Talk:Augusto Pinochet

garbled sentence
This sentence in the introduction is garbled: "According to the Chilean government, the number of executions and forced disappearances was 3,095.[20]" So was it 3,095.executions? Or 3,095 disappearances? Or 1 execution and 3,094 disappearances? Or, 3,094 executions and 1 disappearance?

Citations for "dictator" in lead
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)

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)


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

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


 * 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)

Section's wrong title
Section's title ACCUSATIONS OF FASCISM is wrong because fascism is an ideology founded on economic system named CORPORATIVISMO in Italian language: some Italians were inventors of fascist ideology which have several imitations in all the world. Pinochet ruled his nation in similar manner of Mussolini, Franco, Salazar, Peron, etc. but Pinochet did not inserted economic corporativismo in totally manner: for these reason I suggest title COMPARISON WITH FASCISM. Forza bruta (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Your premise is incorrect. Corporatism was a much broader economic phenomenon in post-WWI Europe. Fascism's early emphasis on corporatism wasn't at all unique, and the fascist movement later transcended any and all economic doctrines. Anyone who would like to read a classic bit of scholarship on the topic should check out Charles Maier's Recasting Bourgeois Europe Generalrelative (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Please define...
'Thatcherite'. 110.174.52.185 (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I added a link to Thatcherism, which I think is most relevant. –CWenger (^ • @ ) 23:18, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Neoliberal?!
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

About my edit and its arbitrary removal
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)