Talk:Augusto Pinochet/Archive 4

I don't agree with the anon user's change to say that U.S. opposition to Allende was "[i]n accordance with its Cold War policy of opposing Communist expansion." The U.S. defense of its action to oust Allende is too peripheral to the Pinochet article to be included in the intro. On the other hand, the facts about what the U.S. did and did not do to bring Pinochet to power are relevant. I've restored the Kissinger statement that the U.S. "created the conditions" for Pinochet's ascension. JamesMLane 00:16, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Just a question. Is there any chance of this sandbox becoming the introduction? I have several edits I'd do, but haven't because I'm afraid it will just simply be reverted on sight by 172 if it ever is put on the real article, triggering and edit war that will be finished protecting the page...and so ad infinitum --AstroNomer 05:25, May 31, 2004 (UTC)

It may be that 172 intends to troll this article indefinitely. But if people collaborate on the sandbox there'll be more inertia to finally get it installed once and for all. (Arbitration may or may not affect this.) What's been clear from the beginning is that several people object to the language 172 is pushing, and so it is unacceptable. V V 18:27, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Good question. My thought was that, if there seemed to be a fair amount of support for whatever emerges from this sandbox, it would then be one alternative in a new poll. Although I joined this discussion partway through, I don't think there's been a poll that asked people to express a preference between, on the one hand, saying "U.S.-backed" and then elaborating/qualifying in a footnote, and, on the other hand, replacing "U.S.-backed" with a summary of key facts in footnote-free text. If there are enough facts to make clear that the U.S. did indeed have substantially more involvement than it initially admitted, perhaps we could achieve consensus or a semblance thereof on that approach. Then again, perhaps not, but to travel hopefully is better than to arrive. :) JamesMLane 06:24, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Comments on VV's latest edits:
ECONOMICS. VeryVerily, you said that the summary "really [gave] one side only" on the economic issues. I don't see the basis for that criticism. The sentence you deleted gave both sides: "His supporters say that he rescued a faltering economy and produced a long period of economic growth (the 'Miracle of Chile'); opponents note that both unemployment and poverty rose dramatically during Pinochet's rule." While deleting that sentence, you restored elsewhere the "rescued a faltering economy," and also the hyperlink to the "Miracle of Chile." You left in the "great modernizer" from the preceding sentence. You deleted all the anti-Pinochet material, i.e., the unpleasant facts about unemployment and poverty. It seems to me that your version gives only one side. What was biased about the sentence you deleted? The hyperlink should certainly be included but, given its nonneutral title (as opposed to "Chilean economy under Pinochet" or some such), a reference to that article, without more, would not be NPOV. Including the phrases "great modernizer" and "faltering economy" tilts the scales even more.

A comment about economics. The numbers I've seen given to "prove" an increase in unemployement and poverty are not from the end of Pinochet's regime, but from the worst point (1983, i think) in an international crisis that had affected Chile specially badly, probably because of its recent liberalization and other economic policies. And also the numbers given for the "before", are not from the end of Allendes' government, but closer to the begining, before both his policies and external presures took their toll on Chilena economy. I'd say that the most fair way of characterizing the economy during Pinochet's rule is that had big fluctuations, following the international market in which Chile was inserted; that there was an overall improvement, but the distribution of income regressed greatly, with the most affluent sector being the most benefited with the economic improvements, but not the only ones...I won't put that, though, because it is only my impression, and don't have "hard numbers" on hand to back it. Now, the "Miracle of Chile" stuff I'd leave it out...I don't remember anybody in Chile using that phrase...there were highs and lows, hard work, concentration of economic power, some speculation, etc...no miracles...--AstroNomer

According to our article on the "Miracle of Chile," that phrase was actually used by Milton Friedman to describe some part of Pinochet's regime. I think the phrase has enough currency that we must report it, though it's obviously not NPOV. As to the details (unemployment, etc.), if some points aren't firmly established then we have to be clear that we're reporting a POV. Perhaps instead of "opponents note that both unemployment and poverty rose dramatically during Pinochet's rule," we should say "opponents contend that... (etc.)" It's certainly accurate to say that at least one opponent, Greg Palast, so contends -- see [1] (http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=16&row=2). JamesMLane 08:33, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

IMPORTANCE OF THE U.S. ROLE. Your comment is "don't want to suppose pinochet couldn't have done it on his own." I agree with that. On the other hand, we don't want to give the impression that the U.S. merely supported Pinochet's regime once he took over, and that nothing the U.S. did before the coup played any role in Pinochet's success. I tried to walk the line between these two extremes by saying that he "came to power with important help from the" U.S. Not "vital help" or "necessary help," and not saying, as I think some historians would, that the U.S. "installed" Pinochet in power or "orchestrated" the coup -- but also not saying or suggesting that he came to power with the completely passive approval of the U.S. In your version, there's discussion of Pinochet's regime (economics, dictatorship); then the sentence about the U.S. supporting him; then a sentence that begins, "Prior to the coup, the U.S. had...." That makes it seem as if the U.S. support for Pinochet was still with reference to his time in power, as distinct from what went on before the coup.
For these reasons, I don't think your latest edit is fair to the POV that the coup was a bad thing and that the U.S. (not just Kissinger) does indeed have "the blood of martyrs" on its hands. JamesMLane 05:24, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Coup in Chile

With all this emphasis on the coup the 1973 coup in Chile I thought it would help to make a separate article on it which consolidates everything we know about the coup. --Uncle Ed 15:36, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Look at Chilean coup of 1973.--Baloo rch 17:41, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Both links refer to the same article, which I largely wrote. --Uncle Ed 19:16, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

US backing for coup

First of all, I don't think the issue of whether (or how much) the US "backed" the Chilean coup of 1973 is of primary importance to the Augusto Pinochet article.

Secondly, if it's a point of dispute amoung us Wikipedians, then it will NEVER be possible to unlock the article -- not even if me and a couple of other guys agree to abandon the dispute. Because someone else will just come along and revive the dispute -- and I don't see any way to reconcile VV and 172, even if Eloquence and I (Uncle Ed) came to a rapprochement.

So maybe we should directly address the problem of US backing of the coup in the article itself. That is, mention in the article that various writers (other than Wikipedians) disagree over the extent of US support for the coup. For example,

E. Leet, the Nobel-prize winning chairman of the History Department at Columbia University, wrote that "It has always been clear to scholars that the coup of 1973 could never have taken place without US backing. The US-backed coup was the worst thing ever to happen to Chile, and the blood of martyrs is on Kissinger's hands."
I. M. Dumbjohn, professor of Hemispheric Studies at West Point Military Academy, wrote that "The CIA denied any involvement in the coup, and we can trust our own intelligence agencies always to tell the truth to the public, obviously." --Uncle Ed 19:33, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree with your first point, that it's not terribly important; that's why I've been against having half the intro be about the US, laying out specific evidence and the like. The allegation should be only briefly mentioned if at all, and the burgeoning section below left to burden the details (or forked to another article). I don't think the latter sarcasm is necessary; the recently classified document shows the CIA did not stage the coup (unless you believe Kissinger was lying, which Eloquence dismisses as highly unlikely for the other claim). V V 21:19, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I always thought it was a fact that the coup was backed by the USA but I have to admit that I didn't check the evidence. Andries 14:52, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think the problem most people have with "US-backed" is just that it has a broad range of meanings. The way in which the US supported the coup is quite complicated, and despite what some people have been saying the evidence is hardly crystal clear on exactly how they did it, even if you're willing to take Kissenger at his word. What's needed is an intro that explains the nature of US support in a little more detail, so that we can at least all agree that the intro is factually accurate, whatever its other merits.

A lot of people (myself included) were under the impression that it was an established fact that the US had supported/backed the coup. In fact, I still think it's an established fact, but we ought to be clear on exactly how the US supported/backed the coup, and not take sides on disputed issues. Cadr 15:04, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Edits to discussion of prosecution

Because this page is still protected, I can't make these changes to J.J.'s recent edit, so all I can do is suggest:
(1) "Since presidency ended there has been ongoing controversy, both within Chile and other countries, over attempts to persecute Pinochet for various alleged crimes committed during his rule." Insert "his" before "presidency"; change "persecute" to the NPOV "prosecute."
(2)"On May 28, 2004 the Chilean Court of Appeals voted 14 to 9 to revoke Pinochet's dementia status, and thus his immunity from prosecution. In arguing their case, the prosecution presented a recent television interview with Pinochet. The judges found the interview to be proof that the former President was both lucid and mentally competent." In the first sentence, the link to Court of Appeals is pretty much useless. I would write it as: "the Court of Appeals of Chile [or whatever its full formal name is] voted 14 to 9... (etc.)" to prepare for having an article on that particular court. In the second sentence, change "their" to "its". JamesMLane 20:08, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Unprotected

After mailing list discussion, I hope calm will prevail. Here is the most controversial part (disputed at least among Wikipedians):

He was one of the leaders of a United States-backed coup that deposed the socialist government of Salvador Allende in 1973. (bold word is disputed)

Why not mention in the article why various historians, politicians, etc. call the 1973 coup "US-backed"? And explain what they mean by this?

If an historian says that the coup would certainly have failed without US support, that sounds like an excellent reason for that historian to say that the US "backed" the coup, and it would make sense for him to refer to it as a "US-backed" coup. The overthrow of Saddam was undoubtedly "US-backed", although "US-led" is an even better term.

I will support any addition to the article in which the term "US-backed" is supported by either (1) a source who applies the term or (2) some reasoning mentioned in the article. For example:

Historian Felix Z. Gatto called the coup "US-backed" because the US supplied money, arms, intelligence, etc.; or,
US backing for the coup included supplies of X and promises of Y by Nixon and Kissinger; or even,
Despite official CIA denials of having "backed" the coup, historians generally consider US intervention as having been crucial to the coup's success.

In any case, I'd like to see a paragraph about the "backing" thing put into the article and remain STABLE for several days before somebody tackles the thorny task of editing the intro paragraph. I think we should omit any mention of things which we, the writers of this article, are disputing amongst ourselves, until we agree upon how the main body of the article should be written.

Well, see you all again Monday. Whatever you all decide, I won't be editing or toggling the "protection" switch again until then! --Uncle Ed 20:31, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Nice way of washing your hands, Ed. "I'm back on Monday" -- Whatever. --Cantus 21:39, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Edit

I made a minor edit to the article, just updating it with the newest news of Pinochet's trial. Nothing that should be controversial user:J.J.

Several changes to the introduction. In my opinion, the best way of describing his post is head of the military government. "Dictator" would please most, but is a term that will create disagrement. "de facto ruler" is partially correct, but for the period 1980-1990 does not apply, as he was named president by the constitution of 1980. Head of the military government is the best, because it was not the government of just pinochet, but the higher officers of all the armed forces were involved. In particular, for the period 1980-1990 the legislative power was made up by the heads of the other armed forces plus the second in command in the army.

Modifications to introduction

About the succesion. As I had mentioned before, the return to civilian rule established in the constitution was not contingent upon Pinochet's (or "the candidate's", as Pinochet is not named candidate for the 1988 in the constitution) defeat, but it would have happened anyway. Had Pinochet won, there would have been an election of Congress anyway in 1989, and the armed forces would not have had a part in that government. That's the reason of my reestructuring:contrary to myth, it was NOT Pinochet defeat that restored civilian rule, it was established by the constitution put in effect 8 years before. It is likely that, as long as Pinochet had continued being President the government would have been continued to be known to many as "Pinochet dictatorship", despite the presence of a Congress, but who knows, it is all speculation now...

I left commented the US-backed part that Ed commented, I won't get into that again.

Changed from "hundreds" to "thousands", as the Retig commission found close to 3,000 murdered and dissapeared. Also added resignation from Senate, did not, however, add the lastest prosecution.--04:47, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think you can "depose" a constitution. You can break it, declare it null and void, supersed it, and probably other things, but not depose it, as far as my understanding of the word depose goes.--AstroNomer 06:03, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

What about "put aside"? --Ruhrjung 06:30, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I'm busy reverting this guy as we speak. --Cantus 06:29, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Usually, in these coups, the military's top priority is to depose the elected leader. Later, they may announce that the constitution has been "temporarily suspended," keeping a fiction that the military acted in defense of the constitution. Other times they announce that the constitution has been "superseded." The important point is the overthrow of Allende. The reference to the constitution should be omitted from the intro; if someone digs out exactly what the junta said about the constitution after seizing power, that can be mentioned in the body of the article. JamesMLane 07:32, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Some resources

Four resources found by Fred Bauder 13:00, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
The Pinochet File: A Declassified Dossier on Atrocity and Accountability" by Peter Kornbluh (New Press) ISBN 1565845862
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/05/arts/05CHIL.html?th
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20031101fareviewessay82615/kenneth-maxwell/the-other-9-11-the-united-states-and-chile-1973.html?mode=print
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040101faresponse83116/william-d-rogers-kenneth-maxwell/fleeing-the-chilean-coup-the-debate-over-u-s-complicity.html

"US-backed coup" is a very shorthand and ambiguous way to describe a rather complex situation. Most actions were carried out by Chileans who while they may have been in close contact with the CIA did not have specific backing for the various actions that they took. The CIA according to their own rendition of events seems to have "waffled". Broadly backing a change of regime, but not taking decisive action either to effect that change or to effectively control events afterward. Fred Bauder 13:21, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

Plan to resolve duplication?

It is clear that we duplicate the story of US involvement in early 70s Chile too much. (Here, Allende's article, History of Chile, Chilean coup of 1973, U.S. intervention in Chile). It looks like that this duplication has arisen out of trying to solve inter-editor disputes rather trying to build the 'pedia (although it does that too to a large extent), so I don't want to go on merge-rampage and tread on any toes. But do we have a strategy for creating the definitive account? Or do I have it wrong, and we should be retelling the story on each page? Pcb21| Pete 12:50, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Took the words out of my mouth, Pete. After consolidating the 7 paragraphs of CIA role with the 3 paragraphs on the coup itself, I think it MIGHT help if we moved ALL TEN paragraphs from Augusto Pinochet to 1973 coup in Chile. This would not be to whitewash Pinochet, but just to facilitate editing the stuff about the coup, since that has been so controversial this spring. I'll wait for comments on this, though, so people don't get irritated at such a drastic change. --Uncle Ed 12:58, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I favor consolidating all detailed discussion in Chilean coup of 1973, with the other articles having wikilinks and summaries. In the Augusto Pinochet article, I believe that the U.S. role in the coup is a significant aspect of Pinochet's bio and should be mentioned in the intro, along with the other major Pinochet-related controversies (the Chilean economy and the attempts to prosecute him). JamesMLane 02:45, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

pov war

the deceptive, trolling, and vitriolic edit comments don't fool anyone. the coup was not a minor spat in isolation. User talk:Badanedwa 20:31, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)

Could you explain what in Earth are you talking about? --AstroNomer 03:08, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

lol --Cantus 03:17, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Introduction

Cantus wrote in an edit summary:

reinstating agreed intro

I for one did not agree on this. And I saw no other comment in recent days approving Cantus's version.

In particular, I object to labeling Allende as a "socialist" rather than a Marxist. If you click on the Salvador Allende article, it says clearly and prominently that he was a Marxist: "He was also an ardent Marxist and an outspoken critic of the capitalist system." [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Allende#Background)

The distinction between the general aims of socialism and the specific goals and methods of Marxism lies at the heart of the dispute. Allende's opponents saw him as abusing the democratic process to take Chile into a Communist dictatorship, which they feared would trample human rights as much as Castro had by then (and has since then!) -- as well as making the country as poor as Cuba.

Cantus, you have the right to make any change to the article you wish, the same right as anyone else. But please don't claim it was an "agreed upon" change. You simply reverted the intro to your own previous version. --Uncle Ed 12:52, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Because of the coup it is uncertain whether Allende would have, in practice, followed the Leninist pattern of establishing a totalitarian dictatorship. The term Marxist covers a wide spectrum of political beliefs ranging from democratic socialists to Pol Pot. Socialist is often used in bad faith as a euphemism, for example as it was in the East Germany article. So neither without more specificity is appropriate. I think the best solution is to go back into Allende's record (and of his political party) and quote their stated policy. Then express the fears of democratic and right wing Chileans as well as those of the United States. Defining Allende as a practioner of totalitarianism is not possible as he didn't get his chance. It remains theoretically possible that he would, in practice, continued to respect democratic institutions. Fred Bauder 14:17, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the illumination, Fred. If there's that much confusion over the basic terms, that may be one reason (among others) that there has been so much disputing among us contributors -- and not just on Pinochet vs. Allende but other related topics. In particular, I had thought that it was socialism rather than Marxism which had such a broad spectrum of definitions such as you expressed above (I thought "Marxism" was more specific, i.e., a subset of socialist approaches). --Uncle Ed 15:08, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Soviet Communism was Marxist-Lenninist, not Marxist. Saying that Allende was a Marxist should not imply that he was allied with the USSR. Cadr 23:04, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There are some hints in Allende's actions of totalitarian intent, for example, his friendship with Fidel Castro. It is hard to believe a person with a deep commitment to democracy would have had Castro by for a cordial visit. Fred Bauder 17:17, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

The Pope also had Castro by for a visit; apparently they smoked a cigar together during the latter's most recent visit to Rome. Is the Pope also totalitarian? Have you got any slightly more substantial evidence than this Fred? -- Viajero 19:46, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The question is, Why did the Chilean military and the CIA have the opinion that Allende was intending to make sure that the election where he was elected was to be the last election ever held in Chile. As for the Pope, he is unquestionably authoritarian, but without "legions" he can't really impose his rule. Fred Bauder 21:00, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

Re Castro: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." The U.S. had funded Allende's opponents, and even directly supported the attempt to kidnap General Schneider, in which Schneider was murdered, as part of the attempt to prevent Allende from taking office. Castro was the only Western Hemisphere leader standing up to the big bully that was targeting Allende. In Allende's position, regardless of how much sympathy you have for totalitarianism, you take your allies where you find them. As for Fred's question, I would by no means take it as given that the Chilean military or the CIA sincerely (as opposed to pretextually) held the belief that there would be no more free elections. Were there not strong opposition parties that continued to function openly during Allende's administration? Was there not a free press that vigorously criticized Allende? I don't see how a President who had neither military support nor overwhelming popular support could have posed a realistic threat to cancel further elections, even if he had wanted to, which there's no evidence he did. Oh, wait, I know, he was developing weapons of mass destruction.... JamesMLane 23:39, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Cantus & 172, would you mind if I added the following paragraph to the introduction of Augusto Pinochet? I'm thinking of putting it 3rd or 4th, i.e., just before the first heading. --Uncle Ed 17:00, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Pinochet remains a controversial figure. Some regard him as a great modernizer who rescued a faltering economy (the "Miracle of Chile") and saved Chile from communism, while others consider him a brutal military dictator responsible for severe human rights violations and social decay.

We could juice it up a bit by saying:

Pinochet remains a controversial figure. Some praise him as a great modernizer who rescued a faltering economy (the "Miracle of Chile") and saved Chile from communism, while others condemn him as a brutal military dictator responsible for severe human rights violations and social decay.

I think that would be quite unacceptable and highly POV in several ways: "saved from communism" is blatantly POV and speculative ; as opposed to "severe human rights violations" which are hard facts. To talk about "rescuing a faltering economy" when unemployment went up fivefold and wages declined by 40% under Pinochet is highly POV. The structure of the sentence suggests that the two statements have somehow the same validity, but the first one is extremely controversial, the second factual. pir 04:54, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Constitution

172 just erased all the reference to the constitution to go back to his prefered version, that gives the impression that Pinochet, as one contributor once wrote "made a plebiscite when he felt like it, and had to leave because he lost". The plebiscite was established 8 years before, in the constitution, an after being defeated, he did not "step down", that sounds as some kind of resignation, he simply passed power to his succesor after his mandate expired, as established in the constitution. Do you use the word "step down" to every constitutional transfer of power? Did Clinton "step down" to give the power to Bush? --AstroNomer 23:30, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

Furthermore, ~~this so called "historian"~~ he titles his removal of the constitutional basis of the plebiscite of 1988 with a comment "removing misleading overview of 1980 plebiscite" The 1980 plebiscite was not metioned at all!!!! The 1980 plebiscite aproved the 1980 constitution, but as there is mixed views as of its validity, I simply put "he's government enacted a constitution", what is accurate, wheter you think it was approved by the population or not. If he says the account was misleading, assuming he was actually referring to the 1988 plebiscite, it is because he ~~really doesn't have a clue of chilean history,~~ has not read the chilean constitution, and is simply repeating "common knowledge", ~~or he doesn know Chilean history but was he is intentinally distorting it.~~ --AstroNomer 23:39, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

~~I will ignore the personal attacks above.~~ Nothing in my revision was inaccurate. Moving on, if you wanted me to restore the reference to the constitution, you could've just asked. I did so anyway. 172 00:09, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I apologize for the tone of my previous message, but not for its content. I really hoped not to see the previous user again, and see that had returned to "his" favorite revision, without any regard for what had been edited or discussed, and no explanation whatsoever (except a few comments on the summary line), was more that I was prepared to accept with calm.--AstroNomer 00:23, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I can relate, as I also get frustrated when some users don't disappear, such as-- well maybe I shouldn't elaborate. Now, is May 28, 2004 the right date for the change I've added? I remember that it was the last Friday of last month, but I might be wrong. 172 00:30, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know whether the 1925 constitution contemplated this kind of agreement as the one taken by the congress immediately after the 1970 election. I believe It didn't in which case the congress exceeded its own attributions. Also I had the impression the political parties had an agreement in advance to the election on whoever had the majority would be the elected one. About the civil‘s rights they where indeed as far as I remembered broken. Some of which were: The right to have a company as owner, the right to have a large estate as owner, the right to determine the prices of good according to market (they were fixed by law. As a consequence of that it started a black market and the basic good became hard to obtain. What is a worst, pensions were taken by the Allende government to use them to fill their own needs. The economy was utterly destroyed considering the inflation of around 1000% a year. As an example a car had the same value of a house or a property because the risk of loosing it to the government expropriation. Finally Allende was not a socialist or not at least as we understand a socialist is in our days, it has to be considered more as a communist, because among other things he supported the armed fight to take and retain the power, if not as fact at least as a statement. He also supported the redistribution of the richness among the poor people, the abolition of private property in the case of the industries. Finally I think all this are facts and can be proved or documented with an appropriated research so please do the homework. About impartiality, remember Thucydides. User:FBlin Oct 12, 2004

deposed the first Socialist to be elected president

Not intending to upset User:172, I find his version to be more aimed at whitewashing what several high US representatives in retrospect have admitted to have been an error (was it Powel last time?) than to explain the important facts for a curious but uninformed reader.

I changed[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Augusto_Pinochet&diff=4033446&oldid=4033369) the wording of the intro from:

came to power in a United States-backed coup d'état that deposed Salvador Allende, the first Socialist to be elected president of Chile.

which gives the impression that the coup was chiefly a matter of person, when in reality it was a radical change of form of government. That's why I put in the abolishon of democracy before mentioning that Allende was deposed:

came to power in a United States-backed coup d'état that abolished Chile's democracy and deposed Salvador Allende, the first Socialist to be elected president of Chile, who died during the coup.

Any reader who enters this article may be curious about the background for the more recent events connected with Pinochet. That's is why I think it's important and necessary to here mention the human rights abuses he and his government have been accused of:

Pinochet's government quickly moved to suppress leftist opposition with human rights abuses that evoked worldwide concerns, including "disappearances" and torture of intellectuals and political dissidents.

/Tuomas 09:02, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The abolishing of democracy was not the main purpose of US influence. They would have been happy had their attempts to cause Congress to elect the runner-up in 1970 succeded. But in 1973, there was no easy way to depose the Marxist Allende and preserve democracy at the same time, so they didn't mind helping create the conditions for a coup (Note that I say "help create the conditions", I still do not think that that is 'backing up') that would, at the very least, suspend democracy.

For the record, I might add that I have no opinion on such matters as what phrases have what connotation in English. /Tuomas 15:50, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

About the human right abuses, I agree that 172 succintnes was too much in this matter.--AstroNomer 10:44, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps we should outline and summarize the views of people who opposed or supported the 1973 coup in Chile.

Political arguments:

It was intended to abolish democracy.
It had the effect of abolishing democracy.
Any overthrow of the winner of an election is by definition anti-democratic and therefore "bad".
- ...but there is a difference between enforcing extraordinary elections and to remove the constitutional basis for democracy. /Tuomas 15:50, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Economic arguments:

A command economy is always better for a country (especially the poorest of the poor) than a free market economy.
It thwarted the people's clearly expressed desire to have a socialist economy.
- Chile's economy and political system was far from that of the Soviet Union and her satellites. Chile's economy was rather developing in the direction of the domestic economy of the United Kingdom, West Germany or France. This wording is nothing but the crudest propagandisms used by fringe right-wing supporters of Pinochet. The people's desire was twarted already by a multitude of US sanctions and other means of economic warfare. /Tuomas 15:50, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Human rights arguments:

Pinochet killed 3,000 people (at least!) and tortured many others -- there are copious detailed testimonies proving this beyond doubt

I don't care whether all these views go in Augusto Pinochet or another article, as long as (a) we don't fight each other while writing about these views and (b) we minimize duplication of info in the 5 articles which touch on the 1973 coup. --Uncle Ed 13:41, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have difficulty for some of the terminology and the underlying presumptions.

*A command economy is always better for a country (especially the poorest of the poor) than a free market economy.

This is too reductionistic. Where the evidence that Allende wanted to implement a command economy? Indeed he nationalized various industries, but so did the British too in the 1950s, and we don't normally refer to the UK at the time as a "command economy". It should also be noted that Pinochet, as stalwart free-marketer, re-privatized nearly everything with the important exception of the copper industry, which remains in state hands, and he had incorported in the Chilean consitution that 25% percent of its income would go towards military spending (correct me if I am wrong AstoNomer). This is hardly a sterling example of free-market principles! In other words, Pinochet (and plenty others like him) use techniques of statist economic control when it suits them.

I think it is 10% of the sales of copper, and it is not in the constitution, but in a law. I believe the money was compromised for a long time in payments for loans used in a fast militarization in preparation for the very close to happening war with Argentina (that would have inevitably degenerated in a war against Peru and Bolivia too). It is worth mentioning that only the then existing mines are still in the hands of the state. There are a few big copper mining projects now in private hands, and the sales fromt the private sector is close, if not larger than the state owned one (about 80% sure about this last statement). -AstroNomer 22:41, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

It thwarted the people's clearly expressed desire to have a socialist economy.

Again, if you are implying a centrally-run economy, this is an incorrect assumption. All that we can assume for certain is that a largish section of the Chilean population wanted social reforms and were willing to see the ecomomy more oriented towards those ends (ie, higher social spending).

-- Viajero 14:57, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If someone cared to dig up relevant printed books from the time, then one might quote Pinochet's official arguments and explanations for the coup. Disputes on the coup per se is maybe not really suitable for an article on Pinochet, unless they explain why he was prosecuted (or whatever the correct English term might be) by a couple of Western European judiciaries. /Tuomas 15:50, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Personal Remarks

In Alice in Wonderland, the Mad Hatter (an adult) teases Alice about her hair, evoking a rebuke from the 7-year-old girl.

'You should learn not to make personal remarks,' Alice said with some severity; 'it's very rude.'

After teasing her at length with vexing word play, the hatter finally manages to provoke her sufficiently that she momentarily departs from the Victorian politeness demanded of child to her elders, whereupon the Hatter pounces:

'Who's making personal remarks now?' the Hatter asked triumphantly. [4] (http://www.ivyjoy.com/fables/alice7.html)

This is not a pattern for any of us to copy. I sincerely request all contributors, new and old, to remind me if I fall into this bad habit. A word to the wise is sufficient. --Uncle Ed 13:29, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Article protected: was this really necessary?

Completely asinine uncalled for protection of article by Hcheney today (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Augusto_Pinochet&diff=0&oldid=4041445). Take a look at the history (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Augusto_Pinochet&action=history), and see if this merited a protection. I think not. I mean, I mildly appreciate the fact that he protected my version, but a protection at this time was not at all necessary. --Cantus 21:24, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Article unprotected

I do not see any evidence of a full out edit war, just some active editing, so i unprotected it. I will recuse myself for editing for today, so that a conflict of interest is not suspected. If i missed something, and there were really reasons for protecting, I apologize--AstroNomer

Constitution again

While reading the history of editions I saw that apparently Ed had added "imposed" a constitution instead of enacted. I purposedly wrote "enacted", and not mentioned its approval in a plebiscite in order not to add another point of discussion. The constitution was approved in a plebiscite by more than 60% of the population, but the consditions in which that took place have been heavely debated. There was not an organized and unified opposition, like in the 1988 plebiscite, there were no electoral records (though the fact that Chile has a National Identity Card makes that point a bit less bad), and there was not much opportunity for the opposition to get their point to the population, and plenty of publicity for the yes option, so, even when the constitution was approved, there is plenty of space for discussion. Despite all this, many would say that "imposed" is not correct either, because there was the possibility of refusal, and in fact about a third of the voters did (this was not a 99% approval nazi plebiscite). So, I would leave all the details for the article on the constitution, or the plebiscite, would anybody want to write one, but not here. FOr the purpose of this articlo, I think it is enough to say that the constitution was enacted, and was eventually accepted as the law of the land by all the political actors. --AstroNomer 23:13, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

The current version uses the word "enacted." AstroNomer is right in his posting above. For our purposes here, the only neutral way of handling this matter is describing the formal constitutional processes. 172 23:22, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

May I remind AstroNomer that 99% turnouts were more typical of the Soviet Union and her satellites. Nazis were bad in many ways, but they didn't really care that much about referenda and plebiscites. Their experience of the parliamentary elections of March 3, 1933, may be one reason added to the strictly ideological.

--Ruhrjung 00:16, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Human rights abuses

Ok. Soviet plebiscite. My point is there had to be a degree of freedom to have a third of votes against. Now, taking the oportunity that 172 seems to be reading the talk page (no offense intended), I want to reiterate that the human right abuses are important enough that they deserve more than a "swift repressiong of opposition" sentence. The reality of the abuses, or exceses is not in question, only how high the responsabilities went and the degree of knowledge and responsability of Pinochet himself is. But it is an inescapable fact of his government, and one of the ones he will be remembered for, for a long time to come. --AstroNomer 00:41, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

I agree!
But the edit history of this article is that much convoluted, that it's hard to comprehend what's removed, what's reworded and what's just simply moved around. What about the wording that 172 removed some hours ago?

...with human rights abuses that evoked worldwide concerns, including "disappearances" and torture of intellectuals and political dissidents.

Could it maybe be somehow joined with what I put in the same place some minutes ago?

Constitutional civil liberties and human rights were disregarded, resulting in thousands of political refugees being received in the US and in Western Europe.

One must also consider what's important enough to put in the introduction.
--Ruhrjung 00:52, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I put my comment after 172 removed the human right violations, but before you put the bit about the refugees. --AstroNomer 01:23, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

US-backed again

Would the involved parties find acceptable change US-backed by " a coup for which the US helped create the conditions". I know it is longer, but it is also completely imposible to deny. Evidently this leaves in the introduction only "one" of the many possible causes of the coup, so, if it is impossible to remove the reference to the US, references should be added about the rest of the causes: " a coup caused by internal opposition, the effects of the government policies, the activities of the allies of the government and US external, and probably undercover, influence." I don't expect that even longer phrase to be accepted, but it is a suggestion. --AstroNomer 01:23, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

That's OK with me, although it would be nice to find a better wording. Cadr 11:56, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ruhrjung's Latest Edit

After two edits, I believe we have stumbled upon a wording all of us can agree on. 7

The alleged US support for the coup of 1973 remains somewhat controversial.

I agree with this wording, as it isn't confrontational. I would speak out against any change from this phrasing. TheCustomOfLife 01:30, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The word alleged is highly POV. --Cantus 01:51, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, it is alleged to have happened. Rumored could be substituted for the word, but it would be the same effect. TheCustomOfLife 02:36, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've yet modified this more. :) It was kind of long and sounded too weak. My proposal now is to add widely believed language. This is factual and a common "weasel term" on Wikipedia (e.g., Al-Qaida is "widely regarded" as a terrorist organization - sheesh!). I also attached it to the previous sentence for brevity. I still think this prominent a mention of the US is not appopriate, but I'm willing to defer placement issues a bit. (P.s., Ruhrjung's assertion that I must devise replacement language before removing misinformation is not, I think, justifiable.) V V 01:50, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, again I suspect I stumble on nuances of English: If it's justificable or not is not my cup of tea, but if an editor with VV's experience do not, then that's to the disadvantage of the cooperative process and reflecting one of the reasons why I prefer to stay away from pages where such contributors dominate.

With regard to the difference between the word "alleged" and "believed" I can of course be wrong, but as a non-native speaker of English I would assume that "beliefs" are intended to be understood as misconceptions, while I understand "allegations" as concerning something negatively charged, but without taking side for or against the actual allegation. I wonder if anyone really argues that it was good if the US supported the coup?

Would maybe ...US government, which is widely held to have supported the coup... be an improvement?

By the way, may I ask why the reference to the article on the coup of 1973 was again removed?
--Ruhrjung 02:13, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't believe believe has the connotations you mention, and held to have is awkward to my ears; perhaps others can chime in on this? The reference to the coup article was moved, not removed. I do not understand your first paragraph, sorry. V V 02:27, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Coup d'ètat

The reference to the Chilean coup of 1973 was removed from the intro, wasn't it?
--Ruhrjung 02:31, 2004 Jun 12 (UTC)

No, it's linked to the words "coup d'etat" in the second sentence. I didn't see the point in linking to the general "coup" article, especially since Chile coup of 1973 can link to it, and this seemed a natural place. V V 02:39, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

But except for totally fresh readers of wikipedia, that's a totally un-intuitive solution. I, for instance, didn't understand it before you directed me at the explanation. There are plenty of references to coup-d'etat in Wikipedia. One must assume that if they look the same, then they also go to the same article. And I am convinced that many more than I would not understand that this is not a link to a general article on coups but to the specific article on this very coup. Such a practice must be avoided whenever possible.
--Ruhrjung 02:45, 2004 Jun 12 (UTC)

Okay, well, it does seem to be a common technique on Wikipedia. Just poking around, I can find examples; e.g., on Fidel Castro president is linked to President of Cuba, and I've seen dozens more in my time. Someone wanting to find out more about the coup might think to click on coup. The nature of hyperlinking within the text (rather than relying on "See also" lists) does result in a recurring issue where it's not clear where a certain click will take a browser, but this seems a bigger problem than we can tackle here. Anyway, I'm not wedded to the approach I took, it just seemed most concise, direct, and natural. Do you have an idea as to how else to introduce it? V V 02:52, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I know that this technique is used, and I might even use it myself now and then, but as a principle it must be used with constraint. It's no big problem to spell out that Fidel Castro is the president of Cuba. One miss the first ability to link to Cuba, but usually there will be plenty of them in the surrounding sentences. The same goas here. One could easily write He came to power in the Chilean coup of 1973 that deposed Salvador Allende or maybe He came to power in a coup d'état, the Chilean coup of 1973, that deposed Salvador Allende...

Of course the prose suffers to some degree, but the usability of Wikipedia must have priority, of course!
--Ruhrjung 03:04, 2004 Jun 12 (UTC)

I've included both links. The first use of the term "coup d'etat" is linked to the general article that explains that term. The comment about the U.S. role carries the link to Chilean coup of 1973. I don't think the prose suffers this way. JamesMLane 04:48, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm not thrilled with this approach, in that I don't see why the link in the US part should be thus distinguished in terms of hyperlinking. Indeed, I'd probably even favor Ruhrjung's circumlocutions over this. V V 09:31, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Due to my membership in the Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club, combined with the persistence of a single user who goes through my user history and reverts just about any change that I now make, I will no longer make contributions to this article or to this talk page until further notice. 172 03:32, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The point of making this announcement, instead of just walking away? Well, anyway, losing a user who has "contributed" nothing but grief on this article is tolerable to me. V V 09:31, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Using both links has in my opinion great advantages. Not the least is that way indicated why Pinochet's seizure of power wasn't a pure coup d'état, but in some sense also had characteristics of a revolution in as much as the democratic constitution was put out of order / abolished / bypassed / replaced (native English speakers: please chose the most appropriate term). Maybe VV could explain what's so bad with linking to both articls? /Tuomas 09:57, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

ow-GOO-stoh pee-noh-CHEHT oo-GAHR-tay

Now that is harsh on the eyes. Sampa, or IPA, please, someone? (Same goes for Say-NYOR ah-ZHEN-dheh over on his article.) –Hajor 03:58, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Let's avoid personal remarks

Please don't say things like the following. They only hurt others' feelings, while adding nothing to the article:

a user who has contributed nothing but grief on this article

If you must mention others, it would be better to say something like:

a user whose edits I've nearly always disagreed with

Anyway, things seemed to have cooled down a bit, and the Augusto Pinochet and Chilean coup of 1973 articles seem to be coming along nicely now, so I guess I'll continue to stay out of it -- for the most part ;-) --Uncle Ed 23:42, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree, Ed, I find VV's remark vicariously hurting. Andries 19:44, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from, Ed Poor, and appreciate your desire and nonstop efforts to tone up the level of civility, but merely saying I disagree with a user's edits is a rather different and inadequate description. If you are aware of what has happened on this article over the last couple of months, you will understand why. V V 09:15, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The intro

If all the dust has settled, can we delete the "Intro sandbox"? It was at Augusto_Pinochet/intro . . . --Uncle Ed 19:25, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'll make it a redirect. IMHO it shouldn't be deleted, as it was part of the authorship process. V V 19:41, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Pictures

The pictures and their associated captions in this article need work.

1) It would help if the main picture of Pinochet was a photo and not a drawing or a Photoshop filter job.

2) In the section "Military coup of 1973," it is not specified who is Pinochet and who is Allende. Even having seen the other photos, I can't figure this out for myself.

3) In the "Suppression of opposition" section, Pinochet is labelled as the guy in the center... except that there's two guys in the center.

NPOV tag

An anonymous user has disputed the neutrality of this article. The sole explanation provided is: "This article seems written by Socialists opposed to Pinochet. It needs pro-Pinochet information to achieve real neutrality."

I've moved this explanation from the top of the article, where it doesn't belong. In my opinion, the NPOV tag doesn't belong, either. There's been no effort by this user to present his concerns here so that editors can try to work them out. If the anonymous user doesn't provide proper support promptly, the tag should be deleted. JamesMLane 23:47, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I believe that this article has too many remarks about the negative sides of Pinochet's rule, too many positive remarks about Allende, too much importance to the "U.S. role in the coup", etc. The article is totally biased against Pinochet. In my point of view, having visited Chile many times, MOST OF THE PEOPLE in Chile are happy that Pinochet fixed their country, and they acknowledge that it was Pinochet's doing. Most of them also agree that Allende RUINED THE COUNTRY. This article doesn't seem to convey that.--65.2.143.80 15:19, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What kind of "remarks" are you talking about, exactly? The fact that Pinochet was a dictator and Allende was a democratically elected president? Well, sorry, but it seems your problem is with that little thing called reality, not with us. As for what "MOST OF THE PEOPLE in Chile" think, have you personally interviewed all 15,116,435 of them? Can you cite any scientific survey? Or are you just spewing out the prevalent opinion among your circle of friends? I personally know quite a number of Chileans who have assured me that Allende "fixed their country" and Pinochet "RUINED THE COUNTRY". However, such opinions do not belong in an encyclopedia. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:10, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nonsense, the article is very close to being NPOV. The reason Pinochet looks bad in this article is because he was bad (unless perhaps you don't have a problem with dictatorships or human rights abuses). As for the US role in the coup, the article is extremely conservative in its statements. There is an enormous amount of documentary evidence confirming a highly significant degree of US support for the coup. If you have any more specific criticisms of the article, however, we'd all be happy to look at them. Cadr 18:32, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

All I can say is god damn how I wish this much effort was put into the Fidel Castro article! TDC 19:00, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

I haven't looked at that in a while. I understand that for a time you were engaged with a few of the usual who wanted his reign portrayed as nice and clean, but maybe it's settled now. V V 21:18, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Settled? anything but. I have been spending some time gathering info. TDC 22:10, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

I think that Cadr is TOTALLY WRONG. I don't like dictators in general, but for me Pinochet is one of the exceptions to the rule (that dictators are bad). I am not contesting the killings (which I don't condone). I am contesting the fact that as it is now the article shows Allende as a good guy and Pinochet as a bad guy, and seems to show that Pinochet did a bad job in the Economy, whereas in my point of view Chile is now an example of economic success. ALL of it is because of Pinochet, and that is what MOST CHILEANS think. You and whoever includes pieces of indication in the contrary is missing the point and is making this article appear highly POV. --65.2.143.80 19:45, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Right, so dictators are bad, unless you happen to like them... For your information, the article shows the facts about Allende and the facts about Pinochet, as well as presenting opinions from both sides. If the facts show Allende to be the "good guy" and Pinochet to be the "bad guy", then, once again, I'm afraid your problem is with reality, not with us. Keep in mind, however, that different people have different visions of good and evil. Fascists, for example, would see Pinochet as a very "good guy". And so do many American conservatives, it seems.

As for the economy, again, the article presents the facts. I suggest you really should try to mould your views to fit reality rather than trying to mould reality to fit your views. Pinochet's ultra-capitalistic economic reforms had a plethora of negative effects, especially for Chile's poor and working class. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:10, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Let's keep the conversation civil. Pinochet is an extremely polarizing figure, and while this article is not perfect, it does capture this fairly effectively. Definitely if you have data on the contemporary Chilean views of Pinochet those would make a valuable addition. And, if you want to see a really POV treatment, look at the relevant section on the History of Chile article. V V 21:16, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The anon's condemnation of "whoever includes pieces of indication in the contrary" shows a lack of understanding of NPOV. The policy doesn't mean that we decide whether Pinochet was good or bad, and then eliminate all "indications" that run contrary to the One Truth that we've decided is correct. Instead, it means that we include significant information regardless of which side it tends to favor. The current version of the article includes the favorable evaluation from Milton Friedman, along with the GDP figures touted by him and other Pinochet supporters/defenders/apologists/whatever you want to call them. The article also includes the unemployment figures that throw a bad light on Pinochet. That's how NPOV works. Is it suggested that the "disputed" tag would be removed if only we'd agree to suppress the truthful information about the unemployment rate? If not, what change is suggested? It's very bad form to slap on the NPOV tag with no prior discussion on the talk page, and still worse not to respond with specific proposed edits even when the appropriateness of the tag is questioned. JamesMLane 06:20, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree with 65.2.143.80's statement above. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 Missing image
Happyjoe.jpg
Image:Happyjoe.jpg

]] 04:30, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The economic numbers do need work. In a previous version I wrote that employment and wages varied during his presidency. The choice of 1983 clearly tries to show Pinochet's economic tenure in a bad light, as that year was the lowest point in a economic recession, triggered by external causes but exacerbated by the the recent openness of chilean economy. The right numbers would be the begining and the end of the presidency, or state that that that was the lowest point. The employment and wages numbers in 1973 also need explanation: how much of those employments were in the fiscal sector, where it is easy to "create" employment by decree? And the real wages also don't mean much when there are no basic goods to buy, as was the case during good part of the UP years (by whatever reason).--AstroNomer 17:41, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

I also think that it might be usefull to incorporate into this discussion the Latin Debt Crisis of the early 80's which had an enormous effect on South American economies as well as Chile's. TDC 22:09, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

(RE the two comments above). There's the danger of a double standard here. If we're going to tone down criticism of the enonomy under Pinochet because of "external factors", we should be fair and tone down criticism of the economy under Allende because of external factors (i.e. deliberate US disruption of the economy). Cadr 23:16, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, I am sure we could find a neutral source (hardy har har) to give some insight as to the effect of the Latin Debt crisis and the magnitude of the impact on the Chilean economy. Economies do not operate in vacumes, regional and international considerations do play a role as well as domestic policies. That said, external forces can be large or small, and I think an agreement can be made about the influence particular issues have on an economy. TDC 03:46, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

Yes I agree. I was merely pointing out that there were significant external influences on the pre-Pinochet economy too, so it is not fair to say "the economy under Allende was a mess [no mention of external influences]" but "the economy under Pinochet was OK [when you consider the external influences]". Cadr 14:23, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Putting aside political issues and how "good" or "bad" Pinochet was as a person, regarding the economy I think that numbers really show that Allende did a very bad job and Pinochet (or his team or his policies) did an Excellent job. As of now, this article tends to minimize Allende's disastrous policies and also gives too much importance to the negative sides of Pinochet's economic reforms. I think nobody is doubting the fact that Pinochet was a dictator. But I think the effect of Pinochet in the Chilean economy was undoubtedly a success. Not because of Allende, or the U.S., or external influences or what happened after Pinochet. Pinochet did not have "mixed" success witht he economy. It was total success. --AAAAA 12:31, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

But, with the exception of inflation, the numbers don't show that at all - they show things were worse before Allende came to power, and worse after the coup. And it's difficult to credit Pinochet with Chile's economic success - he left the economy in a worse state than he found, and it's only i the mid-90s (when the socialists returned to power, as it happens) that Chile started to enjoy economic success. It's like the 'Mussolini made the trains run on time' thing - there's no evidence that he was responsible for that, that it wouldn#'t have happened anyway, or that it was worth it. 195.92.67.70 12:40, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

AAAA, that's completely untrue. It's not difficult to find numbers which show that the economy was worse off under Pinochet (e.g. the drop in the average wage; peak unemployment rate of 34.6%; poverty rate of 41.2% by 1989; there arse also issues with how much of the growth from 77-81 was real, etc.) As I said before, we cannot give unqualified praise to the economy under Pinochet (ignoring external influences) and unqualified criticism of the economy under Allende (ignoring external influences, which despite your baseless assertions to the contrary, were highly significant). Cadr 13:37, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Birthdate

An anon has changed Pinochet's birthdate from November 25 to November 24. I'm changing it back to November 25 on authority of an unofficial translation from the Chilean Senate web site (http://www.publica.com/bio.html) (the original isn't available) and of Encyclopedia Britannica Online (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9060104&query=pinochet%20ugarte,%20augusto&ct=null). JamesMLane 18:09, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You are correct. The official birthdate is November 25. Check the official information at the Presidential web site (http://www.presidencia.gob.cl/view/viewGaleriaPresidentes.asp?id=32&seccion=Presidencia%20por%20Dentro&interfazseccion=Galeria%20Presidentes#a32)(in Spanish) Mel Romero 14:15, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Election again

I still don't like this sentence:

the first Socialist to be elected president of Chile.

It sounds like he "won" a single "election". In fact, he failed to get a majority, because the top 70% of votes was split almost evenly between him and another candidate. A third (spoiler) candidate took a lot of votes.

There was indeed a "democratic process", but it was not a direct "election" by the people. It was a vote by the congress.

I'm not saying this was illegitimate in any way!

But I'm saying the phrase "elected president" IMPLIES that he got a majority of votes. Since he didn't and the congress didn't simply vote again but placed ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS on him, I think the word "elected" doesn't say enough.

Moreover, almost every discussion I've had with advocates of socialism or communisms harps on how the people CLEARLY showed their desire for socialism, because they ELECTED Allende -- but those nasty Americans OVERTHREW him just to enrinch themselves.

Wikipedia seems to support their argument, and I'd like it to be clear that Wikipedia DOES NOT ENDORSE their argument. I don't even want to endorse their key premise: that the PEOPLE elected Allende. It was not the people AT LARGE but only the CONGRESS who elected him.

If there's no way to express this in a few words, then let's not call him the "first elected Socialist president" at all. Let's use a longer (and, sorry, more cumbersome phrase) like:

first socialist to become president; readers can follow the link to the election of 1970 to find out the details: got only a plurality of the popular vote + Congress in accordance with the Constitution voted him in
first socialist leader to attain the presidency through the democratic process -- my preferred version; again, readers can get the details if they're interested; note it does not imply that he WON THE POPULAR VOTE

I guess the trouble is that "elected president" implies "won the popular vote". Or am reading too much into this? AstroNomer, you know both English and Spanish. What do you think? --Uncle Ed 23:55, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

By the way, this parallels the US 2000 election, which Bush opponents says was "decided by the Supreme Court" as if the Electoral College failed to produce a winner. This is propandistic POV, because if no one gets a 270 electoral vote majority, then as in Chile the vote goes to congress; there's some formula whereby the Representives (i.e., Congressmen) vote, and whovever gets the majority in each state gets 1 for that state -- so all states are on an even footing in this SECOND VOTE. Note that this didn't happen. The US Supreme Court merely affirmed what Florida said, that their electoral votes should all go to Bush -- and Gore even affirmed that he supported their affirmation.

Only by the POV that (a) the election hinges on florida; (b) we sued to make the Supreme Court force recounts, etc. (c) if we get the Supreme Court to vote our way, we'll win; etc. can you say that the supremes were going to "decide the election". The other POV is that the dems were trying to steal the election and the supremes finally said, enough is enough: you had your recounts and everything, take it like a man. From this 2nd POV, the vote went NORMALLY and was decided in the Electoral College as provided for by the US Constitution. It did not go Congress (which would have been the second stage, if there had been no majority); and it did not BYPASS the Congress either.

Golly, people make such a fuss over the electoral process! :-) --Uncle Ed 00:06, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The trouble with your logic is that it would mean that no U.S. President could be described as "elected". Most of them, unlike Bush, actually got more votes than any of their opponents, but that's not why they took office. They were voted in by the Electoral College, just as Allende was voted in by the national legislature. The popular vote actually had more relevance in Chile -- the legislature had to choose between the top two vote-getters, whereas the U.S. process could install the third-place finisher, although obviously that would be extraordinarily unlikely. Chile didn't have a nice simple system of "whoever gets the most votes wins", but it's too narrow a view of the term "elected" to say that it refers only to that system. JamesMLane 03:43, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would say that "elected" means roughly "installed in power as the result of an election according to the rules of a constitution". If we can say that George Bush is an elected president without needing to qualify the phrase, we can certainly say this of Allende. Cadr 13:41, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree, except that your definition might need some tweaking in the cases of (1) obvious sham elections, like Saddam Hussein's last pre-invasion electoral victory, where we probably shouldn't say "elected" at all; and (2) even within the context of a legitimate competitive system, an election marked by credible allegations of misconduct that could have affected the result, where my inclination would be to say "elected" but to note the controversies at the same point in the article. Neither of these exceptions applied to Allende's election. JamesMLane 15:27, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, my definition has a few loopholes. I do wonder if Ed does consider the election process to have been fair, though? Presumably his opposition to the term "elected" cannot be based solely on the lack of an actual majority. Cadr 00:35, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cadr, there are 2 different questions on the table:

Did Allende become president through a "fair" electoral process (I say yes).
Was his election a popular endorsment of socialism, as the phrase " first Socialist to be elected president" seems to imply (I say no).

The second question is significant (a) in light of Allende's statement about not being the president of all the people (but only of his own faction); and also (b) in light of Socialists' incessant claim that the American acted in an anti-democratic way by overthrowing the very leader the people had chosen, simply because we Americans didn't like the economic system (i.e., socialism) that the people wanted.

I tried many times to edit out the "first elected Socialist" but EVERY TIME it was reverted: so the exact wording of the phrase must be VERY SIGNIFICANT. It must be conveying some MESSAGE, like the one I impute above. If so, it's POV and should be amended. --Uncle Ed 22:59, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is there some subtle distinction I'm missing between a socialist who was elected (i.e. Allende) and an elected socialist? I really can't see any. There isn't any implication of popular endorsement going beyond the facts: a plurality of the population voted for a a socialist politician. Do you actually believe that installing a dictator in place of a constitutionally elected leader was (pro-)democratic? The whole issue of socialism and its popularity is a red herring in this discussion. Allende was the most popular candidate in the election, therefore his removal by force was anti-democratic, whatever his political persuasion happened to be. The electorate may or may not have endorsed socialism, as they may or may not have endorsed any number of other things; it doesn't matter. They endorsed a leader who was installed in power, and was then removed from power by force. Only under a truely Orwellian definition of democracy could this chain of events be seen as beneficial to democracy in Chile. Cadr 23:11, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You are welcome to your opinion, but I disagree. In the American Civil War of 1860-1865, the North "removed from power by force" the leader of the Confederate States (the South). Now I'm not sure of all the facts, so correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the president of the confederacy ELECTED? By the secessionist states?

Northerners and other fans of Abraham Lincoln glorify him as having "saved the Union" and having "preserved democracy". If there are people who consider Lincoln's military campaigns "anti-democratic", well either I never heard of them or I've forgotten them.

I daresay the situation parallels that of Chile. One faction wanted an economic system that the other faction opposed. There was a violent struggle over this matter. Each country is considered to be a "democracy" in the aftermath of that struggle.

In conclusion, I don't think the Wikipedia should endorse the view that the coup was "anti-democratic". But I welcome inclusion of clearly attributed advocacy expressing the POV that the coup was anti-democratic. We should even give the arguments of these advocates, like (a) Allende had popular support, but (b) he was violently overthrown, so (c) the overthrow was anti-democratic.

We could also mention an opposing POV, like (d) Allende has considerably less than majority support, (e) opponents suspected him of imposing the will of a minority on the majority, (f) same as b above', so (g) the overthrow was democratic.

I think this issue is much larger than the Augusto Pinochet article and the Chile series -- and by the way, I detest Pinochet! The larger dispute is over how people feel about government.

As an American, I strongly support the following view, found in the American Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it." (emphasis added for talk)

I think the essence of true democracy is not majority rule but government which preserves citizen's rights. So if an elected government (even with a clear and overwhelming popular majority), started to becom "destructive of" citizen's rights, I would feel that a revolt against such a government would be 'good' and also 'democratic'.

Of course, this is only my opinion. We still need to find a way to agree on the wording of the article. I'm not trying to convert you to my way of thinking; I only mention these things, because frequently it helps Wikipedians to cooperate on article writing when they understand each other's thinking. --Uncle Ed 14:32, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Several points.

At the end of the civil war, the Southern government was removed from power and a democratic government replaced it. This is not what happened in the case of Chile. A democraticly elected government was replaced by a dictatorship. Installing a dictatorship cannot preserve democracy, unless, as I said, you have an Orwellian useage of the word "democracy" in mind.
"I daresay the situation parallels that of Chile. One faction wanted an economic system that the other faction opposed. There was a violent struggle over this matter.". The violent struggle (though partly the result of internal tensions) was agitated by the USA to promote its own interests, despite the fact that the preferred (by a plurality) economic system had already been established reasonably clearly by an election. You can compare socialism to slavery if you like, but once again, the fact is that the coup did not remove socialism and replace it with anything more democratic (even if one believes that socialism is somehow inherently anti-democratic), but instead installed a dictatorship.
It is pretty hypocritical to criticize Allende for imposing the will of the minority on the majority, given that you appear to be defending a dictatorship, which is clearly an extreme case of minority-over-majority rule. George Bush got a minority of the popular vote, but it would not be legitimate to overthrow his government becuase of this.
"I think the essence of true democracy is not majority rule but government which preserves citizen's rights. So if an elected government (even with a clear and overwhelming popular majority), started to becom "destructive of" citizen's rights, I would feel that a revolt against such a government would be 'good' and also 'democratic'." Can a revolt benefit democracy if it installs a non-democratic government, though? The US constitution asserts the right of the people to revolt, not the right of a dictator to assume power in a military coup. Citizens' rights are not preserved by a military coup, and the human rights situation under Pinochet was worse than that under Allende. Otherwise, I agree in principle.

Regarding the article (we are getting a little off topic here I know), you still don't seem to have come up with any good reason for not referring to Allende as an "elected socialist". "elected" doesn't imply that he got a majority, just that he was installed in power following an election according to the rules of the Chilean constitution. I'm certainly not looking to cover up the details of the election, but given that we're writing the introduction to an article about someone else, just how much detail about Allende and his election do we need to give?Cadr 00:22, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How about "first constitutionally installed socialist" then? ;-) --Uncle Ed 18:50, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is it OK if we delete all claims that Bush was elected, and replace them with "constitutionally installed"? or, better yet, "constitutionally installed by one vote"? :) JamesMLane 03:57, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

CIA Activities in Chile to Be Investigated

Possibly of interest to editors: [5] (http://lists.mutualaid.org/pipermail/lasolidarity/2004-October/000485.html). --Cantus 22:50, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

That link is broken, however according to de-classified documents [6] (http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/latin_america/chile.htm) I don't see what there is to investigate. - Dejitarob 17:55, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Replaced link.

An interesting point regarding Anaconda

I have heard that when Pinochet denationalized various Chilean state-owned industries, he did not denationalize the copper mines, because profits from the copper mines went into the military pension system. Can someone who is better-read on Chilean history confirm or deny this point? --Sethg 14:37, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is absolutely true. Codelco was not privatized for this very same reason.

As far as I know, not directly into the military pension system, but a law was enacted (and it is still in vigour) that 10% of the sales of copper (not profits, but sales) would be destined to military needs. I have heard argued that those funds were compromised for many years in paying loans contracted in the rapid arming before the quasi-war with Argentina in 1978, but I don't have numbers. About the military pensions, those come from the military budget, so part of it must come from the copper, because of the law just mentioned. The military is the only segment of the population that wasn't transfered into an individual account retirement system (AFPs). --20:31, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

More on this topic (in spanish), with numbers: [7] (http://www.cesim.cl/p3_otras_publicaciones/site/pags/20031109174339.html) - --Zuirdj 03:25, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What was the opinion of Chileans on Pinochet's coup, then and now?

QUESTION TO CHILEANS: Hello. I wonder, are there any polls out there showing what Chileans think of the Pinochet coup now? Is the country divided over this issue? What percentages of the population are for and against? -Jose from Spain

Answer to José: There is no poll I know of, but my impression is that the majority of the population still thinks the coup was a necessary evil. Under Allende's rule the country fell into a state of such chaos that (it seems) only the military could restore the rule of law. However, there is also now a wide agreement that human right violations that succeeded the coup were completely unjustified, and they are universally condemned. Nevertheless, I must add that several of my friends, who declare themselves leftists, recognize (not without certain unease) that the economic reforms, that have been immensely beneficial to the people, could have never been made by a democratically elected government. So it is somewhat funny that these friends of mine, who so fiercely opposed "el golpe" and afterwards suffered political prosecution, now have mixed emotions about it. Remember that during the 70s and 80s very few people in Chile believed in free market as a resource allocation mechanism. Even some right-wingers opposed Pinochet's economic reforms. My own father, who was an ardent Pinochetist (not ardent any more), was terrified when he learned that prices were left free to float, no longer fixed by central authority. So no democratic government could have ever gathered the political support to make similar reforms. Nowadays, due to the success of the capitalist system, virtually everybody (right-wingers and left-wingers alike) embraces it. Hence we are all now pretty much glad the coup happened, some of us will openly admit it, some won't, but no one will ever think of picking up a fight over such an issue. Of course my opinion may be biased because my family supported the coup (I wasn’t even born back then, so all my information is second handed) so it would be nice you could confront it with someone else’s view. Yours sincerely, a 28 years old Chilean.

Allende's death

The article says that "...Allende's personal doctor claims that he committed suicide as the palace was being surrendered, but others believe Allende was killed by military forces

The believe that Allende was killed during the assault to La Moneda was a rumour coined by the GAP, Allende's personal guards to discredit the coup even when they knew that Allende had commited suicide with his AK-47 during the coup. This rumour was used by Pinochet detractors throught the world in 70's and 80's and even today people, specially from Europe and USA believe that Allende "might" have been kilLed by the Chilean army. The forensic report after his dead, the testimonies of his doctor and several guards (The same guards that denied it, but told the truth of it in the 90's, in democracy), the radio-communications of Pinochet and the high command the day of the coup, the report of the soldiers that found Allende and Allende's own family veredict SHOW IN A VERY CONCLUSIVE AND UNDOUBTFUL WAY that Allende took his own life with a gunshot and was not injured in any way during the coup. I think that the subject is something to change as it creates a mist of Pinochet's participation in his death.

You got any evidence/links?

Interview with Allende

After reading a recent column by Georgie Anne Geyer, I was intrigued by the following:

When I interviewed Allende just before he became "the world's first elected Marxist president," I asked him whether, if he were elected, there would be elections again. "You must understand," he answered carefully but revealingly, "that by the next elections, everything will have changed." This threat of Marxist change in a country unprepared to deal with it assured that his regime would not last.

http://www.uexpress.com/georgieannegeyer/?uc_full_date=20030131

How and or should this be incorporated into the article?

Fed up with the edit wars

Hey folks, I'm fed up with the edit wars, and I can't understand *WHY* some folks (last time it was Cantus) remove the links they don't like. I appeal to you: it's not up to you to decide whether *external* sources are biased or not. They aren't wiki and don't have to fit our standards. It's better to give the person reading wikipedia more choice in sources than less. My decision to restore the links (not to revert; I have just copy-and-pasted them from the earlier version) is based on the ground that Cantus made the article anti-Pinochet POV (only the anti-Pinochet links, about his alleged crimes were allowed to stay). Not that I'm a big fan of Pinochet (though I support some of his reforms as Pension reform, but I want the openness of mind to rule here. And besides, someone could tell that the anti-Pinochet sources *are* biased. Many people do. But until now, nobody removed the links to their sources. Look at the article on Miracle of Chile. One anonymous person removed all external links except one to Greg Palast's works, which IMHO are very biased (I find Palast to be just the anti-capitalist leftist). Thus, this person wanted *us all* to treat the subjective view of Palast as some kind of "objective" and "supreme" truth. I restored all the removed links and left the one pointing to Palast's as well. But I'm not going to do it again; so, if anyone wants to make articles on Pinochet biased, very well, go ahead. I won't lose my time again on the edit wars for I'm a hard-working man. But I'm going to point the attention of some pro-Pinochet, anti-communist, classical-liberal, conservative and simply pro-truth groups on wikipedia, hoping that they will put a journalist spotlight on the bias some wikipedians disguise as truth and disseminate. And besides, I *DO LOVE* wikipedia as a project, but I find it *very very* biased on politics (mythology is a better part). With Respect To All, Critto

Quotation Marks

It seems that Cantus really doesn't like any sources that aren't openly anti-Pinochet. While last time he didn't removed my links again, he distorted the title of one article "The Truth of Chile Under Salvador Allende" by putting the quotation marks ("") around the word "Truth", thus POV-ly suggesting the article is untrue. It's even more bad: distortion of the title of a copyrighted work is illegal. It's like someone changed "Lord of The Rings" to "Master of The Rings", or something alike. Nobody except the work's author himself is allowed to do so without the author's permission. And besides, I could change the link pointing to the source about the alleged (because not proven by any court) crimes of Pinochet, changing its name to "Crimes" of Augusto Pinochet -- A Case Study. I think that we could make a good compromise: to put who title of all articles quoted here in quotation marks. And tell that they are articles I started with "The Truth o Chile Under Salvador Allende", changing the link description to "an article called "The Truth Of Chile Under Salvador Allende". I hope that the opposing side here will show the equal quantity of good will. As for the "unrelated" articles on economics: Okay, I may move them to "Miracle of Chile". They may fit there better. Bye-bye, Critto

Drugs

Maybe others can expand, confirm, correct this information? It is certainly relevant. 213.208.107.91 04:55, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You ask us to confirm this information. Why is a piece of information that needs confirmation even here? This is an encyclopedia, not a rumor site. Plus the added text is badly written in itself and in the context of the article. I will remove it, and if you add it again, I will take the issue to RFC. —Cantus…☎ 13:24, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay between editing the article and writing these promised comments.

The criterion for inclusion of material in an encyclopedia must be that it is true and relevant. My addition on drugs comes from a newspaper report, which I reference. My contribution is, indeed, badly written; I intended it essentially as a stub, so that others could expand and improve it. As far as TRUTH is concerned: see the reference in the article. Also, U.S. Senator Carl Levin (http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=223965) refers to Pinochet as being "accused of involvement with ... drug trafficking" and the United States Senate PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS report on MONEY LAUNDERING AND FOREIGN CORRUPTION: ENFORCEMENT AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PATRIOT ACT (govt-aff.senate.gov/_files/ 071504miniorityreport_moneylaundering.pdf) mention "allegations of involvement with narcotics".

Pinochet's involvement in large-scale drug trafficking must be RELEVANT to an article about him.

What I wrote was:

"A report in 2000 states that Chilean army and secret police exported cocaine to the U.S. and Europe, and were still doing so when the report was published.

According to report on Pinochet drug smuggling link (http://www.rrojasdatabank.org/pinocero.htm)

-12 tonnes were exported in 1986 and 1987 alone.

-There can be no doubt that Pinochet was a party to trafficking.

-The information is supported by US court documents, Chilean police files and depositions by a former US marine involved in the trafficking. 213.208.107.91 15:34, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Significance

As I said regarding another item: The criterion for inclusion of material in an encyclopedia must be that it is true and relevant. Until Pinochet's arrest, nobody had been subject to legal process abroad for human rights abuses carried out when in power in their own country. Since then, there have been several cases. I cannot claim the credit for realising that this is of comparable significance to bringing to justice those who commit human rights abuses in wartime, at Nureneberg (see referecne I quote below), but this is arguably the case.

I would certainly agree that the text of my contribution can be improved upon, but the topic is too important to ignore.

it is not my intention to comapre Pinochet to the accused in the Nurenberg trials, but to point out that this is a precedent for human rights law.

What I added (slightly modified here), and has been deleted, was

The arrest of Pinochet, a senator and former head of state of Chile, in a foreign country, for crimes against humanity committed in his own country while he was head of state, mark one of the most important precedents in international criminal law since the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals. Since then, there have been several arrests abroad of perpetrators of human rights abusers while in a position of authority in their own country. This topic is discussed in

The Ripple Effect of the Pinochet Case (http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/universal/2004/0524ripple.htm)

213.208.107.91 15:34, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I will now contact Cantus regarding resolution of our disagreement on Drugs and Significance (above). I think that mediation might be simpler than RFC, but am happy with any procedure. 213.208.107.91 15:48, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Can anyone substantiate the real wages declinged 40% claim. I've seen it elsewhere but again without footnotes. It seems to contradict other claims i've read that by 1995 real wages were up 250% over what they were at the end of the Allende regime. Did they rise 290% in five years after Pinochet's regime without any major economic changes? Rossamus 06:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What were his memoirs called?

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Augusto_Pinochet/Archive_4"