/cia/docs/33/0000451376/LATIN-AMERICA-REVIEW---CHILE:--TERRORISM-STILL-COUNTERPRODUCTIVE.html to http://www.faqs.org/cia/docs/33/0000451376/LATIN-AMERICA-REVIEW---CHILE:--TERRORISM-STILL-COUNTERPRODUCTIVE.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090116124338/https://www.cidh.org/annualrep/85.86eng/chap.4.htm to http://www.cidh.org/annualrep/85.86eng/chap.4.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Augusto Pinochet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060505023146/http://www.comisiontortura.cl/inicio/index.php to http://www.comisiontortura.cl/inicio/index.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.faqs.org/cia/docs/33/0000451376/LATIN-AMERICA-REVIEW---CHILE%3A--TERRORISM-STILL-COUNTERPRODUCTIVE.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070615015027/http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDQxNTJlM2M4OTRhOGJhNTMzNTkyNDQ2YmYzMTU3ZTU%3D to http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDQxNTJlM2M4OTRhOGJhNTMzNTkyNDQ2YmYzMTU3ZTU%3D
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110527110256/http://www.lanacion.cl/prontus_noticias/site/artic/20050924/pags/20050924155052.html to http://www.lanacion.cl/prontus_noticias/site/artic/20050924/pags/20050924155052.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927201104/http://www.memoriayjusticia.cl/english/en_issues-gutierrez.html to http://www.memoriayjusticia.cl/english/en_issues-gutierrez.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929105606/http://tf1.lci.fr/infos/monde/ameriques/0%2C%2C3341806%2C00-levee-immunite-pinochet-pour-meurtre-chimiste-.html to http://tf1.lci.fr/infos/monde/ameriques/0%2C%2C3341806%2C00-levee-immunite-pinochet-pour-meurtre-chimiste-.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070607085309/http://www.memoriaviva.com/culpables/criminales%20h/huber_gerardo.htm to http://www.memoriaviva.com/culpables/criminales%20h/huber_gerardo.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070312003922/http://www.lanacion.cl/prontus_noticias/site/artic/20050924/pags/20050924223646.html to http://www.lanacion.cl/prontus_noticias/site/artic/20050924/pags/20050924223646.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150205083046/http://www.lacuarta.com/diario/2007/01/12/12.14.4a.VUE.VIUDOS.html to http://www.lacuarta.com/diario/2007/01/12/12.14.4a.VUE.VIUDOS.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.plenglish.com/article.asp?ID=%7B1D9E9839-D2D8-4255-8D40-68053E9D60B0%7D%29&language=EN

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Redundancy in Opening Paragraph

In the opening sentence of the paragraph, he is described as a "Chilean general, politician and the dictator of Chile". The last sentence of the paragraph states "his rule of Chile was a dictatorship". To be clear, I am NOT disputing that Pinochet's rule of Chile was dictatorial, by any means. I am only wondering others would agree that the opening paragraph could be improved by either using a different word instead of "dictator" in the first sentence (perhaps a more specific description "military ruler" was used in older versions of this article). An alternative solution could be to eliminate the last paragraph altogether, though I would rather not, since it is short, concise, sourced, and cannot be misinterpreted. 98.109.89.134 (talk) 02:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I've addressed the redundancy. If folks have issues with the specific phrasing, they should raise those here. Vanamonde (talk) 07:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

תשששקפםמנננ ז — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.136.39 (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Missing reference

This statement has not been associated with a reference: "To formulate the economic rescue, the government relied on the so-called Chicago Boys and a text called El ladrillo." — Preceding unsigned comment added by DorothyPugh (talk • contribs) 02:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Retrato Oficial de Augusto Pinochet.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 04:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

List of "US-backed Dictators"

Why isn't there such a list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.5.154.148 (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Pinochet"

I made this edit, reflecting the pronunciation as it actually is in the US, which is quite different from what was indicated previously. Although the previous version was supported by dictionary citations, those cites appear to reflect an attempt by the sources to document the Chilean pronunciation of the name, rather than the US pronunciation. So they should not be considered authoritative here. -- Hux (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Lead

For the second time I have changed the lede as to avoid unnecessary name-dropping of scholars [4]. I have not deleted any material, just re-arranged it so the lead is easier to read. There is no reason to highlight just some scholars in the lead. The question here is that the article needs a clear lead devoid of unnessary details that can be left for other parts of the article. Dentren | ^Talk 14:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

It's quite evidently not the scholar's names that concern me but rather the statement regarding the complicity of the United States. Simonm223 (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

If you put that part back in the lede I don't care about the attribution remaining. Simonm223 (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Take the names out if you like, I seem to recall their being included because of a dispute over who was saying that, but I'm not keen on them; don't use that as an excuse to remove information about US involvement, which has broad support among scholars. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Precisely. Attribution is usually in place to satisfy that a due and notable statement may not be preferred from Wikipedia's voice, but what matters is that the lede continue to note that Pinochet's coup depended crucially on US support. That's rather different than just saying they had some. Simonm223 (talk) 15:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Both you Simonm223 and Vanamonde are showing a zealous attitude. Leave it behind. The only thing I have attempted is to have a more tidy article. I have not challanged any "fact". I illustrate my point We don't have articles on controversial leaders such Hitler, Stalin, or Margaret Thatcher cluttered with name-dropping so assure fact. Further, the article of Thatcher does also use footnotes in the lead. Dentren | ^Talk 15:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Please review WP:OSE - the issue is again not with the name-dropping, it's with how you revised the narrative of the lede. Nobody who has spoken with you is concerned with removing the attribution to the scholars in the body as long as the other text remains accurate and isn't softened toward the dependence of the Pinochet regime to US support. Simonm223 (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

So, what is missing in the proposed footnote? (Several academics – including Peter Winn, Peter Kornbluh and Tim Weiner – have stated that the support of the United States was crucial to the coup and the consolidation of power afterward.). I you speak with clarity and stop your ad hominem rethoric it will all save us a lot of time to we forward to the real issue that concerns us here —to have a good lede on the Pinochet article. Dentren | ^Talk 09:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Nothing is missing in the footnote. The problem is that the content is in the footnote where it should be in the body. 14:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Cluttering the lead with name-dropping is contrary to WP:MoS. So no there is no need for that. Dentren | ^Talk 10:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

If you object to them so much, rewrite the sentence to exclude the names. It's possible to do that without moving the whole thing to a footnote, which you do not have consensus for. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I did mantain the names in the footnotes to placate the guardians of the article, in case they had sentimental or other motives to mention these authors. Vanamonde, I can try do as you suggest but I dubt this will bring down opposition to changes. It seem it all melts down to a deep fear of POV-pushing, making the guardianship reclutant to the slightest changes in the lead. Dentren | ^Talk 10:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Dentren please read WP:IDHT - the dispute with your edit was how moving key information to the footnote impacted the clarity of the information in the lede - you were quite literally burying (a part of) the lead. Again, if you believe the names of the scholars cited clutter the lead, nobody is challenging you on that. But find a way to make the edit that doesn't change other details of the lede. Simonm223 (talk) 12:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Simonm223, authors are usually "buried". No need for namedropping. Also, this article is about Pinochet not the US. Mentioning US-role in such lenght and whith such strenght ("crucial") takes the focus off what concerns the article: Pinochet, and seem to be an attempt to "make a point". Actually Pinochet had very little to do with the US until after the coup was done. Dentren | ^Talk 11:10, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Troublesome emphasis on US-role

The lead has much space to explain how "crucial" the US was for the coup. While Icontest the need to highlight this, it also appears to no be true, at least if we trust the article Military dictatorship of Chile (1973–1990) that reads:

"The coup was the result of multiple forces, including pressure from conservative and women’s groups, certain political parties, union strikes and other domestic unrest, as well as international factors. According to an article written by lifelong CIA operative Jack Devine, although it was widely reported that the CIA was directly involved in orchestrating and carrying out the coup, subsequently released sources suggest a much reduced role of the US government.[1]"

The cited source [1] is Jack Devine & Peter Kornbluh, 'Showdown in Santiago: What Really Happened in Chile?', Foreign Affairs 93 (2014), 168-174.. Given that there is a guardiannship over this this article, I will first leave the question open for others to comment on how we can improve this article to better weight the mention mention of the US-intervention in the lead and how to describe it. I see forward a constructive discussion and not one of distrust or presumption of ulterior motives. Dentren | ^Talk 10:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok, you can't exactly ping me and then say, "you're guarding the article." The US role in the coup is well established in a plethora of sources. Simonm223 (talk) 11:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, Wikipedia is not, in fact, a reliable source. So the fact that another page excludes key information is neither here nor there. It would be a serious violation of WP:NPOV to exclude the information on US involvement in setting the stage for the coup and in providing support to Pinochet while he consolidated power. Finally the timing of this request is unsettling considering yesterday was the anniversary of the coup. I hope that this was a coincidence. Simonm223 (talk) 12:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Simonm223, the source in question was not the WP article but "Showdown in Santiago". As I don't have quotes from the book at hand I will not argue further on this. While I have heard contemporary leaders (on TV) dismiss notions of "crucial" US influence, I have to revise my opinion (for now), because I have failed to find less anecdotal written sources doing the same. So I will drop this point because most of the literature on the topic seem to emphasize the role of US not to diminish it. There may be bias as scholars tend most of the time to claim their subject of choice is important, yet this is speculation and not a bias we can adress here. Dentren | ^Talk 14:10, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Or it could be that Pinochet really was groomed by the CIA and installed with their help. But I appreciate that you're willing to leave this alone for now. Simonm223 (talk) 14:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Mention of Peter Winn, Peter Kornbluh and Tim Weiner in the lead

Sorry for creating yet another section, but I thought it would be better to discuss things issue by issue. As stated before I have dropped the concern about how "crucial" US role was. Im not disputing that point any longer because written sources I thought existed are unavailable, undiscovered or do not exists. My suspicions stemmed from remarks I heard on Chilean TV. While technically TV-commentary from relevant people can be cited it would not have the streght to challenge written academic sources.

What concerns here is what hinders us from putting "– including Peter Winn, Peter Kornbluh and Tim Weiner –" in a footnote among "Notes"? What is the reason to have these scholars mentioned in the lead? Its about lead economics. What will the average reader who is attempting to grasp who Pinochet was get from learning "Peter Winn, Peter Kornbluh and Tim Weiner" consider US-role crucial? Is that one of the first things one should learn about Pinochet? It seem to me these authors are used to reinforce the statement, but there is no need to do so in the lead. Dentren | ^Talk 14:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Literally nobody has objected to removing the names of the specific scholars cited from the lede that I can recall; it's the substance that matters. I'd contend the scholars were probably inserted to bulwark against the exclusion of the substance. However I'd not object to a cleanup of the lede that retained the statement regarding the significance of US involvement in the coup. Simonm223 (talk) 14:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

"the scholars were probably inserted to bulwark against the exclusion of the substance" That, precisely. If we can have the substance withouth the names, I have no objection whatsoever. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

References

What sources are they that establish Pinochet had a cult of personality?

Yes I wonder that, if this is not established in any WP:RS this should not be in the article. Indded years ago it was not in the article until someone reworded it. Clearly a case of WP:OR say Gabriel Salazar said that in the article. Remeber Salazar is a living person (WP:BIO) and should not be attributed controversial opinions he have never said. Dentren | ^Talk 16:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Salazar, in the quote provided, is describing the cult of personality. That's not OR. Nor is it assigning a controversial opinion to a BLP; it's simply summarizing his position clearly. Simonm223 (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

There are reasons to dubt Salazar means that. He is an outright critic of Pinochet who went into exile during the regime, further he is a rather outspoken historian who is regularly in the media, had he really meant that he could have sayd it on many opportunities. Salazar has himself studied authoritarian figures like Diego Portales, and he has much to say about them. He may have avoided "cult of personality" for a reason. Pinochet was an atuhroitarian leader who inspired unity and "devotion" among the right wing, being highly visible and popular (among the right wing) to the degree that people attribute him the work of others is not the same as a cult of personality. Sometimes you hear "Piñera" or "Bachelet" did this or that, when it was not them that did so, its just the way people talk about things in the presidential system that governs Chile. That is a reason to dubt Salazar did not consider a cult of personality just a fascist-like devotion for president-dictator. I resist to think Salazar is so ill-informed as to put Pinochet in the same category as contemporary to Sadam Hussein or Mao. Dentren | ^Talk 16:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

"Piñera and Bachelet are certainly not Pinochet by any stretch of the imagination. I do see what you're saying but I still think what Salazar is describing is a cult of personality, regardless of whether he said so with those precise words - however I suspect other sources are likely available, so I'll leave it for now while I do some reading. Simonm223 (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Pinochet governed without parliamentary opposition for 16-years, of course "he" got more done than succesors. I do think a mention of cult of personally, as opinion or "fact" (which I doubt there are the RS to establish) would be good in the article. There are reasons to hint he was close to a cult of personality. But given that it is not overly clear (compare to Mao) it may end to be a matter of opinion. Dentren | ^Talk 17:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of key information from the lede

Hiding the statement that the United States was instrumental for the Pinochet regime's coup from the lede by putting it in footnotes is not an appropriate edit. @Dentren: you are at your second revert of this contested edit back in. Per WP:BRD you should have come to talk rather than engaging in an edit war. I ask you to please self-revert immediately. Simonm223 (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

k ansh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.31.215.10 (talk) 04:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Augusto Pinochet in popular culture

Such a section is still missing --105.4.0.164 (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Do we need to have any such section for Pinochet's pop culture portrayals? Are there any of significance? 207.157.127.37 (talk) 13:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

This page contradicts itself on the issue on National Rebirth???

At the start of the ideology Section it quotes him defining his project as one of National Rebirth. But then when quoting people saying he's not Fascists says it lacks a narrative of National Rebirth. Now I disagree with Eco's Palingenesis definition of Fascism, but the fact that I'm getting contradictory info on Pinochet still annoys me. --JaredMithrandir (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Honorific in Infobox

User:Redmacherover points out (in this edit) that it's a bit jarring to see the honorific "His Excellency" right at the top of the Infobox above Pinochet's name, given his responsibility for thousands of murders. I'm sympathetic to Redmacherover's concerns, and since Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Honorifics does not cover this case specifically and since there's no requirement that every fact be included in an article (let alone prominently), we could just remove it, if that's the consensus here. By way of analogy: the article Pope Francis does not include the honorific His Holiness, nor does the article on Adolf Hitler include his chosen honorific Führer. I think we have every justification to remove it. I'll go on record: I support removal of "His Excellency" from the Infobox. What do you think? Mathglot (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Support much like other bloodthirsty dictators, he seized power and gave himself an honorific title. It should be removed, he was a despot and a mass murderer. Bacondrum 20:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Listed at:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latin America
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chile
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics

Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose removal for now. I'm not convinced by the argument to remove it based on his crimes -- I think his morality is irrelevant and would make this a PoV edit. However, I'm sympathetic to the argument that we should make it consistent with other, similar articles. The problem (which is why I'm opposing this rather than supporting) is that there doesn't appear to be a definitive rule on this: for example, Benito Mussolini also contains His Excellency, as well as his other title of Duce. If a broader decision is taken for all similar articles I could change my vote. — Czello 12:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose removal. I agree with Czello: to say he was a bloodthirsty dictator, [who] seized power and gave himself an honorific title is clearly a PoV opinion, and Pinochet's supporters will say that he was a brave general who, yes, committed crimes, but saved Chile from a communist system, an economical crisis and a civil war. This, in fact, doesn't really matter. If we base ourselves only in how we see an authority, we could finally arrive to removing every honorific from every one of them. His crimes or even what a group of people think about him don't take away his right to the title. We, little editors, have no right to decide who deserves to wear a title and who no.

It will be good to see Chile's history before discussing this: although he was responsible, directly or indirectly, of many crimes and human rights violations during his government, he was legally entitled to the honorific, even by popular vote.

Now, if we are talking about definitive rules and uniformity, all the articles concerning a Chilean president show the honorific. James2813 (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

As far as all the articles showing the honorific, maybe that's because you added most of them? Mathglot (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Wew, good spot. That said, I think I actually agree with their inclusion. — Czello 21:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that was more about popping an insufferable comment, than speaking to the merits. Your first comment (with your !vote) was actually pretty persuasive, and I think you're right about a broader venue being a better place for this discussion than here. That said, I'm not invested enough to want to do it, but I'd support anyone else who wanted to take that on. Mathglot (talk) 01:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot: indeed, I added the titles before you started this discussion in an effort to polish the infoboxes of Chilean presidents. I don't think that affects the uniformity argument. Regards, James2813 (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

If this question is still alive I'll add my vote to those who oppose the removal, for the reasons set out by Czello. Athel cb (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I Oppose removing the honorific prefixes because while he was a dictator and gave himself the title, he did still have that pre-nominal title meaning that people can look at this page and know he had the pre-nominal title of His Excellency. Another problem is that Wikipedia needs to be neutral with its articles. His supporters do not see him as a dictator, regardless of the fact that he was. I believe we should include his honorific prefix. The Land Admiral (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I say we also include the prefix of Captain General because other Chilean (as well as people from around the world) people who have been in the military have had their rank as prefixes. For example: Douglas Macarthur Omar Bradley Bernardo O'Higgins (a Chilean who was also a Captain General) Sir Preter Cosgrove

As well has hundreds of other example

It seems that most/almost all pages on Wikipedia use military rank as a prefix if said person is known for being in the military and held at least a somewhat high rank. The Land Admiral (talk) 23:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)