Talk:Michelle Bachelet/Archive 1

Archive 1

Greek Chilean?

What's all this thing about Bachelet being Greek Chilean? This is definitely untrue.

On the contrary, the article had genealogy on her great-grandmother came from Greece. I have no clue or idea on the exactness of Bachelet's ancestry.

You may as well study on George W. Bush 's, Bill Clinton 's and Condoleeza Rice's family origins in their articles. I won't state she's Greek though. If you wonder my last name is from, it's Japanese? No. Irish? No. Lithuanian? No. Persian? No. or Zairene? No. I'm from the United States of Dutch/Javanese and English descent, mind you. There's no need to discuss it in the talk page, my apologies. --- G. Sageha

Father died naturally

Her father wasn't tortured and killed. He died a natural death (removing the sentence so someone else writes it again). I can check for a source, but I think that Bachelet's homepage even may have that info. What DID happen to her father is that he was expelled from the military.

Oh please. He was jailed and severely tortured, and died some days later while hospitalized. I don't think this is disputed. —Cantus…☎ 04:44, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Bachelet was also tortured in the worst torture camp established during the dictatorship, which was "Villa Grimaldi".

Her father Alberto Bachelet was indeed tortured, but he died on 12/03/1974 from a heart attack (after a basketball match in jail). He had had problems with his heart since 1969 (Michelle's brother also died from a heart attack at age of 54).

She and her mother stayed in jail for only 9 days (January 1975), during which they were "interrogated". She followed her mother into exile in Australia, and later East Germany. Returning to Chile in 1979 during the Pinochet regime (Tortures and other stuff are only for marketing purposes and for campaigning. If someone were tortured they would never come back if their torturer were still in power)

So, just to be certain, the line is that Alberto Bachelet would have died on 12/03/1974 even if he had never undergone any sort of torture? LamontCranston 02:34, 18 January 2006

You talk about cause and effect; multiple causes, multiple effects. What concerns us is the direct effects - Alberto Bachelet had a heart problem. He suffered torture, but torture was not the direct cause of his death, nor was the basketball game. The military would not have wanted to kill Alberto Bachelet; they wanted answers and dead people don't give answers. Of course for political purposes and for news around the world, its better to have a martyr, murdered after suffering terrible torture than a prisoner that died after a basketball game in prison.

So - "What concern us its the direct effect, Alberto Bachellet had a heart problem. He sufered tortures, but tortures are no the direct cause of his death" - now you admit it was an indirect cause? And you did not answer my question, so I shall rephrase it: if he had not been tortured would he have died on 12/03/1974? And as for "they wanted answers, deah people dont give answers", well that maxim has not prevented the US military in Iraq & Afganistan from torturing people death. LamontCranston 08:17, 18 January 2006

If you want to know about cause&effect read about "condictio sine qua non theory" of von bury and von lizt(dont want to spend so much space in theorys mas no concer to others). Yours answer: if he didnt play basketball match and didnt have a heart disease, he wouldnt died at 12/03/1974. All I said its that soldiers didnt torture him to death. US soldiers are not an example to us, i hate comparisons like this a war between contrys and a civil war. Referin to Chile if they want to kill someones they throw them from helicopters, they shot them down,etc but no eone can think about waiting someone to sufer a heart attack.

I did not say they tortured him to death, my questions were in regards to the torture playing a contributing factor, something you dance around and instead say the death is exclusively the fault of a genetic condition and a game of basketball. Now returning to my two questions: 1) Alberto Bachelet would have died on 12/03/1974 even if he had never undergone any sort of torture? 2) if he had not been tortured would he have died on 12/03/1974? - The reason why I keep asking is because I find the rationale that the torture happened in an vacuum and had no physical affect on him whatsoever to be preposterous. LamontCranston

11:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

That's what you think. I believe Wikipedia works on facts not personal thoughts (e.g. torture were a contributing factor). The facts are: 1)11/09/1973 Alberto was arrested at the Ministry of Defence and released the same day. 2)14/09/1973 Alberto was arrested at his house and soldiers took him to the Air Force Academy (FACH). Then he was taken to the FACH hospital because of his heart problems. In October he was confined in his house (house arrest). 3)18/12/1973 he was prosecuted because of his repeated meeting with socialist and MIR leaders. He was acused for planning a attack on the air base "El Bosque". He was taken to Public Jail. 4)12/03/1974 He died at public jail at age of 51 from a heart attack (the fourth in his life). A FACH doctor treated him. This doctor had been arrested and was sharing the cell with Alberto). A prison nurse also tried to help him but he died anyway.

-About playing basketball, his wife (Angela Jeria) has said: Beto was a sportsman - he played soccer, basketball, tennis and was a skeet shooting champion. - In 1968 Alberto Bachelet suffered a heart attack. This incident influenced Michelle to study medicine. -Michelle"s brother Alberto died from a heart attack at the age of 51 in the US and not by tortures. (Michelle is 54. I hope she doesn't have the same heart problem). LamontCranston (shadow)You are politically influenced, you dont write about facts you write about your personal wishes (Bachelet's father a martyr diying because of several tortures, being innocent of all charges, a saint murdered by sadistic soldiers who wanted him to suffer a heart attack). Now with your political friends you can vandalise wikipedia for political marketing purposes (new terrorist). Hope wikipedia editors censore such subjetive thoughts in all articles. I hope not to find Pinochet, Allende, Marx, Hitler, etc. become saints and freedom fighters in their respective articles.

I noticed in that little history that you omit the torture, even though you admit it happened. Shortly after that you just become abusive, make outlandish claims, make disgusting comparisons, et cetera and as such I feel that we can no longer continue this debate. LamontCranston 15:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I wonder cantus knew her personally or has an eye on current events to clarify the dispute. I wonder her genealogy goes back to Northern France, since my father's grandaunt name is 'Bachelet' or something close. It's a coincidence for me to visit a country, then learned a president is related to me, lol.

I don't know, but not the only one. TV night show host Conan O'Brien got to meet the Finnish president, Tarja Halonen, a woman resemble him as some of his fans in Finland told him. I doubt that either but made world headlines. Also to note Boulogne-de-Mer, France (my great-grandaunt's hometown) is where South American liberator Simon Bolivar died. Ironic isn't it? I seen his statute at the Frank Gilcrease museum in Tulsa, Ok. donated by American immigrants of South America, some are Cherokee indian farmers and my Mom's paternal side are Cherokees from Oklahoma. More irony.

And my home state Cal. had a history of Chileans dating back to the Gold Rush. Irony keeps on going. That's why wikipedia interests me and somehow the world is full of surprising oddball facts, since truth is stranger than fiction. +207.200.116.197 09:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You clearly put your interests in Sra. Bachelet. The article has stated her genealogy to have Spanish, French, Greek and other European roots. I still refer her Chilean no matter where her ancestry is, and she isn't the only Chilean politican of French descent. Clear reliable sources on Augusto Pinochet 's article shows he had French background. I have no idea who you are or where you're from - stay on the subject matter or an admin may take the post down. I don't make Wikipedia rules, but I'm enforcing the basic rules on grammar to clean up this talk page. -- G. Sageha

A very interesting debate, which I have corrected for easier reading in this language, without, I hope changing the tone of the arguments. However I thank the above participants for going to the trouble of debating in a language that is not their own, as I am still able to form my own opinion. This is the essence of Wikipedia.

On a slightly different note, Michelle's suffering may be considered minor compared to other Chilean families under the Pinochet regime, but the fact that she has born witness to this and is still able to govern in a relatively balanced and unvengeful way makes her one of the great politicians of our time and she should be nurtured by her people, and followed as an example to others who would try to undo that which cannot be undone. It is notable that she has studied medicine and military strategy!--Vachementchien (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

AOL news' Bachelet biography

The AOL news /API article from 1/15/2006 when Michele Bachelet was elected, stated her career was a (corrected) Pediatrician. But the wikipedia article has no mention of that, so my brain light up on this matter. Can anyone find more information to verify what the AOL news/API release wrote down? I'm not able to find it nor has the time to, then leave a reply and source to verify it...AOL or API or Chilean news sources. + 207.200.116.197 03:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Correction: Pediatrician. I apologize for typing the wrong word. Then my memory was gray here. The wikipedia biographical article on wikipedia states her study in pediatrics is correct. It states her career shifted away from medical studies to her concern with national politics. + 207.200.116.197 08:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Good thinking. Always check before you state anything on Sra. Bachelet. Wikipedia strongly advises not to type false, libellious or slanderous facts on anyone's (celebrities or public figures) life and personality. However, we received vandalism in the article on her sexual preference, definitely is false, and sexist comments (to call a woman a "lesbian" for not appearing feminine) is offensive and aren't tolerated on any Wikipedia bio article. --- G. Sageha

Frente Manuel Rodriguez

I've added something about this to the article. Unsigned opinion on this controversial matter will be deleted. Rd232 ^talk 18:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Links: [1] [2] [3]

Again somebody has erased the text about the "frente manuel rodriguez", what a shame, if that's their candidate I can understand why they dont want anyone to know anything about her past.

I have restored the article to the original once again. Agrofelipe 18/12/2005

Equally, you seem to be very keen to say bad things about her. I asked Cantus why he removed my sourced information, and with no answer forthcoming I've put it back. Do not add back that she was a member of the Frente; we don't know this. Equally, do not use unnecessarily inflammatory words like "terrorist" - it is enough to say what a person or organisation did and let readers make up their own minds. Rd232 ^talk 11:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• • It's a fact that Michelle Bachelet was involved with the FPMR, a well known terrorist organization. Whoever is trying to hide the fact that the FPMR wasnt a terrorist organization, then i must say you guys really don't know anything about her or Chile. --blackman 20:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I think facts speak for themselves. Agrofelipe 18/12/2005

she wasnt a member of el frente, and the FPMR is not truly consider a "terrorist" organization except for the rightist. In the time the FPMR was active a lot of people were disapearing, being tortured and the dictatorship had no trouble in going to the slumbs to shoot anything that moved (i think that happened around 120-200 times, in different slumbs that is, in this recent report that showed up). The FPMR is responsible for several assasinations, bank robberies and sabotage. But always aiming at people who were actively involved in the dictatorship, they never attacked civilians, for example.

"The FPMR is responsible for several assasinations, bank robberies and sabotage. But always aiming at people who were actively involved in the dictatorship, they never attacked civilians, for example." Now that is full of it. The FPMR, Lautaro, and other terrorist groups in Chile and abroad act basically under the same despicable premise: in order to achieve their goals it is justifiable to kill and scare the shit out of people. Whether these people are in the military, high ranked politicians, or random civilian bystanders doesn't make a big difference to them. Now you're saying that the FPMR performed some kind of surgical paramilitary operations targeting only the people in power during Pinochet's regime. Actually, that happened a couple of times, but in general they were as brutal and ruthless as any other terrorist group, killing lots of civilians and people that had nothing to do with the regime. The only time they tried to kill Pinochet they failed miserably. Shamefully enough, a number of his low ranked police escorts didn't survive the attack. Another assassination attempt, right after the return of democracy, was against senator Jaime Guzman. He was defenseless, took by surprise and shot cowardly by one of the members of this gang. When you try to justify what they did I start to find what the other side did justifiable too, so be careful with the way you argue in favor of terrorist groups and activities.

You are right, its ok to murder people as long as they are rightist................ after all senator Guzman diserved to die isnt he???......... your opinion is just pathetic. Agrofelipe 14/01/2006

he said "...But always aiming at people who were actively involved in the dictatorship, they never attacked civilians, for example." to which you replied "You are right, its ok to murder people as long as they are rightists..." - So, which one is pathetic? LamontCranston 02:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I think terrorist are from both side, its nor right to murder people. (May be im wrong but i believe that agrofelipe was making and irony about Jaime guzman death.)

"...But always aiming at people who were actively involved in the dictatorship, they never attacked civilians, for example." Right so the people working at the banks they rob and get killed or the police officers that tried to apprehend them and died were just "collateral damage"?..... and please show some respect for senator Guzman he was a decent man, who worked in the making of the new constitution, he was elected senator and then killed by a coward terrorist without a face. Agrofelipe 19/01/06

I doubt a president like Bachelet involved herself with terrorism in the past, and many terrorist posts were removed in the talk room. It's like her opponents, alike with any politican, invent tales to attack Bachelet on her religion, political views, sexuality (don't appear typically feminine) and so on. Some countries don't allow personal attacks and negative criticism on their presidents, leaders, rulers or kings. I guess Chile has freedom of the press and I wonder their television news is censored (if not, is the news of good quality?)+ 207.200.116.197 09:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, except what I read and studied what's said from the article. No country, except the U.S. tolerates non-violent verbal or written attacks on their elected leaders. And don't bring up Bachelet's sexual preferences without actual biographical grain of truth. I'm glad nobody made an issue of her single motherhood and Chilean society recently lifted the stigma on women having children without a husband. Finnish president Tarja Halonen is truly a single mother, but Finland is more tolerant on that matter. -- G. Sageha

Jaime Guzman a decent man?, he took active part in one of the blodiest dictatorships in history, profiting from it from the deaths and tortured of thousands of chileans (and with a constitution that was downright forced by guns rather than voting, and about the voting on the 80s?, that was a joke, not even voting registries). Theres absolutely nothing decent there (and i wouldnt be too proud of the 80s constitution either, i specially loved that part of the constitution that stated that designated right-wing senators could be appointed rather than elected, i like the binominal system too, wich allows senators to walk right through congress with just a 25%). About the Frente, their direction changed from 89' onwards, when they split from the communist party (thus as democracy had returned, the frente's action began to look more and more pathetic, as they didnt had a particular motive). About bank cashiers killed in bank robberies and police officers. Well, cant blame em for killing police officers back then, as they used to make extensive raids into slums to downright shoot people (i believe that over 200 raids were made by the police, if my memory is not correct), as i remember correctly, a police car back then resembled more of a tank than a police patrol, with several protections to windshields for example (one just has to wonder why...), gosh, it would be so convenient to portray police officers as noble men back then, when even now they are widely known for their brutality (ever been arrested?, they kick you in the legs for a while if you gave them problems, you know, doesnt leave noticeable bruises). About bank cashiers, that might seem to be a chauvinism, got any sources for that son?. And, the Frente was an extremist group, not a terrorist group. Theres a slight difference there, bombing public places might just not been good for The Frente's image back then, as they recieved finance from several sources (Inti-Illimani gaved around 5 million dollars from their sales, back when they were huge in europe, i doubt that money would had still roll in if The Frente would had been an Al-Qaeda-like organiztion). And if its about terror that we are talking about, who better in excelling at it than the ongoing dictatorship. Proof of that might be the little fact that less than 50 militars died killed by Frente guns, compared to the overwhelming 3200 people killed by the militar, who is more terrorist here?. You are nothing but a rightist chauvinist with seriously no information to back up your reply other than propaganda of time, when The Frente was portrayed as mindless terrorist faction. -- signed by an ANON IP

ANON, few times I have encounter such a hypocrite like you, if you want to attack the memory of senator Guzman at least be more informed about the facts, senator Guzman was a key piece in the making of our present constitution, that was ratified by a mayority of the country, and was ELECTED senator by an overwhelming mayority only to be gunned down by a couple of MURDERERS that then flee to Cuba like socialist cowards, then you talk about how good people the FPMR were and how the had no choice but to kill police officers and civilians (I guess I agree with you on that because after all what else can TERRORIST BASTARD do?) and then the most stupid part of your post is to make a ridiculous comparison between the military goverment and the killings of the FPMR, vey nice, especially when you came up with a "50 militars" figure trying to justify their crimes or maybe is it just right party people the one that murders and the left party the one that "fights for the poor"?. Agrofelipe.

I think your post isn't just messy grammar and lack of punctuation. Don't accuse Sra. Bachelet a terrorist please. Other posts compared her political stances to Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Evo Morales of Bolivia. Sra. Bachelet is socialist, no doubt, and don't deserve to fall in a place with Kim Jong Il of North Korea and Mahmoud Ahmedinejad of Iran. I never heard of Chile to pursue nuclear weapons like the other two. It's common knowledge for Chavez jeered Bush and other Latin American presidents, and Mr. Morales spoke of disdain for U.S. diplomacy policies. Bachelet never had a war-like militant approach to the U.S. Chavez, not Bachelet verbally attacked rightist presidents Alvaro Uribe of Colombia and Vicente Fox of Mexico. Consult their biographical articles on those matters. Let's stick to the subject on Bachelet in her dedicated talk page. I won't label her a terrorist. -- G. Sageha

I won't be surprised if she was part of the FPMR considering that she has studies on military strategy, why would a MD have this kind of knowledge, at least that she was preparing herself to be in the military or a terrorist organization.--Auslander71 (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation of name

It might be necessary to clarify the pronunciation of the name Bachelet. I'm sure that if she does get elected president and thus begins to be reported more in English-speaking media, they're going to start mispronouncing her name as Batche-LAY as if it were a French name, just like Pinochet gets mispronounced as Pino-SHAY. --GringoInChile 12:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It is a French name, so it should be pronounced as such. You don't see people calling Hernán Büchi "Boo-chee", but "Bee-hee", or people calling Milovan Milosevic "Milose-vik", but "Milose-vich". Not even in Chile. 200.83.186.125 00:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Origins are irrelevant - people can choose how their names are pronounced, and this frequently changes when families move to other linguistic environments. How does she pronounce her name? Rd232 ^talk 19:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Considering how Chileans aspirate the "T" when it ends a word, she probably pronounces it the French way anyway.

She most certainly doesn't pronounce it the French way. Over the last few months, I've been hearing her name mentioned hundreds of time by the local Chilean media and in ALL cases the T has been clearly pronounced. --GringoInChile 01:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Im chilean and its pronounced bah-CHE'H-leht and she pronounces it as so. I have TV Chile thru Direct TV and everyone else pronounces it as so too In spanish french terms are hardly ever pronounced french like they are pronpounced more or less phenetically for example Ballet a french word it pronounced b'ahl-lay in french and english however in spanish it is pronounced bah-LEHT Atacama 05:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The Chilean way: mitch-EHL batch-ehl-EHT. —Cantus…☎ 04:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I reverted additions of how to pronounce until we can perhaps add IPA and a sound clip. Mike H. That's hot 23:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

When Chile was a stable prosperous country to an extent, millions of Europeans other than Spanish settled in Chile. Bachelet's family are obviously upper-class, like many Spanish/European families in Chile as well in Argentina and Uruguay. (read the Michelle Bachelet article for the stated information, and the demographics of these South American countries).

The pronounciation should not be difficult, like if any Bachelet came to North America and end up said "Backeleter". My own father from France had Bachelet in his maternal side, originated in Boulogne-de-Mer, near Calais in Artois, France. Closer to England, Britian than Chile, but remember how many Europeans left for the new world and their overseas colonies. Bachelet is her paternal name, although she was married and divorced, and her maternal name Jeria sounds like 'Jerry'. Now is it an Italian/German/Portugese name is disputed? All I know is the world is a small place.

I knew a chat buddy whose aunt by marriage is Chilean and said her father is Scottish from the southern area. It's been said the Scots, Croat, Danish and Greek sailors transformed Punta Arenas to a 'new' Latino subculture. If the president of Chile and my Dad's grandaunt share a last name, then who knows. but by chance. What else is interesting my own half-sister's name is Michele. Huh...its a family name I guess. + 207.200.116.197 02:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I would love to review YOUR genealogy and match Bachelet's for a possible link, or you won't meet her in your family reunion! And about your chat buddy's aunt? Unless she's a Bachelet, it don't matter to me or any of us in the Bachelet talk page. Michelle's father Alberto Bachelet, is detailed on Wikipedia, unfortunately has died in prison where Michelle briefly stayed. Chileans like Americans, Europeans and all humans, come in different races, colors, shapes and sizes. Homogeneous cultures are composed of a history of mergers and contacts of varied tribes and nations. So to put it clearly the new president (Sra. Bachelet) shares the same ethnic mix of her nation she reperesents. Whoever you are (the ANON IP), you're not academic material. Your posts (some I had to update) shown you skipped reading the rules. -- G. Sageha

Guyana Latin American?

Surely Guyana's not Latin American... Wouldn't it be better calling her the fourth female president of the Americas instead? Andelarion 23:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

How do work that out...are you thinking of Guinea? It's probably safe to place Guyana in this spectrum. And I think a distiction should be made between latin (south and central) america and the Americas which is more or less North and south and the carribbean..to include the carribbean would mean she would not be fourth female president of anything anymore... 172.215.91.203 00:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

But in these "first woman" categories, the article does not yet mention that Bachelet is the "first woman" elected who is not the widow of an influential political figure. This is important. --Wetman 21:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Cantus…☎ 07:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, but what about Lidia Gueiler Tejada in Bolivia? Who was she widow of? Lets not be too hasty with the firsts... --66.30.27.69 00:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

She was never elected in a direct election. —Cantus…☎ 02:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

You could suggest to say "the Western Hemisphere" or the "Americas" North and South. Then it won't be a problem. Many people tend to forget Brazil is Latin American, but not Spanish when it comes to this country's cultural origin is Portuguese. Like Chile, Brazil has a high development index and the issues on preserving democracy, fighting poverty and environmental protection. In most Latin American countries, Americans (from the U.S.) are diplomatically called "NorteAmericanos" as they are "Centro-, Suda- or Latino-Americanos".+ 207.200.116.197 08:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

South American socialists

So how many South American countries now have socialist or left wing presidents? Worth mentioning in the article since I think the left is at a record high now. 64.231.225.206 17:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

In office: Argentina, Brazil (moderate), Uruguay, Venezuela. Elected: Bolivia, Chile (moderate). —Cantus…☎ 07:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider Brazil moderate. The left-wing countries are Argentina (left-wing), Brazil (left-wing), Uruguay (left-wing), Venezuela (very left-wing), Bolivia (after Morales' inauguration, very left-wing), Chile (center-left, both Lagos & Bachelet), Guayana (center-left), and Suriname (center-left).

I wouldn't consider Lagos government over the last 6 years as center-left, but even only center. His government was rather politically comparable with for example Gerhard Schröder's SPD in Germany which are called socialdemocrats, or even more towards right. They sometimes do apply more "rightist" recipes then the own christian democrats. Same with Lagos, who accelerated the globalism character of Chile even more, with all the free trade agreements with the USA, EU, China and many othersRapaNui 01:01, 18 January 2006 (CET)

Lagos' social programs were leftist, but yes, he was quite centrist. I believe Bachelet will move a bit more to the left, however.

The socialist/leftist trend shifted north to Central America, the Dominican Republic and Mexico during this year's presidential elections in their countries. Popular discontent with free market capitalism and opposition to American foreign policy/diplomacy has made voters move to the left. Peru has a strong leftist base, but elected a rightist general, Colombia in continuous civil wars between left and right, and Mexico has a pro-U.S. president Felipe Calderon to secede Vicente Fox, pres. George Bush's closest friend out of all foreign leaders.

The Chileans are renowned for their European socialism, but struggle with Latin American problems of massive poverty, corruption and dictators like gen. Pinochet. However, Chile held records of the longest government without dictators out of 20 Latin American republics, before the title went to Costa Rica (60 years), Uruguay( 75 years) and Mexico (85 years). Democratic innovative countries Brazil and Venezuela kept returning to dictatorship or extreme political leaders.

Though I agree with you, that Chile has similar problem symptoms like many other South American Countries like for example inequal distribution of wealth, I do not agree with you considering Chile a very poor nation with 13,8% living in this status, any similar country in the region you can compare? Pinochet has been the only dictator since almost 150 years, so if you take this an as example to categorize a country for being typical dictatorship, you must also consider others like Germany with Hitler (I know its stupid, but as we are already ongoing with clichees). Or even more outstanding, Chile cannot be catogorized as a corrupt country, as it ranks 20th in the "cleanest" list out of 160 nations, standing in front of many western European Nations like for example Spain and Portugal and same position as Belgium and USA[4] --194.203.215.254 13:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason to explain the nature of Chilean politics may be economic, cultural and progressive development to handle it's problems in a less radical matter, but only one in 1970-73 did the system was driven downward and the U.S. CIA admittedly interfered in Chile to dispose Salvador Allende, an elected Marxist president.

What was meant to restore democracy and free enterprise, Pinochet became president by force and his crackdown on political dissidents in 1973-76 brought on one of the bloodiest campaigns in the late 20th century. The death toll was over 10,000, but exact statistics remain unknown as some prisoners disappeared without a trace.

Today, Chileans are divided over Allende and Pinochet, and who's fault is it: the U.S. capitalists or Soviet communists for bringing Chile to near ruin. Bachelet isn't pro-soviet like in the past, then if she choose sides with America, the majority of leftist leaders oppose her and Hugo Chavez may personally insult Bachelet. Fidel Castro was known to called Mikhail Gorbachev, Hu Jintao of China and all reformed communists "traitors" and "yankee sympathizers". + 207.200.116.197 02:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Explain to us better. I had to correct one more post. There's no single political ideology: communist, socialist, capitalist or fascist movements. Ideologies split into factions like religions and cultural niches, when one group divides and breaks into others. China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea and Vietnam don't share the same Leninist-Marxist ideology. Bachelet studied socialism, communism and liberalism, all the 3 types of the "left" side of the political spectrum, for her ambitions or solutions. I reckon there's no comparison to conservatism, militarism and fascism belong to the "right" side. American conservatives, alike American liberals, are democracy-based and believe in less government interference. Nothing in the quite in fascism and militarism, may share a traditional hierarchy of law and order, but reject moderation you find in the democratic right. --- G. Sageha

Probable Vandalism

I checked this page at 00:18 GMT on 17/1/06 and saw that the page had been gutted at 00:17 and replaced with something related to terrorism. I reverted the page at 00:21 to the peniultimate version, but don't know how to/if I should report this as vandalism.

SicilianMorpheus 00:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

There was only piece of vandalism from that IP, and you've already warned him. Unless he does it again, no further action is needed. Rd232 ^talk 01:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

tidying

Unfortunately it seems I need to pedantically explain minor improvements to the introduction which accord with basic WP principles and style guidelines, in response to an arbitrary and unexplained reversion (without naming anyone, Cantus). Overlooking that such behavior did not assume good faith and wasn't particularly nice, it's like this.

Firstly, with regard to the various "easter egg links" please consider Wikipedia:Piped_link. We must not have the appearance of runoff election when in fact we mean the Chilean presidential election, 2005. There is also the appearance of socialism, although we mean the Socialist Party of Chile (this one remains unchanged in the too hard basket for now).

With regard to linking to social security, legal separation, agnosticism and others, consider Wikipedia:Build the web, the application of which with these changes has had full regard to Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context (the balance is struck by not linking to political campaign, for example). To put it more plainly, these are matters directly relevant to the policies and life of Bachelet. Readers must be able to follow such links if they choose.

And others: We cannot have "...(winning an election) against successful entrepreneur...". Although I think that Piñera's commercial success or otherwise is irrelevant and should not appear in the 2nd sentence, the revision retains this reference; also, Piñera (or anyone) cannot "fail to accomplish a commitment" - failing to accomplish a promise is an improvement at least. But I've not reinstated the revision of the anthropomorphic construction "world's largest gap between rich and poor" (to labour the point, the "world" does not have any gaps of any kind).

BLUE 04:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess the best way to report it is you live in Chile. GringoinChile, how's the country? I'm interested in a vacation there and learning more on the country. It's true Chile shares common characteristics with Latin America (i.e. conservative Catholic developing nation), but not when Bachelet was elected to represent Chile. It would be cool if another South American woman Shakira, a music star became president of Colombia. Oh well, it's possible for a liberal well-traveled woman able to speak different languages. +207.200.116.197 09:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't try to be funny and don't bother Shakira on this Bachelet talk page. The world in the 21st century is more accepting to women in the quest for equality. Latin America does not legally bar women from running for and holding public office. I can name 5 countries that block women's access to political leadership, because of their traditional or moral values that are viewed discriminatory to us in the west. Because of my political opinions, I won't vote for Bachelet as much I won't pick John Kerry and Al Gore. I never vote for Hillary Clinton not on the basis of sex, but her politics and affiliation with husband Bill Clinton. -- G. Sageha

Agnostic v. Atheist

"Atheist" was changed to "agnostic" based on one cited article to El Wapo. But the New York Times, [5] the Miami Herald, [6] and Christopher Hitchens (who pays attention to and makes fine distinctions among such matters) have her describing herself as an "atheist". The weight of evidence says: "atheist" is more likely accurate. - Reaverdrop 04:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I read an interview where she described herself as agnostic, although it is no longer on her website. I did find an article from El Mercurio here that clearly defines her as agnostic. Sean 05:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Apparently her descriptions of herself as both an agnostic and an atheist are both well attested by several sources. I don't see any reason to eliminate one label or the other (or supporting sources), when she has apparently freely claimed both labels. - Reaverdrop 09:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I think she used to claim atheism, but has now "changed" to agnosticism, maybe because it made her more electable. Anyway, here's a Washington Post article from last month (I'm going to take out 2 of the Spanish-language papers and add this) where she is quoted "I'm agnostic". Sean 16:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I figured it was more likely an atheist would claim to be "agnostic" to be more politically palatable than for an agnostic to describe herself as an atheist. - Reaverdrop 16:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

She herself has said in an interview with Raquel Correa in El Mercurio — Chile's most prestigious political interviewer in Chile's most prestigious daily — that she considers herself to be agnóstica — an agnostic. The interview is dated November 30, 2004. It can be read here. I haven't found a single interview where she declares herself to be an atheist. I believe this settles the point for good. —Cantus…☎ 04:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Politics. The first three sources I read - Christopher Hitchens, the New York Times, and the Miami Herald, all referred to her as an atheist. Hitchens discussed it at length and with enthusiasm. He is not the type to hear one thing and be capable of mistaking it for the other - as if the Times were either. If she became inconsistent, it was for campaign season. Nice job waiting until five reverts before ever bothering even to try to explain yourself. But you're still wrong. The best we can say is that she reported both atheist and agnostic to different sources, which should be reflected in the article, not an arbitrary judgment call by you. If you want to demand that the two aren't mutually compatible, go strike it up with Michelle, don't arrogate ownership of this article to yourself. (Cross posted to User talk:Reaverdrop.) - Reaverdrop 08:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't see how Spanish-language, Chilean news sources don't trump English-language American sources. I can assure you that she is universally reported as an agnostic here. In fact, the only Chilean source I saw calling her an athiest was her opponent during the campaign. (Here is an article accusing him of an intellectual vulgarity for this: [7]) A Google News search in Spanish finds 500 articles for 'bachelet agnostica' and only 56 for 'bachelet atea', several of which quote her critics accusing her of atheism. I'm reverting, accordingly, and this should end it unless someone turns up a quote of Bachelet describing herself as an athiest. Eliot 15:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is solid evidence that American news organizations have been mistranslating Bachelet, in fact. She was quoted as saying "Yo reunía todos los pecados capitales juntos: socialista, hija de mi padre, separada, no religiosa." -- the key word being "non-religious", which does not preclude being agnostic. However, this was translated as: "Even though she admits she incarnates "all the capital sins - socialist, my father's daughter, divorced and an atheist." [8] You can imagine how just one or a few mistranslations could filter through the whole of American media. Eliot 15:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Here are more sources indicating that Bachelet is an atheist and/or that she describes herself as an atheist. Is every single one of these news outlets, including Spanish-language sources and reporters, incapable of translating Spanish faithfully and incapable of any functioning fact-checking? And after all these news reports describing her as an atheist around the world, she never bothered to make a correction? This presents an overwhelming body of evidence that Bachelet has at at least some of the time described herself as an atheist. Why would she have at other times describe herself as agnostic? Maybe for the same reason a few people here seem to have an emotional bias away from providing information about her atheism, and the same reason that her opponent tried to emphasize it as a criticism of her during campaigning: it's easier to accept for an overwhelmingly Catholic country.

It goes against the policy of Wikipedia to think that information so solidly attested to as from so many sources as presented here should be censored out of a Wikipedia article because a couple of Wikipedians take it upon themselves to know better than over a dozen, at least, major news reporting bodies. Information attested from a great number of news outlets is not proven wrong by comparing total hits in competitive Google searches. With so many sources attesting to it, readers of this article deserve to read about this information, and investigate further for themselves if they find reasonable basis to think it inaccurate, rather than be barred from gaining the information in the first place because it is censored. There is absolutely no justification after this much attestation to try to censor the information on Bachelet's atheism out of the article again.

New York Times, Google cache of quote (Rafael Gumucio): "Given this context, it is nothing short of extraordinary - even revolutionary - that the clear front-runner in the presidential vote being held on Sunday is Michelle Bachelet, a divorced mother of three who is an atheist and a member of the Socialist Party."

The New York Times, January 16, 2006 "-Michelle Bachelet, who was elected Sunday as president of this male-dominated, prosperous and deeply religious nation of 16 million, is a woman and an agnostic..."

Philadelphia Inquirer: "Bachelet has said she is an atheist."

AFP (Agence France-Presse): "The leader in Chile's presidential race is a socialist, atheist, single mom, torture victim -- hardly the profile for success in a conservative, Catholic South American country."

AFP, January 16, 2006 An agnostic single mother of three, she was not an obvious choice for leadership in this socially conservative Roman Catholic country.

EITP, Spain: "Bachelet's political success has baffled many Chileans who thought a socialist atheist divorcee jailed during the dictatorship of Gen. Augusto Pinochet stood little chance in the conservative country."

Accuracy in Media (Written by one of the directors of Accuracy in Media who is married to a Chilean): "So how did this rather bland atheist, "separated" mother of three with different men, with no successful leadership accomplishments, become Latin America's first 'self made' woman president?"

The Courier-Mail, Australia (Jose Luis Varela): "Ms Bachelet, who claims to be an atheist, has been long separated from her husband and has raised her three children largely on her own.

The Courier-Mail, Australia: "The agnostic woman with three children from two relationships has also benefited from a shift to more secular values in the predominantly Roman Catholic country."

Miami Herald (Knight Ridder): "Bachelet has said she is an atheist."

Letter to the editor correcting a paper who ran this article

The Independent, UK: "A pediatrician turned politician, Michelle Bachelet is an atheist single mother with three children by two different partners..."

The Globe and Mail, UK Google cache of article (Marina Jiménez): "An avowed atheist and single mother of three children by two different fathers, she presents a clear sign of change in a conservative, deeply Roman Catholic country."

For an avowed atheist, it sure is hard to find an instance of her avowing her atheism.... oh wait!

The Globe and Mail, UK: "Ms. Bachelet, an agnostic and single mother of three children from two different men, was imprisoned under the Pinochet dictatorship, and her victory is seen as a symbol of healing and change in a conservative country that has become increasingly secular."

The Daily Telegraph, Australia: "Ms Bachelet says she is an atheist."

The Daily Telegraph, Australia: "The agnostic woman with three children..."

Pravda (Hernan Etchaleco): "Mrs. Bachelet, an atheist political prisoner during the dictatorship of Gen. Augusto Pinochet and later defense minister for incumbent Ricardo Lagos's center-left government, defeated conservative tycoon Sebastian Pinera in the runoff of another exciting Chilean presidential race."

Mineweb, South Africa: "In a strongly Catholic nation, Bachelet has said she is an atheist."

- Reaverdrop 19:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I hope this at least proves to you that these news services use the terms imprecisely if not interchangeably. Eliot 14:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You realize that those stories could very well all have written from the same wire copy, right? And the more people make the mistake, the more that mistake can be disseminated. I think you are POV pushing here -- you stated above that you believe she's an atheist who started calling herself agnostic to gain votes, which is absolutely unsupported by any sources. I've produced evidence that English-language sources have mistranslated or misreported agnosticism as atheism; you've presented no verifiable evidence that Bachelet has ever described herself as an atheist. I think you should drop it. Eliot 14:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

"Yo soy agnóstica" Bachelet's campaign website

If the news media continued to slam Bachelet as an atheist (not a believer of any god), this will become a problem on libel or slander. She's an agnostic who believes in god, christ and religion with her questioning and her personal conviction "we can't be so sure". There's a wide difference between agnostic (such as myself) and atheist (who feels god is nonexistent). To call someone an "atheist" without proof is name-calling and an action of religious intolerance. Wikipedia and society in general (the U.S. and most countries) don't support attacks on religious groups, but the news sources shown the question was varied on their biographical intrepretations. + 207.200.116.197 09:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If she self-describes as an agnostic, we probably should go with her self-description. I don't think any of us can see into her head. If other people are calling her other things than I suppose we can say they say she's an atheist, but she is the foremost expert on her own beliefs, even if she is biased on them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Poor Introduction

Bachelet is a moderate, she is not "socialist," she is from the Socialist Party, which is a centre-left coalition. Describing Sebastián Piñera as a "successfull entrepreneur," is just as appropriate than calling him a bourgeois leech. The man is a filthy rich businessman. Lastly... "a promise that current President, Ricardo Lagos, failed to accomplish" what does that supposed to mean? ...not even proper english, not to mention it is a dispicable condecending jab. I believe wikipedia has higher standards for this, especially for an article that is on the front page.

"what does that supposed to mean?".... exactly, what IS that supposed to mean? Proper English? Gimme a break.

Discussion comments? In proper English? ...Prick?

Poor comment. This comment is so full of crap that it ridicules itself. Some highlights: 1) "she is not a "socialist", she is from the Socialist Party, which is a centre-left coalition"... jeez, if you belong to the socialist party you're a socialist by definition. And the socialist party is NOT a centre-left "coalition". It's a left-wing party, period. 2) "what does that supposed to mean? ...not even proper english", already addressed. 3) "... is just as appropriate than...", "dispicable", "condecending", right, talk about proper English... I mean, colloquial English here and there is fine, but if you're going to bitch about other people's grammar at least try to practice what you preach, or better keep it shut.

You are so smart, I wish I culd be as smart as you. You use so many big words! Please teach me the art of bitch, I do value your opinion! Period(.)

Social Democratic Party (Portugal) Men have nipples, can you milk them?

Your nitpicking for parties with a misleading name doesn't add much to the discussion. The Socialist party in Chile is just that: a socialist party. Supporters of and supported by the Soviet Union at the time, supporters of the Cuban regime until today. You can't get more socialist than that, can you?. They are not communists only because they've embraced a liberal economy for political survival and social convenience. But that's that, still leaning toward the left on most issues. This shouldn't be offensive or anything. Just facts. But it seems you all want to be "centered" these days... talk about political travesty. "Men have nipples, can you milk them?", hahahahaaa last time I checked, men had nipples not tits. Sorry if you do, unless you're a woman, of course.

Whoever in Portugal made a dumb analogy on gender equality, but tries to state how men and women are supposedly equal. True, women have babies and have different behavioral patterns related to gender. But women aren't weak or less smarter, and that can lead to sexism and prejudice against women.

Anyway, there's a debate on whether Latin American countries are under "third world" socialist programs or under an old world elitism dates back to colonial times. Mexico, for example, had a revolution to dispose elite authoritarianism and historic records spoke of peasants rose against the abuses of landowners, and after the revolution, a new republic was created and the 1917 constitution modeled on the U.S. called for democracy and land privatization. Today, the Mexican economy and previous governments are full of corruption and a one-party system (before 2000), mismanagement by state/ national officials, and widespread poverty in rural towns or villages.

I don't know who's fault is it made Latin America a society of haves and have-nots, but far-left partisans like former Mexico City mayor Andrés Manuel López Obrador is a presidential candidate and he's just as leftist like Castro, Chavez and to a lesser extent, Bachelet. The U.S. never supports a candidate with hostile and opposing views of our country, but nothing to worry from Chile.+ 207.200.116.197 08:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Please check your grammar and keep on topic. Some of the anon posts need relocation to Talk: Chile if a post discusses the current status of Chilean politics/ economics. The talk page is about improvements, corrections and errors on the article solely on Michelle Bachelet. Thank you. --- G. Sageha

world's largest gaps between rich and poor?

The Bachelet article's mention of "the country's gap between rich and poor, one of the largest in the world" does not have much merit and comments (edits) to this area have been rather mysteriously deleted. The UN data that is cited is notoriously unreliable but since it is cited, it is worthwhile to note that the UN numbers suggest that this "gap" is similar to other Latin American countries, in which case the mention is rather moot. The inclusion of such material and the associated author's editorial comments also makes the article rather less than an objective discussion and borders on boosterism. The additional observation that the wealth-distribution gap information is technically dubious is also reason to doubt the sincerity and objectivity of the author. When the expenditure and value of Chilean social benefits (health care, day care, subsidized housing and transportation, education, clean water initiatives and other social programs benefitting lower income Chileans) are more accurately aggregated, the mentioned gap ceases to be meaningful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.121.136.86 (talk) 05:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Chile has (one of) the smallest gap between rich and poor (in the region). According to CEPAL, Chile had the lowest poverty percentage of the region: Chile 19% regional average 44%. The miserable people percentage is of 4,7%, while in Brazil for example is of 13,3% (2001). I quote here the part of the editorial of Folha de Sao Paulo (from yesterday), from where I got his information. "Pelos mais variados critérios, as escolhas do Chile sob a Concertação foram coroadas de resultados positivos. Na última década (1996 a 2005), o crescimento médio anual do país foi de 4,2%. No mesmo período, o Brasil cresceu a míseros 2,2% ao ano, e o conjunto das nações da América Latina, a 2,8%. De acordo com os critérios da Cepal (Comissão Econômica para a América Latina e o Caribe), em 2003 o Chile era o país, em uma lista de 18 da região, a ostentar o menor índice de pobreza. Dezenove porcento de sua população de 16 milhões de habitantes eram considerados pobres. O contraste com a média regional (44%, para 2002) e com o Brasil (37,1%, para 2001) é grande. Além disso, o Chile viu sua população de pobres cair à metade de 1990 a 2003, período em que o percentual de indigentes no país veio de 12,9% para 4,7% -o Brasil tinha 13,3% de indigentes em 2001."

Diotti 10:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I didnt know that the difference had increased, it seemed obvious to me, that if the poor percentage had decreased the difference between rich and poor would too.Diotti 14:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems that you don't understand what "gap" means. Your post only refers to general statistics on poverty. Poverty in Chile has indeed decreased during the last 16 years, and yet the GAP between the wealthiest 10% and the poorest 10% of the population has increased to become one of the largest worldwide. And that's a fact.

I'll add one those "easter eggs" links to the appropriate ranking. —Cantus…☎ 02:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The Chilean economy in the 1990s was one of the world's fastest growing, and a few under-developed nations poised to move forward (i.e. China, India, Iran, Turkey, South Africa, Malaysia, Mexico, Brazil, and with Russia and Eastern Europe). Copper remains a major byproduct of Chile, but economic planning in the Pinochet regime wanted to expand byproducts and natural resources: Fish, wines, winter fruits, offshore oil/petroleum and industrial manufacturing. NAFTA attempted to include Chile in the 1990's, but a free trade agreement in 2001 increased economic growth with the U.S. and Canada.

The Chileans heavily trade with Europe, Japan, China, South Korea, Australia and oil-rich Kuwait, since it's believed Pinochet has stocks in petroleum. In the gulf war, Chilean arms dealer billionaire Carlos Cardeon was accused of profiteering from Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein by his arms supply. The economy must did well, then when you hear of ITT, Ford, Kennecott, Wal-Mart, the Home Depot and Microsoft brokered deals in Chile, this is like we got a new "Asian Tiger" but in South America.

I hope Bachelet will bring forth new prosperity like predecessors Alywin and Lagos did in the 1990s, except for a mild recession in 2000-01. General Pinochet's globally publicized trial for his role in having Spanish agents killed, and human rights accusations brought Chile on the map. He cannot be prosecuted due to his age and disability to stand trial. Bachelet brought Chile again as an innovator, not only a woman elected as president, and she's the 45th female leader in the world (historically), after India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Great Britain, Germany, Liberia, Indonesia and Finland. + 207.200.116.197 02:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It is me again, to resurrect the talk page posts. Bachelet has company to speak of a growing force of women in politics and how come you haven't read South Korea's recent appointment of a female prime minister? I'm unable to spell her name or a revert link to an article won't work. Interesting on economic growth in Chile, but you're in the wrong place to discuss that and once more, take that to the Talk: Chile page please. --- G. Sageha

Cantus - other's views?

It seems that some of us who have recently contributed to this article have had their edits removed by Cantus, typically without explanation in the edit summary. If C bothers to respond here on the talk page to anything, you can see that C slams the door on proposals without meaningful discussion (the gap issue) and/or just comes out with a personal attack (see Poor Introduction). It also appears that this is fairly standard behavior for C.

Any admins or other editors out there who agree enough to point out directly to C that none of this is acceptable for Wikipedia? BLUE 04:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I always sign my posts, so you must be confusing me with somebody else. —Cantus…☎ 05:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Sure. How typically disingenuous of you to feign understanding of what's being said here. BLUE 02:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Take this change, for example (where you reverted my changes in the last paragraph): [9]. I'm not feeling very strongly about this particular wording, and I'm not claiming my version was perfect. But your edit fits BLUE's description: You removed my edit without providing an explanation. However, I just realized that you did reply thoroughly at the Reference Desk - thank you for that. Common Man 07:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC), revised 08:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Percentage of the Vote

Someone changed the percentage of the vote from 53% to 63% (decimals excluded). Is this true? My sources reported 53% of the vote. Mr. Anonymous (af) 14:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

She won by 53%, personally I think its a damn shame to this country Agrofelipe 19/01/06

"Second woman"

She is the second woman (after Violeta Chamorro) to become president of a Latin American nation without being the widow of a former president.

• The sentence is phrased so that it can be read as demeaning to Latin Americans: "look here: these latinos oppress their women". To be fair, it is good to mention how many women were presidents in North America. (I suspect none). Mukadderat 16:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Also, what the heck this "widow" thing? I find it misogynistic and an attempt to decrease the actual number of women presidents. Someone knowledgeable, please improve. Mukadderat 16:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the "widow thing" seems out of place. I especially think it completely misses the point, since it doesn't matter who the female presidents were related to, but how they came to power. I believe it should say something along the lines of her being the third female to come to the presidency in Latin America by direct election to the office, after Violeta Chamorro and Mireya Moscoso, while others such as Rosalía Arteaga, Lidia Gueiler Tejada and Isabel Martínez de Perón were in the line of succession. Beatriz Merino was Prime Minister of Peru, which is not so powerful an office, so I don't know if it should count. If someone can check me on the facts and write it up, please do; else I'll do it when I have the time. Something else to consider: perhaps this should be the subject of a new article (related to List of women heads of state)? DanielCohen 17:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

"it doesn't matter who the female presidents were related to, but how they came to power" - exactly: the logic is that being the widow of a President is a particularly strong springboard for women to reach the highest offices in Latin America. This is why the achievement of reaching that office without that advantage is notable. I wasn't very happy with the sentence though, so please do continuing discussing what to say about this issue. Rd232 ^talk 19:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me for adding this to your post, don't forget Jamaican prime minister Portia Simpson, elected in late 2005 and most of her people approve of Simpson's rule in public ranting polls. She spoke of her election and first term as the first female prime minister (directly elected other than appointed or pro-tem) in the Caribbean: "It's woman time" quoted by PM Simpson herself and Jamaica is renowned for progress in women's rights in the high representation of Jamaican women in politics, business and social status than their counterparts in most countries of the western hemisphere, including the US. 63.3.14.2 11:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

See Cantus' thorough and helpful reply to this question: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Latin_American_woman_president
Common Man 08:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what kept the U.S. my country so long to accept electing a woman as president. Hillary Rodham Clinton is a likely hopeful, but it's two years away for the next election. Now the list...that makes 10 women held posts as presidents or prime minister in Latin America. Bachelet was not the first at all, but neighboring Argentina had Maria Isabel Peron in the 1970's after her late husband Juan Peron.

An upcoming presidential election in Mexico had one woman, but can't remember her name except it ended in Arriola. There are elections in Central America and Dominican Rep. had female candidates, then it's a sign of what may come. Cuba, a communist government emphasized gender equality as part of the Castro revolution. His brother, General Raul Castro seceded the seriously ill Fidel. However, no women are found in the top levels of the Castro regime.

Would this make FARC, Shining Path, and Mexico's Zapatistas into the "equal sex" idea as a Marxist-inspired paramilitiary group? Guyana did had a woman president, Janet Jegen, and our neighbor to the North (Canada) had a woman prime minister, Kim Campbell. Latin American culture hasn't totally accept the idea of women as social equals alike the developed world (U.S. and Canada), then why the U.S. as a role model in democracy and human rights never had a woman president...and the idea scares some American voters? Bachelet don't appear scary to me, nor for the majority of Chileans. + 207.200.116.197 02:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Try to search for Sra. Arriola in Mexico on AOL or google, and wikipedia might come up with a match. The relevance of Bachelet is not the first woman to lead a Western hemisphere country I have no problem with. I don't suggest to discuss the legitimacy of women presidents is appropriate and we never want an inflammable debate/argument. Please keep in mind on some talk pages aren't always places for controversy on gender issues and their capability to hold presidential office. -- G. Sageha

• Is there anyone else here who thinks "and the first woman who was not the wife of a previous head of state or political leader to reach the presidency of a Latin American nation in a direct election." is rather specific? That sentence, to me, is overly specific in the sense that whoever wrote it was trying to over shine the fact that she is the 1st president of Chile. I think the sentence should be re-written to something along the lines of "and fourth woman to reach the presidency of a Latin American nation" (I'm not too sure if she is the fourth) or "second woman to reach the presidency of a Latin American nation in an election."  LaNicoya  •TALK• 11:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Misleading claims

In my opinion, the "political life" part of the article is rather misleading. It gives the wrong impression regarding Bachellet's political experience and influence. Especially when it states that "She then joined the Socialist Party of Chile and was politically active during the second half of the 1980s, fighting for the re-establishment of democracy in Chile". As far as I can tell her name was not even near the radars of what was going on at that time. She certainly was not in the front line of those who actually called for participation in the 1988's plebiscite, which ultimately gave Pinochet the boot. For most people she is just a newbie in politics, since her name only reached public awareness a few years ago when she was appointed Health Minister. Her popularity is very well worth a sociological survey, I think.

I recommend to check the wikipedia article in spanish (en espanol) seems to cover more on Bachelet with more detail. Chilean news sources offer accuracy and in-depth coverage from a national POV (not politically motivated, but how a country cover her like she's their president). The limitations in English language news sources of other countries beyond the U.S. and Great Britain, tells me wikipedians don't always have the answers, unless they checked more from a more closer source (Chile or Latin America).+207.200.116.197 09:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Socialist Youth

I know Batchelet was part of a group in college called Socialist Youth, but the article links to a Norwegian group. Should it still be there? Maybe specify the nation in which a group operates. "Socialist Youth" is probably a very common name. - from an ANON IP

According to the article, Bachelet was a member of the East German Socialist Youth, as a Chilean exile in Europe when 'socialist youth' groups are active. The majority of Chilean exiles at the time went to Europe (Britain, France, [west] Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden and Spain), but pro-Allende activists went to the USSR, East Germany and Cuba to protest against an U.S.-allied Pinochet regime.

In 1977, U.S. pres. Carter demanded the Pinochet regime to improve their poor human rights record and as a consequential action, the U.S. cut arms supplies and military aid to Chile among other countries' governments known to committed human rights abuses. For 12 years, Chile wasn't a full-fledged friend to U.S. diplomacy against the man, Gen. Pinochet, the U.S. CIA had an open role on installing him to power.

Today when American tourists flock to Chile and U.S. business deals made Chile look tempting to make money, will there be Chileans loathe or dislike America/the U.S.? I love to visit there one of these days as it reminds me of California or the west coast, where I happen to live.

Chile isn't the only country with a mixed (pro-anti) view of America and its policies. Also the wikipedia article Chile stated half the overseas Chilean population is in the U.S. so it's not an error to say Europe used to, nor Argentina is 2nd place in the current statistic.+ 207.200.116.197 03:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You need to "hang out" to post your statements to Talk: Chile and the last time I revert it on here. I came upon an article provided by yours truly (Wikipedia) on Chilean-American relations - U.S. intervention in Chile, and the other article on the Economy of Chile to examine/analyze the issues on tourism and commerce. I doubt Sra. Bachelet will have an impact on the business climate, but has no agenda to create political or diplomatic tension with the U.S. government. I kept this comment simple as the article has covered that topic in full detail. Don't forget to read Demographics of Chile before you claim to hold any knowledge on the number of Chilean expatriates. -- G. Sageha

Fact: torture victim

This is the second time my contribution of the story of Michelle being a torture victim, later finding herself living in the same apartment building as her former torturer, has been eliminated. This is a very apropos piece of information; during the presidential campaign, it was constantly referred to by the news media and in academic discussions - in Chilean universities no less (I attended the Catholic University at the time). This is not an urban legend - it is recorded fact (my edit supplied an internet reference for corroboration), something Michelle herself attested to on live television. How many victims of torture later became ministers of government, not to mention President? It was part of her stature, part of her public credibility, the fact that she was tortured by the military and thirty years later became Minister of Defense. glasperlenspiel 22:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It was removed because it was in the wrong section, it was badly written and felt too much like an anecdote. —Cantus…☎ 14:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

"A socialist militant"

Am I the only one that thinks that section title sounds a tad POV?--Jersey Devil 22:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The Spanish sense of the word militante is more moderate. It means belonging to a political party or group. This is obviously not the English meaning, so I changed it momentarily to "activist," even though that's not the exact word I was looking for. I thought about using the word "member," but it doesn't sound good. —Cantus…☎ 00:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

moderate socialist

She isn't socialist. I don't know what you take as socialist, but don't say because she is a member of the Socialist Party. That party don't go further to the left that being a socialdemocrat party. But, it's definetively at center seeing to the right, you can see it on left-wing politics article and then compare that with the las 16 years of chilean history, or the last 6 if you want to be more accurate.

It's pretty hard to define exactly what ideaology a person belongs to. Since she belongs to a Socialist Coalition, i think that is the most accurate and precise defintion of Bachalet's ideaology. --Shawn 00:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Putting in relevant information is now considered vandalism?

CieloEstrellado is saying that I am vandalising the Bachelet site because I am including the fact that Bachelet can speak some Russian and can read Cyrillic. This is as relevant as including the list of languages that Bachelet, a polyglot, is able to speak.

How on earth can this information possibly be considerred vandalism?

--MILH 16:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe vandal is going a bit far but the point is that knowing a few phrases ogf a language and being able to decipher it's alphabet is not really noteworthy. I'm sure most people could achieve that with just a couple of weeks of classes. What you're trying to add does not enhance her proven polyglot abilities IMHO. --GringoInChile 02:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry about saying you had "vandalized" this article (I probably just copied and pasted that text from another edit summary related to other edits you've made in Wikipedia.) While the information itself is not vandalism, continually reverting other people's edits is considered vandalism. I invite you to resolve the issue here. ☆ CieloEstrellado 02:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Calling someone a vandal because she believes in telling the truth is slanderous. I have already tried speaking to you in civil terms, but you ignored my overtures while insisting on attacking and deleting information simply because you do not like it.

I made a mistake in calling the Alejandrina Cox incident the "Paulina Lyon incident" — my mistake. However, though you were kind enough to correct the name slip up, I noticed that you changed absolutely nothing in the meat of the article, aside from putting the exact date of the incident and including some photographs. Yet you insist on calling the incident a POV account.

Maybe a "POV account" is what you call truths you don't like. Maybe a "vandal" is what you call people who make sound inferences and deductions from undisputed facts, conclusions you don't happen to agree with but do not have the facts to dispute.

Maybe you have a lot more in common with Pinochet than you care to admit.

--MILH 03:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Alejandrina Cox article, you were asked to provide evidence to back up your claims. Since you never took the time to do this simple task, I decided to google-up a little and came up with some references. Now I'm carefully crafting a new version based on the cited references to attempt an accurate version of the article. The current state of the article is unacceptable, that's why I flagged it as POV, while I finish the new version. I hope you don't remove the flag again. ☆ CieloEstrellado 04:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to know exactly why are you so afraid that people will know that Bachelet can read Cyrillic and speak a little Russian?--MILH 13:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

If you can't provide a source for it then it shouldn't be in the article. And yes, revert wars are looked down upon at Wikipedia. All you have to do to resolve this matter is add a source, I do not see why this is so difficult.--Jersey Devil 00:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Westland Middle School

As I understand it, Westland Middle School was formed by combining two previous schools - Western and Leland. Which one did Ms. Bachelet attend? john k 13:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Bachelet

I have plans to visit Chile for awhile, but political stability has been a concern to American tourists. A country with a president holds no grudges to the U.S. like Bachelet, may mean the country is safe. From what I know on Chileans' strong historic ties with France, included a small influx of French settlers, herders, vintners and businessmen to Central Chile since the late 19th century.

Bachelet definitely is a common surname in Northeast France and I went to France twice, where's my father is from. One of my great-grand parents carried the surname, but live in the Nord pas du Calais region close to Belgium.

Then back to the subject, it's great for Chile to select a moderate socialist as the president. Latin America is turning to the left, some like Hugo Chavez are quite extreme and hostile to America.

Bachelet admires America in most aspects, despite the U.S. involvement in the Pinochet regime in the 1970s. It's evident in the article Bachelet was a leftist, lived in East Germany when communist, and was an admirer of leader Erich Honecker. But the Honeckers were corrupt and incompetent, then I don't blame Bachelet and how she denounced Communism.

Bachelet by close associates regard her a forgiving and friendly person, a loving mother and represents a comparably successful country for South America. I'm glad to know the government is working harder to ease the poverty gap, one of the world's widest and Chile can achieve Bachelet's socialist dream of a common middle class. I wonder geneaology can find a link between my Dad's family and hers' on the Bachelet surname. + 207.200.116.197 02:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for some of my edits, since they strayed from the subject. The article's genealogical information helped to solve my personal mystery...and cannot claim Ms. Bachelet as one of my own. Now I'm embarassed, and there's little to back my claims on her involvement in the East German communist party either. She's not a communist for one thing, then her biographers said the involvement in leftist organizations are evident of her leanings. Oh well, time to run. + 207.200.116.197 02:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

"Unencyclopedic"

Jersey Devil: Can you define for me how you are using this term so that I can understand where you are coming from, or point me to a definition? --DavidShankBone 14:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's examine edits (unsourced, maybe POV)

Continuing the coalition's free-trade strategy, in August 2006 Bachelet signed a free trade agreement with the People's Republic of China, the first Chinese free-trade agreement with a Latin American nation. In October 2006, Bachelet signed a multilateral trade deal with New Zealand, Singapore and Brunei—the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership (P4) in Vietnam, where Bachelet had first met US president George W. Bush and US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice.

Bachelet was also in advanced free-trade talks with several other countries, including Japan and Australia. Regionally, she signed bilateral free trade agreements with Panama, Peru and Colombia. In January 2007, Bachelet attended two summits, one she represented Chile in the Mercosur free trade agreement meeting in Ecuador, and she attended the annual World Economic Forum summit in Davos, Switzerland, among over 100 world leaders to dicuss global free trade issues.

Bachelet's first year as president has earned her global attention on the rising number (and acceptance) of women leaders. In a politically turbulent atmosphere of South America, Bachelet tries to compromise Chile's historic diplomatic ties with France, and improved relations with the United States under George W. Bush. The Bush administration and French president Jacques Chirac were split over disagreements with the War in Iraq since 2003, both are conservatives but shared Bachelet's moderate stance on business regulations and pro-free trade policies. Bachelet's view on the war on terror is more akin to that of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, an ally to the US but the UK grew increasingly anti-war.

In December 2006, former Chilean general president Augusto Pinochet dies and the country was divided by pro-Pinochet admirers on "his heroic crusade against communism" versus those, like Bachelet, are victims of his repressive rule. Bachelet managed to keep calm after Pinochet's official funeral and the country was rife in angry demonstrations against the legacy left by the Pinochet regime. Since Bachelet is the president, she also heads the Chilean armed forces, in compliance to take her orders onto handlement of anti-Pinochet demonstrations when the funeral took place. She works on the goverment's continuous drive to bring foreclosure to tens of thousands of human rights violations under the Pinochet regime.

Bachelet finds herself caught in a growing rivalry between center-left and far-left Latin American leaders, such as Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Nicaragua's president-elect Daniel Ortega. The US asked Bachelet to act as an "intermediary" between Bush and Chavez, but she declined for her reasons she cannot handle any negotiation. Bachelet had more positive relations with Bolivia president Evo Morales, also a far-leftist but Morales never reached the point of Chavez, and souring relations with the US. Bachelet continues focus on achieving a balance between socialist and capitalist policies to keep Chile's economy in a good position.

AN anon IP (it wasn't me) placed false statements on Bachelet's sexual life. I decided to remove them, unsourced and libellious. I don't think it's a serious issue on Bachelet was a single mother, or her premarital relations or if any proof she's a bisexual (do not post or enter edits without further examination or checking the sources, but such claims can be lies or myths). A woman able to think for herself and performed her duties as a president of any nation, isn't "masculine" or a "lesbian". Those claims are in part, deragatory stereotypes directed against women like Michele Bachelet. 63.3.14.1 20:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The worst goverment in chilean history?

Many economists and political analists have come to question the mental capacity of Bachelet, maybe it should be included in the article. [10]

Hi,

i'm assuming this is the same article in English: [11]

Please correct me if I am mistaken.

Also, when you write "...Many economists and political analists have come to question the mental capacity of Bachelet" just what exactly do you mean? I don't really see that in this particular article .

--Sugarxbones 13:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is the same article, I think it should be included to ilustrate the critics for incompetence that Bachelets goverment has received not only from the chilean opposition but from experts around the world. Agrofelipe.

hey

I think that in the sense of serving the peoples needs this is the worse administration ever, until now, all she has done is create social programs that don't help not one, except for all the foreing investors, whos pockets are full of gains. Todays Chilean minimun wage is 145000 pesos, and mainly all the real jobs are in the central part of the country where the rent of a 2 bedroom place ranges between 100000 to 130000 pesos, without the utilities. In the other hand she has been receiving Palestinian refugees, whos are getting everything from the gouverment from housing to money and medical insuranse, somenthing that the regular Chilean people don't get from their own gouverment. That is sick. She may be Chilean but she is not working for their well being, at least not for "THE PEOPLE".--Auslander71 (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

University comments

Because the two paranthesized comments cancel each other out (and on a more minor note are not cited, but given the minorness of their claims that's not a terribly big deal), I'm deleting both of them.

In February 1979 Bachelet returned to Santiago, Chile from East Germany. Her medical school coursework from the GDR was not recognized at the University of Chile (under the control of the military at the time of her return), forcing her to resume her studies from where she had left off before fleeing the country. (Lack of reciprocity between medical schools in different countries is common, even when the school is not under military control.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Michelle Bachelet signature.png

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 11:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit controversy

My reasons why I reverted your edits to the Michelle Bachelet article.

You added:

and kidnapped Cristian Edwards, the scion of a wealthy family that was kept in captivity for some months before being released upon payment of a millionaire ransom.

I don't think a second example of the activities carried out by the FPMR is necessary. I don't think it adds anything to the article. Trying to assassinate Pinochet is big enough to characterize the group, their motives and what they were capable of.

You added:

There were several reports of her involvement in the kidnapping and attempted murder but nothing has ever been proven.

Can you please provide a source for that statement? I heard rumors too, during the campaign, but nothing more than rumors from extreme supporters of the dictatorship and nothing factual coming from a journalist. It would be irresponsible and POV to keep this if you can't provide a source and prove it was really relevant during the campaign.

You removed:

(she had reduced waiting lists by 90%)

I don't understand why you removed this bit. Without it it looks as though it was fair that she resigned, even though she had almost solved the problem. We cannot omit this information. It's a necessary context, because people thought that it was unfair that she resigned having almost solved the problem. This is one the reasons she became popular. It's too important to keep it.

You added:

she allowed for the free distribution of the morning-after pill for girls over 16 without their parent's consent, but public outcry forced the government to revert the measure.

In the source I consulted ([12]) it says she allowed it for vicitims of sexual abuse and doesn't mention anything about girls over 16. But if you can provide a source I will agree to keep it.

☆ CieloEstrellado 02:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine. I will explain myself since you have taken the time to write to me. Let's go point by point:

a)You added and kidnapped Cristian Edwards, the scion of a wealthy family that was kept in captivity for some months before being released upon payment of a millionaire ransom. I don't think a second example of the activities carried out by the FPMR is necessary. I don't think it adds anything to the article. Trying to assassinate Pinochet is big enough to characterize the group, their motives and what they were capable of.

Both examples are relevant. One represents a failure of the MIR (trying to assassinate Pinochet) and the other represents a success (the Edwards' kidnapping). It is a way to balance the actions of this terrorist organization.

b)You added There were several reports of her involvement in the kidnapping and attempted murder but nothing has ever been proven. Can you please provide a source for that statement? I heard rumors too, during the campaign, but nothing more than rumors from extreme supporters of the dictatorship and nothing factual coming from a journalist. It would be irresponsible and POV to keep this if you can't provide a source and prove it was really relevant during the campaign.

As indicated by my edit, I am pointing out the rumors that were banded during the time (and not only by supporters of the dictatorship as you say). There were several investigation leads pointing out to the fact that she was the "female doctor" that provided medical checks to Edwards while he was being held captive. Since Edwards couldn't identify this doctor because he was blindfolded while in her presence, and since all the participants had escaped from prison and were on the lam, nothing could be proven, but the facts are there. That is why is included in the edit as "reports" and not as "facts".

c)You removed (she had reduced waiting lists by 90%) I don't understand why you removed this bit. Without it it looks as though it was fair that she resigned, even though she had almost solved the problem. We cannot omit this information. It's a necessary context, because people thought that it was unfair that she resigned having almost solved the problem. This is one the reasons she became popular. It's too important to keep it.

I removed this bit simply because it is not true. Nothing else. No bias or anything. The best proof of her incompetence is that she was shortly afterwards moved to the ministry of defense (a highly visible position in Chile but one without any real power), and was replaced by person better versed on medical matters, who a year into the position apologized publicly for the worsening conditions of the public waiting lists in the health system. Her popularity has nothing to do with results as much as with personal charm.

d)You added she allowed for the free distribution of the morning-after pill for girls over 16 without their parent's consent, but public outcry forced the government to revert the measure. In the source I consulted ([13]) it says she allowed it for vicitims of sexual abuse and doesn't mention anything about girls over 16. But if you can provide a source I will agree to keep it.

Since you seem to have a problem believing the open media in Chile (I don't blame you for that, it's pretty bad and POV), try reading a source sympathetic to her, such a La Nacion newspaper archive files. There look for the articles about the fact published at the time. I will be a real eye opener for you. I would do it but for the fact that I really don't have the time to search for it... so I'm relying on the fact that I was in situ at the time and my memory still holds true.

--Mel Romero (talk) 02:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

a) Both examples are relevant. One represents a failure of the MIR (trying to assassinate Pinochet) and the other represents a success (the Edwards' kidnapping). It is a way to balance the actions of this terrorist organization.

MIR? It was the FPMR. Anyway, I still don't think it's relevant to the article to point out the "successes" of the group. It's only relevant to mention this if you later add the "female doctor" bit, which you haven't sourced.

b) As indicated by my edit, I am pointing out the rumors that were banded during the time (and not only by supporters of the dictatorship as you say). There were several investigation leads pointing out to the fact that she was the "female doctor" that provided medical checks to Edwards while he was being held captive. Since Edwards couldn't identify this doctor because he was blindfolded while in her presence, and since all the participants had escaped from prison and were on the lam, nothing could be proven, but the facts are there. That is why is included in the edit as "reports" and not as "facts".

Sources, please. I will not do the job for you.

c) I removed this bit simply because it is not true. Nothing else. No bias or anything. The best proof of her incompetence is that she was shortly afterwards moved to the ministry of defense (a highly visible position in Chile but one without any real power), and was replaced by person better versed on medical matters, who a year into the position apologized publicly for the worsening conditions of the public waiting lists in the health system.

I can see you don't like her, but this is an encyclopedia, and we need to cite whatever we might include. Whether she was moved to the Defense ministry for her incompetence in Health or because Lagos wanted to up her visibility, is something that needs to be cited. And I don't remember Artaza publicly apologizing for that, so you need to provide a source.

Her popularity has nothing to do with results as much as with personal charm.

Can you provide a source for that, because, honestly, I'm not interested in your personal opinion of her.

d) Since you seem to have a problem believing the open media in Chile (I don't blame you for that, it's pretty bad and POV)

I don't know what led you to believe that.

try reading a source sympathetic to her, such a La Nacion newspaper archive files. There look for the articles about the fact published at the time. I will be a real eye opener for you. I would do it but for the fact that I really don't have the time to search for it... so I'm relying on the fact that I was in situ at the time and my memory still holds true.

You need to provide the sources yourself. I'm not doing the job for you.

☆ CieloEstrellado 03:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine. I agree with you that the comments (even when marked as comments) may be open to mis-interpretation unless backed by solid bits. Nonetheless, since I really don't have the time for searching for the sources, I will play along with you. Hence I will remove ALL unsourced POV statements, and reduce the biography only to those sourced bits. I think that will be more correct and in line with Wikipedia's objectives. Cheers! --Mel Romero (talk) 03:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Please, take a look at WP:POINT. Anyway, everything you removed is sourced. Maybe I didn't put the ref tag after every single sentence, but the source is mentioned at the end of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CieloEstrellado (talk • contribs) 09:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing that I did remove is sourced. And most of what I did remove is just qualifiers, POVs (a great job?, an obstructionist right-wing opposition?) or just plain false information. As you indicated in your previous comments, if you want to add something, just sourced it: "You need to provide the sources yourself. I'm not doing the job for you." If not it will be removed. Rules are the same for everybody, not just for the comments you seem to agree with. Cheers! --Mel Romero (talk) 09:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

a. Her ancestry is sourced here, so can you explain why you are removing it? Perhaps you don't find the detail necessary? I think it serves the article quite well.

b. You removed (she had reduced waiting lists by 90%), which is sourced here. I've already explained why I think it is necessary to keep it.

c. You added with the promise to resign if not able to meet the target. I cannot find a reputable source indicating that she made that promise or that Lagos threatened her with that option. Was this an implicit threat or a explicit one, from Lagos, I mean?

d. You deleted for vicitims of sexual abuse. This is sourced here.

e. You added only. That is POV. 46% is way above what the other candidates obtained. It wasn't enough for an outright win, but that doesn't qualify an only tag. In countries like Argentina, 45% is enough to win a first round election. So, it isn't a small percentage.

f. You removed and the first woman who was not the wife of a previous head of state or political leader to reach the presidency of a Latin American nation in a direct election. This is sourced at List of elected or appointed female heads of state and in every Wikipedia entry of the females referenced. Perhaps you need a direct citation? I could do that.

g. You changed dictator to president. Nobody in the English world calls Pinochet a president. Only pinochetistas like yourself do.

h. You removed (fueled by an extensive and critical media coverage and an aggressive right-wing opposition) and obstructionist. I'll find sources for that.

i. You added <center> tags to the cabinet listing. I think that looks bad.

By the way, here's Artaza saying wonders about Bachelet as Health Minister.

Cheers. ☆ CieloEstrellado 12:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I can see you've been a busy bee during my absence. Good for you, but it still cuts no ice. Unless you stop adding POVs, qualifiers, unsourced statements and the like, I'm terribly sorry but I will have to keep on removing them. Also, a quick check on the history of this page under discussion and on your own talk page shows that it's not only me who doesn't agree with your style of editing, but seems to be a constant. I'm surprised there are so many "Pinochetists" out there... or is that just the epithet you apply to anybody who does not agree with you? More to the point

a.Her ancestry is sourced here, so can you explain why you are removing it? Perhaps you don't find the detail necessary? I think it serves the article quite well. This is not a genealogy page. We mention what her ancestry was (French and Greek, and even if it's not mentioned Spanish.) If you want to talk about her grandparents, then create a page ABOUT them. That information does not belong there nor is relevant unless you believe that there are good genes and bad genes (Hitler did believe that, by the way, so there's historical references for that theory.)

b.You removed (she had reduced waiting lists by 90%), which is sourced here. I've already explained why I think it is necessary to keep it. The page you mention as a source is not credible. In fact, I would be bold enough to call their assertions outright disinformation (i.e. lies). If you want a real source, why don't you try the Chilean Ministry of Health's official statistics? Though, being such a cynical person as I am I wouldn't trust them very much either.

c.You added with the promise to resign if not able to meet the target. I cannot find a reputable source indicating that she made that promise or that Lagos threatened her with that option. Was this an implicit threat or a explicit one, from Lagos, I mean? Are you sure you live or were living in Chile at the time? It was an electoral promise. Lagos repeated it at his first press conference, and kept on talking about it for the first 3 months. Of course nobody was surprised that he didn't solve the problem or fire the minister, but hey, that's what electoral promises always amount to...

d.You deleted for vicitims of sexual abuse. This is sourced here. Ok. Point taken. The policy did say for victims of sexual abuse. I am not arguing that. The problem with the policy was that anyone over the age of 14 could get the pill by claiming sexual abuse EVEN if there was no proof of said abuse AND the policy also stated that there was no need to seek parental consent or even notify the parents or police that such abuse was claimed. In other words, the "victimization" excuse could be used to cover any sexual encounter (even if freely entered into) and by-pass parental control. That is what caused such tremendous ruckus.

e.You added only. That is POV. 46% is way above what the other candidates obtained. It wasn't enough for an outright win, but that doesn't qualify an only tag. In countries like Argentina, 45% is enough to win a first round election. So, it isn't a small percentage. First, read the Argentine rules (the difference with the second place when less than 45% must be of over 10 percent points), so if the same difference had happened in Argentina as it happened in Chile between Bachelet and Piñera, a second round would have occurred nonetheless. Second, the "only" is pertinent, since she obtained the least amount of votes in a first round of any Concertacion Presidential Candidate. As with any adjective, it's only referential and not absolute. If you want to take it out, be my guest.

f.You removed and the first woman who was not the wife of a previous head of state or political leader to reach the presidency of a Latin American nation in a direct election. This is sourced at List of elected or appointed female heads of state and in every Wikipedia entry of the females referenced. Perhaps you need a direct citation? I could do that. Again, this is a tepid reference. Maybe Isabel de Peron wasn't elected because of herself but because of her husband, but Lidia Gueiler was (even if she was only interim). Panama and Nicaragua also had had women presidents. So, what? Bachelet's also the first woman who is a natural blonde to reach the presidency of a Latin American nation in a direct election. Does that qualify a mention?

g.You changed dictator to president. Nobody in the English world calls Pinochet a president. Only pinochetistas like yourself do. Aha... this is where you show your true colors. So, anybody who doesn't agree with your POVs is the enemy? Too bad, because no matter what YOU think, I will continue cleaning up your slants. People who bandy around pointless and rude terms like you are the ones that give editing a bad name.

h.You removed (fueled by an extensive and critical media coverage and an aggressive right-wing opposition) and obstructionist. I'll find sources for that. You will find sources for those "adjectives"? Of course you can find lots of sources for them, but that doesn't make them true or allowed here. Read the policy at WP:POINT.

i.You added <center> tags to the cabinet listing. I think that looks bad. Fair enough, but since I am the one taking the time and trouble to slowly work my way through all the lists of ministers in Chile, adding the occasional biography of the unknown politician, I guess I'm allowed to implement whatever look I feel it pleases me.

By the way, here's Artaza saying wonders about Bachelet as Health Minister. Sure, and I'm sure you can also find a quote from the Zaldivar brothers before they were sacked. It all depends on the opportunity when they were made and the ambitions of the speaker. That doesn't make them objective. Cheers. --Mel Romero (talk) 00:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure if this is really productive, as you seem to rely too much on personal attacking to make your arguments. Check out WP:NPA. But I will respond to some of your comments.

a. This is not a genealogy page. We mention what her ancestry was (French and Greek, and even if it's not mentioned Spanish.) If you want to talk about her grandparents, then create a page ABOUT them. That information does not belong there nor is relevant unless you believe that there are good genes and bad genes (Hitler did believe that, by the way, so there's historical references for that theory.)

This isn't about genes, it's about background, and those are the relatives that the sources consulted considered more relevant.

b. The page you mention as a source is not credible. In fact, I would be bold enough to call their assertions outright disinformation (i.e. lies). If you want a real source, why don't you try the Chilean Ministry of Health's official statistics? Though, being such a cynical person as I am I wouldn't trust them very much either.

Why don't YOU provide some sources once and for all?

c. Are you sure you live or were living in Chile at the time? It was an electoral promise. Lagos repeated it at his first press conference, and kept on talking about it for the first 3 months. Of course nobody was surprised that he didn't solve the problem or fire the minister, but hey, that's what electoral promises always amount to...

You are still unable to provide sources to back your statements.

d. Ok. Point taken. The policy did say for victims of sexual abuse. I am not arguing that. The problem with the policy was that anyone over the age of 14 could get the pill by claiming sexual abuse EVEN if there was no proof of said abuse AND the policy also stated that there was no need to seek parental consent or even notify the parents or police that such abuse was claimed. In other words, the "victimization" excuse could be used to cover any sexual encounter (even if freely entered into) and by-pass parental control. That is what caused such tremendous ruckus.

So? What's your point exactly? We cannot question a policy by ourselves. We can say it was questioned by such and such, but you haven't provides sources.

e. First, read the Argentine rules (the difference with the second place when less than 45% must be of over 10 percent points), so if the same difference had happened in Argentina as it happened in Chile between Bachelet and Piñera, a second round would have occurred nonetheless. Second, the "only" is pertinent, since she obtained the least amount of votes in a first round of any Concertacion Presidential Candidate. As with any adjective, it's only referential and not absolute. If you want to take it out, be my guest.

The difference between Bachelet and Piñera was over 20% in the first round! Bachelet got 45.96% and Piñera 25.41%. In Argentina Bachelet would have been instantly elected president.

f. Again, this is a tepid reference. Maybe Isabel de Peron wasn't elected because of herself but because of her husband, but Lidia Gueiler was (even if she was only interim). Panama and Nicaragua also had had women presidents. So, what? Bachelet's also the first woman who is a natural blonde to reach the presidency of a Latin American nation in a direct election. Does that qualify a mention?

Britannica even mentions it on its opening paragraph! She was the first woman president of Chile and the first popularly elected South American woman president whose political career was established independent of her husband.[14]

g. Aha... this is where you show your true colors. So, anybody who doesn't agree with your POVs is the enemy? Too bad, because no matter what YOU think, I will continue cleaning up your slants. People who bandy around pointless and rude terms like you are the ones that give editing a bad name.

I'm really sorry for you, but that's what the overwhelming majority in the English world calls him.

i. Fair enough, but since I am the one taking the time and trouble to slowly work my way through all the lists of ministers in Chile, adding the occasional biography of the unknown politician, I guess I'm allowed to implement whatever look I feel it pleases me.

And I'm equally allowed to not like it.

Cheers! ☆ CieloEstrellado 06:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Channel that anger

Look, if you dislike Ms. Bachelet so much, then why don't you channel that anger by writing a well sourced Criticism section instead of peppering the whole article with negative and unsourced remarks? Remember that you must abide to WP:LIVING, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Good luck! ☆ CieloEstrellado 05:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

peppering the whole article with negative and unsourced remarks? I have not added a single iota to the article. I have just taken out POVs, qualifiers and unsourced statements. If you think that cleaning an article shows anger, then you shouldn't try your hand at editing. Also, I will stop answering your remarks, I can see that is a waste of time trying to explain something to somebody who just doesn't want to hear. And by the way, you cannot prove a point by adding spurious references, like the ones you added to try to bolster the obstructionist opposition bit. The article is about facts, not POVs, even if said POVs are the personal opinions of whomever is described in the article. Cheers. --Mel Romero (talk) 06:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I have not added a single iota to the article.

That is false, as you can see by reading my first message under the "Edit controversy" discussion above.

The article is about facts, not POVs, even if said POVs are the personal opinions of whomever is described in the article.

You're wrong. This is possible to do if you give proper attribution within the article's text. Check out WP:NPOV#Attributing and substantiating biased statements. ☆ CieloEstrellado 09:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Instead of wasting everyone's time (including your own) by trying to substantiate biased POVs, why don't you just spend the same time and effort cleaning and tightening the text and adding real, meaningful sources? --Mel Romero (talk) 10:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see the same from you. You've been spending plenty of your time in this article basically taking out sourced text and replacing with unsourced text. Why don't you use some of that effort in actually finding sources to substantiate your changes? I have not seen this from you. ☆ CieloEstrellado 10:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Lesbian

Michelle is gay, isn't it? --Chilevivito 03:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No.

Negotiation

Mel Romero, you say that in this article there are POV statements, qualifiers and unsourced statements. Looking at the diffs I see that you have removed many things from the article. Can you specify which parts that you removed were POV statements, which parts were qualifiers and which parts were unsourced statements so we can start to negociate a solution? You can quote the removed text below, if you wish, to facilitate discussion. Thanks. ☆ CieloEstrellado 10:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Necessary changes:

• birth_place= Santiago, Chile - we should remove redundant flag icon per WP:MOSFLAG
  • OK, though I never added this in. ☆ CieloEstrellado 04:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• which sets her apart in a predominantly conservative and Catholic country. - Not sourced, and to express a personal POV, totally untrue. In Chile, according to official statistics from the Chilean Civil Registry, 45% of all births happen to unwed mothers. So, what sets her apart then?
  • OK, it's kind of an editorialized comment. Agree. ☆ CieloEstrellado 04:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• served as Health Minister and Defense Minister - this is a redundancy, should be ...served as Health and Defense Minister...
  • I disagree here, as it could be taken that she headed the Ministry of Health and Defense, as strange as that might be. ☆ CieloEstrellado 04:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• Her paternal great-great-grandfather, Joseph Bachelet Lapierre, was a French wine merchant from Chassagne-Montrachet who emigrated to Chile with his Parisian wife in 1860 hired as a wine-making expert by the Subercaseaux vineyards. Bachelet Lapierre's son, Germán—Michelle Bachelet's great-grandfather—, was born in Chile and married to a French-Swiss woman. Of Greek ancestors, her maternal grandfather, Máximo Jeria Chacón, was the first person to receive a degree in agronomic engineering in Chile and founded several agronomy schools in the country. - totally irrelevant to THIS biography. Should be removed by WP:BLPSTYLE
  • I don't believe this is irrelevant. It could be cut down, but not completely removed. Besides, it doesn't violate the policy you referenced. ☆ CieloEstrellado 04:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• She graduated as an M.D. in 1982 as one of the best students in her class. - Sources? One of the best? goes against WP:ASF
  • Agreed. Don't know where that came from. ☆ CieloEstrellado 04:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• and the first woman who was not the wife of a previous head of state or political leader to reach the presidency of a Latin American nation in a direct election - should be removed by WP:BLPSTYLE. She is not the first woman elected in Latin America (or South America either), Isabel Perón and Lidia Gueiler were before, even if not directly. Chamorro and Moscoso were directly elected, even as if alleged "riding the coat-tails" of their respective husbands (I don't agree with that... found it demeaning to those presidents the consideration that they couldn't have been elected on their own right.) If so, Bachelet rode on the coat-tails of his father, so the case would be similar. The article should indicate ONLY that she is the first female president of Chile.
  • Disagree. I believe this is vital information. Besides, Bachelet's father had nothing to do with her becoming president. You should be able to make that distinction. She was Lagos's protégé all the way. ☆ CieloEstrellado 04:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• Electoral Qualifier Tribunal - the translation is incorrect. "Qualifier" in English is another word to describe an adjective, and to boot, it indicates a passive action never an active one, so it never can be the equivalent of "Calificador". Electoral Tribunal should suffice as translation.
  • Agree. ☆ CieloEstrellado 04:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• the death of former dictator Augusto Pinochet - like it or not, Pinochet was a President. The issue has been argued ad nauseam in the Pinochet talk page and the NPOV term to use is president.
  • I believe it is important to mention here he was a dictator (like it or not, that's what he was, objectively), but I'm going to make a big compromise here and let you have your way. Let's replace "former dictator" with "general." OK? ☆ CieloEstrellado 04:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• forcing her to negotiate with a right-wing opposition she sees as being obstructionist. - totally POV, and against WP:SELFPUB. You cannot use the subject's opinions as sources. Just remove the "obstructionist" qualifier and the spurious sources.
  • We are not using the subject's opinion as an objective source; it is clear it is the subject's OPINION, therefore it is subjective. We are allowed to do this, as I mentioned in my posts above. ☆ CieloEstrellado 04:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

If I may put my 2 cents in, I agree with all of the above changes. GringoInChile (talk) 10:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Controversial items:

• On March 11 2000 Bachelet —a virtual unknown at the time— was appointed Minister of Health by President Ricardo Lagos. She began with an in-depth reform of the public healthcare system that led to the AUGE plan a few years later. She was also given the task of eliminating waiting lists in the saturated public hospital system within the first 100 days of Lagos's government. Unable to meet this goal (she had reduced waiting lists by 90%), she offered her resignation, which was promptly rejected by the President. More controversially, she allowed for the free distribution of the morning-after pill for vicitims of sexual abuse. - a) She didn't began the reform of the health service, she just organized the study groups that eventually formulated the proposal, long after she was gone. b) the 90% is totally false, should be removed. c) she didn't offer her resignation. The resignation had been a requested long BEFORE, when Lagos said that the obligation of the minister of health was to solve the problem in 100 days or resign. d) the "sexual abuse" clause was just an attempt to by-pass the constitutional ban on abortions and parental controls.
  • You don't provide sources to substantiate your counter-arguments, so the text stays. ☆ CieloEstrellado 04:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• Her participation in terrorist groups - nothing has been proven as to her direct involvement in violent acts, but just last weekend there was a long article in "La Tercera" newspaper about her participation in the resistance to Pinochet in 1973-1974 years. There's a lot that should be mentioned and it isn't.

There is more, but I really don't have the time to do more or even attempt to source all. I think those changes should be enough to make the page more readable. --Mel Romero (talk) 08:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and, Merry Christmas! ☆ CieloEstrellado 04:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas! Thanks for the good wishes.... and by the way, if you've been following all the articles in "La Tercera", "La Segunda" and "La Nacion" of the last 4 weekends, you'll find all the sources you need to convince yourself that the changes are necessary. Cheers! Mel Romero (talk) 02:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Links? ☆ CieloEstrellado 05:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no time for looking up the links for you. Since I have excluded all of the "controversial" items in the text, I assure you I don't need to source them, though if I ever get the time, I will. Also, please, stop trying to include unnecessary adjectives, and if you do, source them (i.e. finishing near the top of her class? after obtaining one of the highest national scores in the university admission test?). One last observation, please, try and use standard english in your text (i.e. run-off vs runoff that you insist on using... I know... both are correct, but one is recommended over the other as more grammatically acceptable... ) Thanks and Happy NY... Mel Romero (talk) 05:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, one more observation. In English, there are no diacritical marks added to the words. Now if you insist on using them (I myself like them very much), you should then follow the grammatical rules laid down by the Real Academia de la Lengua, which states very clearly that diacritical marks are never used in upper case letters, specially when those letters are at the beginning of a word (i.e. Angela or Alex instead of Ángela or Álex). Cheers! Mel Romero (talk) 05:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong again, as usual. Happy NY! ☆ CieloEstrellado 07:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

And so am I... darn!! hahaha. Cheers! Mel Romero (talk) 11:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Making compromises, understanding Wikipedia

I'm the only one here making compromises, Mel, looking over your edits and incorporating —and even finding sources for— what I think are valuable contributions from you. But you, you only revert to your last version, removing sourced material you consider POV, while adding material yourself without any kind of reference. This is completely reprehensible behavior on your side. I invite you to follow the rules of the game and show more civility in the future. It's never too late for a change! ☆ CieloEstrellado 07:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Only one? Mmmmm if I hadn't read over the comments left by other Wikipedians on your personal TALK page, I would be almost moved by your comment. Anyway, the point is not to compromise, but to seek the truth - a balanced truth - in the article. As for removing sourced material that I consider POV, yes I am removing sourced material that IS POV, as the guidelines clearly allow. If I don't have the right source for a material, even when I remember where it was published or when, I have avoided including it. But you cannot expect that I extend you the courtesy of overlooking clearly wrong or POV material just to be polite. This is not an exercise in politeness, good manners, and graciousness but rather a matter of seeking the truth. By the way, I completely agree with your last commentary (i.e. It's never too late for a change!)... maybe you also should reflect upon it... Cheers and season's greetings! Mel Romero (talk) 11:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)