Talk:Augusto Pinochet Information & Talk:Augusto Pinochet Links at HealthHaven.com
advertise
add site
services
publishers
database
health videos
Bookmark and Share

search wiki for    ?
web dir firms image gallery news pdf wiki shop video 
about
toolbar
stats
live show
health store
more stuff
JOIN/LOGIN
Featured Results:
Dual loyalties: Commentary on to talk or not to talk by Ashok Sinha
Dual loyalties: Commentary on to talk or not to talk by Ashok Sinha
issuesinmedicalethics.org		 Talking Watch, Talking Watches, Talking Clock, Talking Bible, Talking...
Talking Watch, Talking Watches, Talking Clock, Talking Bible, Talking...
independentliving.com		 
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓
Spain traffic signal p4.svg Discussions on this talk page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read the recent comments, or look in the archives or FAQ section before contributing. New topics for discussion are always welcome.
Crystal Clear app file-manager.png This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections with no replies in 90 days are automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
WP0.7 Icon.png This article is part of the "20th Century post-colonial leaders" set of articles nominated for Version 0.7. Discuss this nomination, or see the set nominations page for more details.
Diamond-caution.svg This is a controversial historical topic that may be disputed. Please read the talk page and discuss substantial changes there before making them. Please also consider the particular importance of using proper citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.
This is not a forum for general discussion of Augusto Pinochet. Any such messages will be deleted or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Augusto Pinochet at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk.
Nuvola apps date.svg A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on September 11, 2005 and September 11, 2006.

Contents

[edit] Not neutral

It's sad that wiki makes Castro, who murdered tens of thousands of Cubans, out to be almost a hero but treats Pinochet, who killed far less of his citizens and completely returned his county to a prosperous nation, as evil incarnate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.79.15.102 (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This post has been hijacked by market theocrats. I think we need to dispute the nuetrality of this article. 71.252.208.46 (talk) 09:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This article is not neutral, he was a dictator, not a president. --190.164.177.56 (talk) 08:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

He was both. The article explains that. Raymond Dundas (talk) 08:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
If he wasn't president but dictator (no problem with it), same should be indicated under Fidel Castro ( but it isn't... strange, isn't it? ) --194.203.215.254 (talk) 08:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Fidel Castro follows a constitution democratically ratified approved by the Cuban Population by a national referendum on February 15, 1976, Pinochet didn't. CmrdMariategui 22:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Which does not imply that Castro is not a dictator. Democratically established constitution is completely compatible with dictatorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bungimail (talk • contribs) 02:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Per the irrelevant matter of Castro, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS & WP:OTHERCRAP.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 02:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Heart attack

link "AUGUSTO PINOCHET has been given the last rites after a massive heart attack left the former Chilean strongman clinging to life.


“His fate is in the hands of God and his doctors,” the former dictator’s son Marco Antonio Pinochet Hiriart said yesterday as his father remained conscious and in a stable condition.

Juan Ignacio Vergara, a doctor treating the retired general, said 91-year-old Pinochet’s life was “in danger”. State television later reported that doctors had decided to carry out heart bypass surgery."

someone should add a mention of this in the article and add the 'current event' tag.

I'm Catholic, and I suppose I should hope that God forgave Gen. Pinochet, despite the bad things he did. I guess none of us believers will ever know. The man caused so much pain though, on so many innocent people simply because they were not right wing. So sad to have lived his life that way.

==Pinochet's 91st birthday statement to the World

Why did Pinochet take full responsibility for his actions now at 91, its as if his offsprings made him write that so as to absolve all of them of their complicity in his crimes. What about that 3cubic meters of gold that was supposedly deposited in Hong Kong? How many tons of Gold did Pinochet deposit there? What was he trying to do? What is this guy doing writing statements now at 91 wasn't he declared unfit to stand trial about 6 years; didn't he have dementia.


Well my deer friend you are a complete ignorant. You can take the title. The gold that was deposited in Hong Kong was proven false and it was a plan to try and frame Pinochet. It was recognized and shown that he never deposited those gold bars. Pinochet saved Chile and my family from communism. Maybe you have never lived in a communist country but I ll tell you ask anyone in Eastern Europe, Cuba, Venezuela, or Chile you will see its nothing pretty when you have nothing to eat while your leaders travel around in luxury like Allende did. Hopefully I have enlighten you into this subject and I do recommend people from other countries to really inform themselves on the economic progress that Chile made and the hardships endured during the Allende government.

[edit] Article quality and cleanup

This article is generally pretty bad. Because of a very strong desire to crucify Pinochet within this article it has become long and bloated. A lot of the material should be moved to separate articles. For instance the article on the election is way too detailed and should just be put in a separate article. A lot of the article consists of unfounded opinions which are not attributed to anyone e.g. 1) Pinochet coup was done so he could implement neoliberal reforms, 2) All doubts about human right abuses have been stilled due to detailed reports etc. These types of things are stated in such a way that they have become opinions. Opinions cannot be original in an encyclopedia. They must be attributed to someone.

Ok I think Melromero has basically fixed this article up. It is very nice now. Thanks Melromero!

This article should remove text such as "took office", which implies attaining office via a democratic election. Such text should be replaced with a more accurate statement such as "seized office" or "seized power".

[edit] School of the Americas/WHISC

There is evidence of Pinochet's spending time at the school of the America's. Many who oppose the school cite his involvement as a reason to be against the school. I believe therefore that something should be mentioned.----georgiew

[edit] Thank You

Don't know if I can do this on this page but I would like to thank the administrator for doing a good job being impartial. Such as by not labelling Pinochet as a dictator but a head of military junta. If left wing strongmen like Castro are not labelled dictators than neither should right wing strongmen. Previously I noticed this trend (which was biased) in wikipedia but now it seems to have improved.

Comment: According to the Wikipedia definition of a dictator, Fidel Castro shouldn´t be called so because he wasn´t appointed by the senate or other government institution to take the place of head of state during a crisis. He actually took over the government and dissolved its institutions.

I went to the dictator page and Castro is listed as a benevolent dictator. Most dictators come to power due to putches and revolutions. Saddam Hussein came to power in this way and everyone calls him a dictator. So are Pinochet and Castro. But since the word, 'dictator' is so taboo better not to label anyone a dictator rather than just labeling right wing strongmen as such.

[edit] Please Observe Proper Flag Etiquette in Articles

Flag Etiquette:

A flag is flown on a STAFF when on land.

A flag is flown on a MAST when on a ship.

When a flag is lowered in mourning on land, it is flown at HALF STAFF.

When a flag is lowered in mourning on a ship, it is flown at HALF MAST.


Thank you . . .

[edit] Strange sentence

"Some political scientists have ascribed the relative bloodiness of the coup to the stability of the existing democratic system, which required extreme action to overturn." Seems to contraict itself. Rich Farmbrough, 13:48 11 December 2006 (GMT).

[edit] Legacy

ETREMELY BIASED. Although Pinochet is widely viewed as a tyrant, and from any objective measure was a dictator, having led a military junta that ruled Chile for two decades, of the 248 words written in the "Legacy" section only 5 express such a viewpoint, the rest extoll his contributions to Chilean "democracy". Not only is this Orwellian nonsense, but a clear, glaring violation of both wikipedia's NPOV standards, as well as common-sense, drawing the legacy of a dictator's biography into a hagiography of a "defender of democracy". So until someone wants to write a neutral and accurate assesment of Pinochet, I have removed the fascist apologia of the Legacy section in its entirety, quoted below--

"Pinochet's legacy has been debated continuously. Some view him as a brutal dictator while others credit him for saving Chile from communism, recovering political and economical stability, and implementing bold economic reforms that brought unprecedented prosperity.

After the 1973 coup, Pinochet said, “We only set ourselves the task of transforming Chile into a democratic society of free men and women." His supporters made similar claims. Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, for example, thanked the General for "bringing democracy to Chile".[54] Historian James Whelan, writing in the May 2007 edition of the American Spectator also praised Pinochet for bringing economic progress to Chile.[55] When in power, Pinochet gave a series of speeches that indicate that the 1973 coup targeted not only Allende's Popular Unity government, but Chilean democracy itself, which the General saw as hopelessly flawed. In wording that Pinochet repeated several times in various speeches, he claimed that Chile had been “slave and victim of the Congress since 1925, and slave and victim of the political parties.” Arguing for an "organic" type of democracy, Pinochet contended that “Merely formal democracy dissolves itself, victim of a demagogy that substitutes simple, unattainable promises for social justice and economic prosperity.” That form of democracy would inevitably result in a Marxist dictatorship, according to his analysis. Chilean democracy, therefore, was “progressively socializing in its economic experiments.... Those who thought they could detain or control this evolution... were given proof under the Marxist regime of their impotence and incomprehensible lack of vision.”" --Die4Dixie (talk) 19:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)== Return to Democracy ==

This is not NPOV wording., especially in view of the electorate voting for him before the plebiscite. Please do not reinsert this language--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Diexie you're entitled to your opinion no to your facts. I will shortly be posting a list of mainstream sources that clearly and explicitly say that 1989-1990 were the years in which democracy was reinstated in Chile. Likeminas (talk) 19:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
By the way, you're clearly deleting sourced content, as you probably know that amounts to vandalism. Please stop. Likeminas (talk) 19:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Please read mainstream sources:

Need I post more? There's plenty where those came from. This is the mainstream view on the Chilean transition to democracy, so please do not add minority views on the lead as they clearlt violate WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. Needless is to say that deleting sourced content as you did here amount to vandalism and might be reported to an administrator for review. Likeminas (talk) 20:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Please find some reliable sources for fascist. Mainstream, please. I missed the Italian WW2 connection. Natioanl socialist? Pinochet? No, sir, it is you who play loose with facts. An election in which all could participate is not Democracy? Facts are facts, regardless of what leftist propoganda says.--68.35.239.206 (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)--Die4Dixie (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, first, "Die4Dixie", turn spell-check on in your browser. Second, your name leaves little to be guessed at in terms of your politics. "Fascist" does not necessitate a connected with Italy or National Socialism. As per the lead sentence in the Wikipedia entry, "Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, comprises a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology and a corporatist economic ideology..." This is practically a picture perfect description of what existed in Chile under Pinochet. Now please stop removing sourced content. This has nothing to do with bias. A Google search for "Pinochet" and "fascist" brings back 2,960,000 results. Would you like me to add more of those to the article to please you? Frank Pais (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I´m not sure what economic school you ascribe to, but please point out the corporatism that Pinochet advocated, the second prong of fascism. He also does not appear in the article on fascism. Glaring omission no?--Die4Dixie (talk) 03:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Obama and monkey[1] as search terms for google give over 6,000,000 hits. So what is your point? should we call Obama a monkey in his article. 2,000,000 is a paltry number, infact, a minority and fringe view.--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Die4Dixie deleting sources such as the The Irish Times and dismissing others as leftist propaganda while at the same time labeling them as unreliable would be laughable if the accusations weren't so baseless and ignorant of the facts.
Please read some more mainstream sources
This is not a RS for calling the man a Facist. It is a nothing source. Did you even follow the link? Laughable. You need a little stronger and more reliable sources.--Die4Dixie (talk) 03:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
This is only in the title. Which is ascribed by editor, n ot article writer? Are you advocating using headlines as RS?--Die4Dixie (talk) 03:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
This is the regime, and not Pinochet particularlly. Tjis is an OR violation.--Die4Dixie (talk) 03:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Does not explicitly call him a fascist. Your extrapolation is again, a vio or OR.--Die4Dixie (talk) 03:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Need I keep posting?
By the way, as you have been told before, deleting sourced content as you did here is vandalism, so please stop. See WP:VANDAL for more info. Likeminas (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Also , you confuse the pinochet regime with the man, and when you do, you commit OR violations. The regime is one thing, the man another. You are misrepresenting the sources.--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
The Irish Times piece is a book review, not a jornalistic piece. It is OPINION, and needs to be inline cited to the autor to the author. In fact, it is not usble at all. It will be shortly removed.
On the other two, please show where there is direct language that says Pinochet himself was a fascist.(Not the regime)--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Die4Dixie, I've listed more sources besides the ones already in the article. Did you read them? I hope you did, because not only I posted some mainstream sources such as The Independent (which unambiguously calls him a vile fascist) but also a book and even an encyclopedia. Those, whether you like them or not are reliable sources. Now in regards to your claim of OR I'd suggest that you first read it yourself since you don't seem to be aware what it means.
As you have seem from the links I've posted above I haven't added anything that is not supported by a reliable source. I'm not here to add my opinion, but to mirror what the sources say. I'd suggest you do the same. Likeminas (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Then use your sources that are relaible rather than hinging the label on a book review.--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely. By the way, I didn't add the ones that were there before. Likeminas (talk) 23:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Much better.--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I removed the book report.--Die4Dixie (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Nonesense, if you claim them to be unreliable take it to RSN. Let me know what they tell you. Likeminas (talk) 03:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed addition to intro

In accordance with the HTML comment, I'm submitting this here first. Suggested addition:

Original Spanish pronunciation [pinotʃet], in English usually pronounced /piːnoʊˑtʃɛt/ (US), /ˑpiːnoʊʃeɪ/ (UK), [1]

[edit] Fascist?

Pinochet was not a fascist. He was a right-wing dictator, but not a fascist, contrary to what the cited sources say. Most people these days throw around "fascist" like a swear word, without having any idea what fascism exactly is or what it entails. Pinochet did not set up a corporatist state, seek a revolutionary transformation of society, or establish a single-party state. His regime was conservative, not fascist. I am not arguing the fact that he was a dictator - an exceptionally brutal and venal one - but he was not a fascist. It's entirely possible to be an anti-communist tyrant without being a fascist. Josh (talk) 08:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Wells, John C. (1990). Longman pronunciation dictionary. Harlow, England: Longman. p. 537. ISBN 0582053838.  entry "Pinochet"

Thanks for your opinion Josh, but saying contrary to what the sources say doesn’t work very well in Wikipedia, as it relies heavily on verifiability, not opinions from editors. You’re right, however, that Pinochet did not set up a one party state. He actually shut down congress. Likeminas (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Did Pinochet consider himself a fascist? Did he actually implement fascist policies? No, he did not. Francisco Franco was a fascist; Antonio de Oliveira Salazar was a fascist; Benito Mussolini was a fascist; Adolf Hitler was a fascist; Antonescu and Pavelic were fascists; Getulio Vargas was a fascist. Do any of the sources listed provide any evidence of Pinochet's "fascism?" Wikipedia's own article on fascism:

Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, comprises a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology[1][2][3][4] and a corporatist economic ideology developed in Italy.[5] Fascists believe that nations and/or races are in perpetual conflict whereby only the strong can survive by being healthy, vital, and by asserting themselves in conflict against the weak.[6]

Fascists advocate the creation of a single-party state.[7] Fascist governments forbid and suppress openness and opposition to the government and the fascist movement.[8] Fascism opposes class conflict, blames capitalist liberal democracies for its creation and communists for exploiting the concept.[9]

Pinochet did not advocate a single-party state. He was not anti-capitalist. He did not believe in the national/racial "perpetual conflict." He opposed class conflict (as can be seen in the original version of the 1980 Constitution) and forbade and suppressed openness and opposition to the government, but the latter is a hallmark of all (or almost all) dictatorships, not just fascist ones.

Calling someone a "fascist" does not make it so. Many radical libertarians call Barack Obama a "fascist," and likewise, many on the left (and a few on the right) called George W. Bush a "fascist," as well.

While some have called Pinochet a fascist, have they provided any evidence of him subscribing to fascist ideology or implementing fascist policies? Josh (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Fascist referencing

I'm agnostic regarding whether Pinochet was a fascist, I'm merely (at the moment) interested in improving the appearance. An editor asked (Help desk) if there was a way to improve the appearance when there are multiple references for a single word (e.g. fascist). The answer given at the help desk was that it couldn't be done, but I found a way to do it.

I could be bold and just do it, but I want some feedback first.

Here's an example I just worked with the first paragraph of the Pinochet article. The word "fascist" had eight references. I used the new citation style as documented in wp:LDR, and separated each of the references by a line feed. (I also converted the website references to the proper citation style, although I don't know whether the publisher of Google Books references should be Google Book or the publisher of the book).

It isn't beautiful, but it removes the ugliness from the main text, and makes it reasonably clear that the citation is made up of multiple references.

I also added bullet points—does that add or detract?

If there's no objection, I can make the change to the article, but again, I'd like to hear opinions whether this is an improvement.--SPhilbrickT 13:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I actually implemented the changes already as it seems like good improvement. But all the credit goes to you, thanks again. Likeminas (talk) 13:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I had just decided to be bold and implement it, but I see you did. Unfortunately, as you know, it isn't working quite right, so I won't take any credit until it is fixed. Will keep looking until it is resolved.--SPhilbrickT 13:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Pheww, found it.--SPhilbrickT 13:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Great work Sphilbrick, thank you for your time. Likeminas (talk) 13:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Looks well sourced. Should stay in this time. Simonm223 (talk) 20:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] So well referenced for fascist

A so well referenced fascist needs to be part of the Fascist portal. Please do not remove with out s\discussion and consensus and reason for not including it in such a well referenced article.--Die4Dixie (talk) 13:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Please do not disrupt Wikipedia in order to try to make a point.Likeminas (talk) 13:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to add Pinochet and all the sources into the portal under the subsection people but not into this article. Otherwise seek consensus for it here.Likeminas (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
If that square of portal info is going to remain, I'll suggest it should be put underneath the photo / personal info of Pinochet. It's not too aesthetically pleasing as it is right now (and it is overlapped with some text from the article). Frank Pais (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Frank, I'm afraid he's not doing that in good faith, but rather to make a point. Likeminas (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Going to keep an eye on this article for a while. See if we can keep things WP:CIVIL as we get the article on this notable fascist dictator up to snuff.Simonm223 (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Die4Dixie (talk · contribs) is now claiming it is my responsability to find references claiming Pinochet is considered a fascist. As this was already done by others a while ago I will disregard his request. Simonm223 (talk) 14:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I am requesting evidence to have the portal section remain. Please familiarize yourself with the request for comment below. I have taken this to the greater community for their input. Specious use of "fascist" as a pejorative should not take the place of scholarly evaluations. All I have asked for is some scholarly sources for such a inane position----Die4Dixie (talk) 21:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Request

{{|editprotected}} Please remove the line <ref name="fascist">{{cite web|url=http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/pinochet-was-a-vile-fascist-but-allende-was-no-hero-1179768.html|title=Pinochet was a vile Fascist...|publisher=The Independent|accessdate=2009-09-21}}<br/> from the references section, because that reference is already brought inside the article, and with its present formatting it causes an error message. Debresser (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I've moved it to the line discussing Pinochet's purported fascism for now.  Skomorokh  21:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
That's fine with me. Thanks for fixing the error message. But you missed the point that we have that reference already in the article. Just that it is not called name="fascist" there. So it would have been better to give that unnamed reference the name "fascist" and remove the above mentioned reference altogether, so as not to introduce unusual (and in this case unneeded) forms of references. Debresser (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Not quite; the citation named "fascist" contains eight different references, of which The Independent is only one. I have removed the second reference to that particular article, as it was cited in the same line. It's an unusual style because it's just been implemented. Regards,  Skomorokh  22:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 10:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Two more questions

Why is Pinochet in the categories "Generalissimos" and "Anti-intellectualists"? Has he ever been referred to as "Generalissimo," and did he ever display anti-intellectualist tendencies? I'm not arguing for or against inclusion in these categories, it's just that this is news to me. I thought Pinochet only went by "Captain General." Josh (talk) 01:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

No, and I have removed it. There has been previous talk of making him look exclusively like a military man, even going so far as to remove his official presidential portiat and replacing it with one in which his is authoaratatively gesticulating. I have also moved the fascist side bar.--Die4Dixie (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Side Bar

As I had previously mentioned, I had removed the inappropriate side bar. Anyone wanting to reinsert, please discuss.--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

How is the side-bar inappropriate? As has already been demonstrated, there is a wealth of discussion on fascism being present within the Pinochet regime in Chile. You added the side-bar. Unless you added it in bad faith, I see no reason to remove it. It is highly pertinent to the subject matter at hand. Frank Pais (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I absolutely added it in bad faith. Where were you? That is why Likeminas removed so many times. >He recognized the inappropriateness of the sidebar, but seems unwilling to contradict you directly. Let´s try to be a little more intellectually honest. Or point to the massive amounts of academic literature that establish the corporatist nature of the regime. As a political scientist, you should have no problem substantiating this. It was you above who said this was a textbook erxample of what he did. if he did, and you can show it, I wont have any problems conceding the point.--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I would refer you to WP:POINT. Simonm223 (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Err, this is a moot issue now. Please review the history, and if you don´t understand it, I would be happy to explain the point Now if you have any information to support the other prongs other than authoritarian, to support the side bar, we would welcome your constructive additions.--Die4Dixie (talk) 06:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotect request

As per this request Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Unprotect_Pinochet_request I have unprotected this article. If this unprotection causes further disruption, please alert the admin team via AN/I. Manning (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] RfC:Is the use of the fascism portal and templates appropriate in the Pinochet article

Is the use of the fascism portal and tags appropriate in the Pinochet article? Die4Dixie (talk) 07:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not appropriate. Scholars of fascism don't consider him a fascist. For example, Walter Laqueur in Fascism: Past, Present, Future when talking about Chile under Pinochet says this: "they were updated versions of traditional military dictatorships, reprehensible and reactionary but not fascist." -- Vision Thing -- 08:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with Vision Thing, Augusto Pinochet's Chile would clearly not fit under Fascism, although possibly Neo-fascism --- similar to Franquist Spain and Alfredo Stroessner's Paraguay. Regardless of what is decided, I would recommend that Laqueur's remarks be cited in the article on the matter.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 09:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Well...I've never heard Franco called "neo-fascist" before but yes, Laqueur's remarks should be cited. On the other hand, there's a wide range of scholarly opinion on the matter. I think Paxton doesn't call Pinochet fascist but says he drew on fascist elements. On the other hand, I can probably find left writers who'd gladly describe him as fascist. We should be inclusive. On the question of the template...probably it shouldn't be here. --Killing Vector (talk) 22:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
No. In modern scholarship the term fascist is not applied to any government or political party after 1945. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


Not fascist in any form. Praetorianism/Military-led Conservativism. Pinochet runs roughly synonymous to the likes of Miguel Primo de Rivera. - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It isnt appropriate, Pinochet is not associated with fascism. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 15:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll chime in with the others. Pinochet was a military dictator, not a fascist. Fascism implies totalitarianism, state control over the economy, etc. Many of the hallmarks of such ideologies are clearly missing in his regime. If "fascist" has been used to describe him, it's only in the pejorative, reflexive sense in which it is used for all disliked right-wing regimes. Such a usage is inappropriate for a serious encyclopedia. RayTalk 13:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The use of the Fascist portal was obviously inappropriate and that shows how an edit based on bad faith can backfire sometimes. But removing the sub-section on his alleged fascism and deleting all of the sources that go with it is a violation of NPOV. I have re-inserted it as a sub-section. Please discuss before attempting to remove it. Likeminas (talk) 21:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This has been dealt with. You are breaking a concensus here. Please self revert.--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The concensus was that Pinochet was not a fascist but that does not mean that there is concensus to exclude from the article comparisons of his regime with fascism or to state that he has been considered fascist. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Please review the edits and the last version by vision thing. He has used the headline for the reference. Fascist doesn't even appear inn the article. --Die4Dixie (talk) 02:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I see there’s consensus in regards to the inappropriate usage of the Fascism portal in the article, which may I add, I pointed out from the beginning.
But see no consensus in reference to the section. I would even argue there's consensus to include all well-referenced content.
Needless to say that I see any compelling reason to remove authoritative sources such as; Word Fascism: A Historical Encyclopedia.Likeminas (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Vision and I support his version. Who supports yours? Why is it so important for you to have such an unflattering picture? This is not bringing balance to the article. The article should not say that he was good or bad, but what he did. It shouldn´t be necessary to spoon feed readers "bad,bad bad. Just look at the picture. Bad!" The picture,as it stands, is propoganda, and is being exploied for that purpose.--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS support the inclusion of my version. As for users please read above. The Four Deuces, Killing Victor and Redthoreau all seem to be inclining on touching the subject.
As for the picture, I know you have sympathy for Pinochet and that's ok with me. But putting a picture of him in the decadence of his life where he looks like a sweet old granpa is not well representative of his persona. The current picture was taken at the peak of his worldwide spotlight, Right after the coup. Something for which is most known for. Thus, is a better depiction of him. Likeminas (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Are you arguing that he had that expression on his face for his entire presidency? Is it that representative? Is there true abitrariness or an attempt to meld signifier and sign to make a point? Sure I´m sympathetic, and you have a strong antipathy. I´m very symapathetic towards Franco, but I would not argue the fascism point there. Fascism is being used as a pejoritive rather than as a descriptor and tries to draw a link to Adolf Hitler by association (To whom I am unsympathetic). There is plenty of room for criticism for his life, but let´s not play loose with facts. The category of leaders who came to power by coup is also loose. He came to supreme executive power through the decision of the Junta, so there was a period of time between the events. The toture section is lunacy. That report says that any detainee who was forced to strip was totured, and counts every one of them as a victim. If that is torture, then every prison in the US torures all day long,. Strip searhes is a SOP every where. Do you really think that he was a fascist? Or does it just have a nice ring to it or is a good euphamism for a really, really bad thing? I would be willing to work in a truly collegial way now, and put the Frank Pais deal behind us. If you doubt this, ask anyone with whom I have had problems with in the past. --Die4Dixie (talk) 01:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Likeminas, I also think that the subject should be touched but I just don't think it justifies its own section. -- Vision Thing -- 11:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Fascism is a loaded term. Pinochet definitely was closer to fascist ideology than he was to communist ideology, but we should only reliably categorize him as a fascist if the preponderance of the sources do so. If a minority of sources categorize him, we describe their characterizations and rationale in relation to how prominent those characterizations are. A single section dealing with comparisons may not be problematic as long as there are sources which are of high quality that we can use to support the prose in such a section. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing people using Scholarly sources other than Laqueur. Second ScienceApologist. Oh look at that jstor has J Grugel "Nationalist Movements and Fascist Ideology in Chile" Bulletin of Latin American Research, 1985 particularly at 118, claiming the Chicago Boys forced out the fascists per se. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Excellent. Since they didn´t force Pinochet out per se, then he must not have been a fascist, per se. I think that this is important, thanks for drawing it to our attention.--Die4Dixie (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
That does not to me seem to be a logically consistent conclusion, Die4Dixie. We cannot use the source to label Pinochet either way since the source does not say that they forced out every single fascist, nor does it say that everyone that they didn't force out was not a fascist. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
The article clearly describes the typology of Chilean fascism according to the definition given in the first couple of paragraphs. It does not include Pinochet within that typology. You can say Grugel 1985 does not consider Pinochet within his typology of Chilean fascism. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that's probably good. You could be a little less interpretative and simply say that Grugel 1985 does not include Pinochet within the typology of Chilean fascism. I'm still uncomfortable as to the conclusions such a statement might ask the reader to draw (since Grugel doesn't include Pinochet it is hard to know what his opinion is), but it is undeniable fact at least. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 : Pinochet was definitely a fascist, he represented the corporate interests of the elites. Not the military, the fact that he used the military shows that democratic means were not likely to result in a election in favour of the capitalist parties. He crushed labour unions, closed public schools, bulldozed the houses of the poorest in Chile, tortured and detained communists and social democrats. He represented an open terrorist dictatorship of big business. His government was made up of representative of corporations not of the citizens of Chile. The fact that there was no elections represents the fact that the government did not have wide spread democratic support to win the elections. Fascism has never meant state control of the economy anyone who believes this has a philistine knowledge of fascism. Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, eastern european fascists all privatized the economy with exceptions to certain arms industries but this didn't mean that arms production was solely public in this regard. It is a widely accepted fact across the world that Pinochet is a fascist. If you go in the streets of any latin american city, and the choices are describe Pinochet using one of the following terms "Fascist, Capitalist, Communist, Socialist, Democrat" Everyone would say fascist, the only people who reject the use of the term fascist are those who's agenda is to convert Pinochet's government into some sort of wide spread public acceptance by covering up the facts, mostly those who benefited from it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CmrdMariategui (talk • contribs) 15:09, 17 October 2009
There are several reliable sources that claim Pinochet was a fascist, now that some editors don’t consider them “scholarly” is another debate. I guess at this point we could all agree (and according to the majority of sources) that Pinochet was not a fascist in the classical sense. That is not to say; however, that his dictatorship did not implemented at least some elements of fascism such a strong authoritarian rule, brutal suppression of the opposition and shut down of congress among other things…
I think Word fascism: a Historical encyclopedia has the best explanation on this issue thus far. Likeminas (talk) 20:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
1945 is the cut-off. If you were in power in 1945 you might be a fascist. If you came to power later you were not a fascist. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] President?

Pinochet was not the president, presidents are chosen through sufrage. Pinochet was a dictator. Why is he then listed as a "president of Chile"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.236.11.56 (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Augusto_Pinochet"



Product Results (view all...)

search wiki for    ?
web dir firms image gallery news pdf wiki shop video 



↑ top of page ↑about thumbshots