Jump to content

Talk:Augusto Pinochet

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Citations for "dictator" in lead

[edit]

AFAIK, "dictator" is the scholarly consensus, and should remain in the lead. But we should cite historians. Not news organization, not the "Journal of Design History", not the "Inquiries Journal" (written by undergrads), not a news article attributing use of the adjective to George W. Bush, and not an NSA book (primary source).

The point of citations isn't so editors can defend themselves from accusations of bias ("I'm not saying it, WaPo did!").

It's to give readers a starting point from which to learn more about a subject. For this specific phrase in the lead, we should use exclusively scholarly sources (historians), published by scholarly publishers (not "pop history") of which there are plenty. We don't really care that Reuters thinks Pinochet is a dictator; what matters is that historians think that. DFlhb (talk) 11:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You put label "dictator" in the lead for Pinochet and I invite you to put label "dictator" in the lead for Jiang Zemin. Forza bruta (talk) 00:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've never edited this article or its lead. DFlhb (talk) 01:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That'd just show you have no idea how the chinese government works Orocairion (talk) 13:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You in previous comment support the presence of "dictator" in lead. Forza bruta (talk) 01:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I support it as long as it’s cited to scholarly sources. I don’t think news orgs are a sufficient source for this type of claim about a well-researched historical figure. DFlhb (talk) 11:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neoliberal?!

[edit]

I’m not a big fan of neoliberalism, but isn’t it a little insulting to connect it to a murderous fascist dictator, just because he took the advice of free market economists? Island Pelican (talk) 20:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it's insulting or not is beside the point. We follow what the reliable sources say, e.g. this and this. Generalrelative (talk) 00:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
His economic lean is somewhat at a tangent to the question. Capitalism and Hitler, Communism had Stalin and Mao, all economic doctrines have produced monsters. 103.94.51.49 (talk) 08:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, as the implementation of neoliberal policies was part of the conditions and goals to get support from the US in his coup. Orocairion (talk) 13:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not why the Coup d'état was supported. John Not Real Name (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The bad German man was not a capitalist. Fascism and nazism were anti-capitalist as well as anti-communist. John Not Real Name (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. And off topic. Please review WP:NOTFORUM Simonm223 (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About my edit and its arbitrary removal

[edit]

Hi, after hours of work my edit was in a matter of seconds removed without discussion or proper argumentation.

In my post I only expanded what was already there in regards to the economic policy which is my area of interest I removed nothing, my edit consisted of adding more data, dates and properly referencing the Laws of Chile in question, and connecting ideas that were not properly connected.

Therefore I please ask for the restoration of my edit, my references were the Congress Library, the World Bank and Mainstream Media therefore no one can claim I used questionable sources, and because all of it is just economic data it cannot be accused of being something else than numbers. 

Nachowski1809 (talk) 00:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A good part of the text you added into the Pinochet article is written in some biased terms. I don't mind some of the text getting readded in due course, given that it provides appropriate context; my problem is with the manner you present the topics. For example: "economic liberalization under the leadership of Minister Hernán Büchi" replaces "privatization". "poverty had fallen from 50% in 1975 when the reforms began to 38% in 1990 when Pinochet left power" <-- these percentages are not comparable, even current right-wing economists from Chile disregard such comparations. "in response to growing inequality in the country which can be traced back to the neoliberal policies of the Pinochet dictatorship." <-- you removed that appropriately referenced phrasing; refbombing won't help (you did so); and then you added a phrase to justify such changes which is just laughable (and taken from a piece of opinion) "Chile has historically been an unequal country since its foundation in 1541". I can't stand such changes. Bedivere (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind the text being rewritten using other words, for example preferring "privatization" although I changed it because economic liberalization is more encompassing, privatization is just part of economic liberalization, it was not a random rewording especially considering that the article then proceeds to talk about the lowering of tariffs, that is economic liberalism not privatization.
Second, those percentages are actually comparable because they were both done according to the old system instead of the new system in use by CASEN since the early 2000's, and that data was already in the article I did not add it, I just reworded it.
"even current right-wing economists" this is not a left vs right, this is numbers.
Third, you can keep the last point if you want, but restore everything else.
Although it is a factual error economic as data by the World Bank and others supports that income inequality has fallen, that is not opinion it is DATA, what I changed then was a factual error which claims that inequality is rising when the numbers show otherwise, I do not deny that Chile is a highly unequal country, that is why I said it is very unequal for OECD standards, Chile has also been historically unequal you can't deny it.
This is just numbers, Nachowski1809 (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let me elaborate my point. I don't mind that you add relevant content. My problem is with the unclear context and inappropriate wording. If you can make a suggestion here so we can have a consensus, I'd be all up for that. Bedivere (talk) 02:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before I have absolutely no issue with adding a completely different wording and I would greatly appreciate if you could help me in some way or another. How can I leave a suggestion? Like a draft. Nachowski1809 (talk) 19:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You could propose alternative wordings for some of the phrases I've suggested before. I hope we can reach a consensus rapidly so that your content gets reinstated. soon. Bedivere (talk) 16:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not doing so earlier I have been quite busy! Where should I propose the wording? here? I do not want to do an edit without previous approval by others Nachowski1809 (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know it has been over a year but what is the wording like? From what I have read, poverty rates have gone down under "neo-liberalism" and inequality has gone down as well. That is indeed a fact. Just write and cite that. There is no point coddling people especially when you can cite the datum. John Not Real Name (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See thread above. No need to re-litigate a two-year-old edit dispute. Simonm223 (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to see if his points, if they are correct of course, were added in the end. John Not Real Name (talk) 17:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mass murderers

[edit]

Would adding Chilean mass murderers be an appropriate category or would that be for those more directly involved? 2600:100C:A218:9A7B:BC5E:E0AD:C8F9:553 (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will be quite honest, I am about the most anti-communist person on this page but how in the @~?£ did he murder less people (Presumably torture less?) than Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz? Cuba Archive ( https://cubaarchive.org/ ) has "4466 Castro regime executions & killings" and this page puts the death toll at 2,279 according to this: ( https://web.archive.org/web/20090715220921/http://www.usip.org/files/resources/collections/truth_commissions/Chile90-Report/Chile90-Report.pdf ) at page 1122. The 2,279 includes disappeared according to their own calculations so use this as a lower bound. It is 2,187 less. An upper limit seems to be 3,200 (It is unclear whether this is dead and disappeared or only dead.). If you assume 3,200 is dead and have an upper limit of disappearances as an addition of 1,469 as Gabriel Boric Font suggested then you arrive at 4,669 which is 203 more dead victims. So between 2,279 and 4,669 deaths? How is this the case? Are people correctly reading the sources because I find this hard to believe? I expected around 10,000 or more dead. Also If you look into the 2,279 figure it includes dead guerillas (384 were affiliated with the Movimiento de Izquierda Revolucionaria and 19 were affiliated with the Frente Patriótico Manuel Rodríguez. There is no indication of when or under what circumstances these people were killed however at least 39 of the total were "Killed during gun battles, etc".). Finally 90 of the total 2,279 were killed by private citizens with political motivations (The state was not responsible but the report indicates it turned a blind eye.). Whether you see that as strange or NOT how is it this low?John Not Real Name (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that Cubaarchive is unreliable and exaggerating killings under Castro. Also this is rather off-topic. This page is about Pinochet, not Castro. Simonm223 (talk) 19:38, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Augusto_Pinochet&oldid=1284135742"