Talk:Military dictatorship of Chile

Article's tone
I agree that the wording of this article should be far more negative. Pinochet's economic policy is described in a much too positive way. Checking GDP per capita figures for the time Pinochet was in power reveals that his economic policy in fact didn't generate any growth (I used OECD data from a publication of Angus Maddison). His government caused an econmic crisis, income disparities grew larger -- but overall per capita GDP didn't rise at all. And to those who say it takes time for such drastic policy measures to have effect: go and check GDP per capita data for South Korea after Park Chung-hee took over -- that's what a real economic miracle looks like. Pinochet was a dictator lead by misguided economists whose principles deserve to be rejected by economists today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.80.94.86 (talk) 14:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Given that Chile today has one of the most (if not the most) successful economies in the region, and given the extremely poor economic scenario in Allende's final days, I'd say this article is a tad negative. (And I do acknowledge the "things get worse before they get better" scenario, given the bad numbers on unemployment and wages.) Trey Stone 07:39, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Chile does have a great economy today, but this economy was built mostly after Pinochet left power. In addition, it's questionable whether any economic achievements under Pinochet actually matter as "good stuff", given the fact that his rabid capitalist policies ensured all the benefits would go to the rich. And besides, Joseph Stalin turned the Russian economy from one of the world's poorest into the world's second-largest, which is far more than Pinochet ever did (even according to his greatest supporters). But you don't hear people saying that Stalin's article should be made more positive, do you? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 19:34, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Russia economy is (or was) world's second-largest?? Can you enlighten me by providing URLs to data which support your claim? I, as a former inhabitant of said country, somehow didn't notice second-largest economy while I was standing in the line at 7:30 morning in the bitter cold of the winter, just to buy scarce milk for my infant brother. (Coming to the shop later than 7:30 was pointless - the milk was sold out by that time. Why the line was OUTSIDE of the shop, I have no idea. It just was. Perhaps out of love from communists to the working class...)


 * And since we veered off into talking about Stalin... Bloody Pinochet regime killed no more than 30 thousands Chileans, which is, I agree, horrible. Stalin regime killed, by the very conservative estimate, no less than 10 millions. "Bloody" is not quite strong enough word to describe Stalin. Bloody Pinochet was mere 0.3% as bloody as Stalin. 209.132.186.34 (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

But it is still typical for right wing dictators to allow more of economic freedom which usually produces a middle class to build true economic progress on (once true freedom, political and economic, is restored). As a consequence former right wing dictatorships usually outperform ex-communist states in economic terms. Allendes economic policy was a complete joke and bound to create economic disaster with the social unstability that usually follow. This does not in any way outweigh or excuse the terrible crimes committed by the junta. But a lot of people keep a very angel-like image of Allende and that is bizarre and wrong. He was a disaster. An elected disaster, but still a disaster. Johan V 02:11, 7 Dec 2004 (GMT+1)


 * If you think GDP and inflation are the only things that matter in an economy, than you could be right, but what about the wages and disparity between poor and rich? The low and middle class became poorer under Pinochet, and since they represented by far the majority, GDP means nothing in that case. Red Star
 * It simply means that one should work hard (or cleverly) and try to become rich. That's the difference between left and right. Left says "we must eliminate rich!" - no wonder that when they succeed, you see a lot of poverty! Right says: "we must make it possible for people to become rich" - which of course also means that if you DO NOT do anything to be richer, you will stay poor. 209.132.186.34 (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I love how all the deaths and disappearances are conveniently left out. Escapeartist 14:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Unless you actually do love it, feel quite free to add it. There is at least a moderate amount on this in the section Suppression of the Left; I, for one, would welcome more. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I was being sarcastic. The thing is that at the time, I was completely unable to find any deathtolls anywhere on the internet. Funny how information hides from you when you need it the most. Escapeartist 17:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

"given the fact that his rabid capitalist policies ensured all the benefits would go to the rich."

I guess Milton Friedman would laugh at that statement. The competitive free market policies determined a brake up of the ways of the old chilean society of state dependence and corrupt bureaucracy, with economic freedom and a free entrepreneur system chilean entrepreneurs were forced to become innovative and productive, as example there are the old "latifundios" that Allende attempted to eliminate by expropriated them in the name of the state, with Pinochet they begun to disappear when the non productive land was put to production by new capital according to the new "chilean export model".190.160.124.111 (talk) 16:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Pinochet's persecution of other groups
Did Pinochet 'only' persecute his political opponents or did he deem various social or ethnic groups 'unwanted' as well? If he didn't, he's a milestone among dictators. Joffeloff 21:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware of any particular ethnic targets, although I believe his regime was pretty tough on anyone deemed sexually "deviant". But that doesn't particularly make him that unusual among Latin American dictators, especially in countries where there was no large, traditionalist Native American population. - Jmabel | Talk 06:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What about the Mapuche in the south? How was they treated? Adville (talk) 12:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Cut: true, but incredibly misleading
"In 1973 GDP was at 1.147 billion, in 1990 it was at 9245.500 billion " This is technically true, but if you check the source it is denominated in "Billions of National Currency (1E-09)", that is, in Chilean pesos. This is not a 6000-fold increase in production, or anything approaching that; it is mostly inflation of the currency. Over the same period, the CPI (consumer price index) goes from 0.01500 to 40.70800. So if we index to CPI/, the increase is only about a factor of 2.97. Not too shabby, but dwarfed when you multiply it by 2714-fold inflation! - Jmabel | Talk 06:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Changes - Explanation
At the request of Jmabel, I will explain a bit the "small" edits I am introducing into this page. The topic to be discussed here should be "Chile under Pinochet", understanding as such, the historical/political (and maybe social) events that took place in Chile between September 11, 1973 - March 11, 1990. This clearly delimitates in time the scope of this article. Any other extemporaneous material should be diverted to its proper place, and not included here. This should be a broad overview of those years, and those years alone. Rehash from articles about the Allende Government, or the 1973 Coup, should be moved to their proper place. This is not the place to bring POV either. So, most of my edits are not to introduce material that will point towards increasing one version of events over other, but rather to pare down the text to bare facts, and let the reader form it's own opinion. Mel Romero 02:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that cited, attributed opinions from expert scholars or involved parties are perfectly legitimate. NPOV does not mean that there are no opinions expressed. It means that when there are opinions and analysis they are clearly attributed. Also, if you are removing material on the basis that this article isn't where it belongs, and it is not simply a rehash of another article, please make sure that you either move it to the appropriate article or copy it to this talk page so that someone else may do so. Thanks. (This is not to say that you haven't been doing this: I haven't looked closely enough at your edits to know, I'm just responding to your rationale, not your actions.)
 * Also, one remark of yours worries me a little: it is perfectly OK—I'd say often very useful—to present comparisons that may relate to matters outside of the period in question. For example, it is certainly relevant to this topic that prior to the coup, Chile had a long history as a democracy,and that democracy was restored afterwards. - Jmabel | Talk 03:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with you, and if in my editing I get carried away, and go too far, please feel free to correct me. One thing though, the myth of the long democratic history is just that, a myth. I am trying to put together a list of all the coups, civil wars, revolutions and similar that have happened in Chile, and they just about prove the oppossite. Mel Romero 05:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

POV?
An anon has placed at the head of the article. I have no idea what the issue might be. I can't imagine anyone doubting that Allende was head of state before the coup, so I assume that the issue must be with Marxist.

As discussed about a year ago at Talk:Salvador Allende, Allende was a founder in the 1930s of the Chilean Socialist Party, which was always overtly Marxist. He was not a Leninist, if that is the point. But he was a Marxist.

This page from Socialist Outlook has excerpts from an article by Tariq Ali, which gives a citation to Regis Debray (Conversations p118) for the following quotation from Allende:

"We consciously entered into a coalition in order to be the left wing of the system – the capitalist system, that is. By contrast, today, as our program shows, we are struggling to change the system … Our objective is total, scientific, Marxist socialism."

The Debray book should not be hard to find, and may have more.

The following all unqualifiedly call Allende Marxist:
 * Encyclopedia Britannica
 * CNN
 * Spartacus School Net
 * New York Times reporting at the time of the coup
 * Isabel Allende's publisher calling him a "Marxist-Leninist" (which I disagree with, and which none of the others say).

Given this, unless someone can explain within a week what is POV about the characterization, I think the tag should be removed. - Jmabel | Talk 20:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge
Merging Government Junta of Chile (1973) seems reasonable to me, unless someone thinks that this article will grow enough that we'd just find ourselves spinning it back off. - Jmabel | Talk 21:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't agree. There's a full series of articles just on the Government Juntas of Chile, dealing specifically with the history and conformation of said political structures. This article on Chile under Pinochet on the other hand is here just to deal with the historical versions (both for and against) of the events in the period 1973-1990 in Chile. In fact most of the extraneous information that is being added constantly to the Pinochet biography or the page about the military putsch of 1973 should be included here. Mel Romero 03:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Same. Mel Romero is right. This goes for a lot of articles: National Reorganization Process and Dirty War, Movimiento Nacional and Spain under Franco, etc. "Countries under X" are articles which allow a more general view than simple political history and constitutional matters. It is true that some overlap is inevitable, but that's not really a problem, is it? Tazmaniacs 16:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems to be me that the opposite should happen, move stuff from this article into the Junta article. The current title does seem to suggest that everything that did happen in Chile from 1973-1990 cannot be explained away without some sort of connection with Pinochet. This is just not true, economic results being one of them. What content is left over when the Junta (1973-1990) and Augusto Pinochet articles are complete? We don't have a Germany under Hitler article right now. Should one be created? What is the article supposed to deal with? Intangible2.0 14:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

poverty (moved from Augusto Pinochet article)
Pinochet's neoliberal economic policies' benefits have been sharply contested. In 1973, unemployment was only 4.3% time when the government employed many of Chile's citizens. Following ten years of junta rule in 1983, unemployment had risen to 22%. Real wages declined by more than 40%. In 1970, 20% of Chile's population lived in poverty. In 1990, in the last year of Pinochet's dictatorship, poverty doubled to 40%. Between 1982 and 1983 during the worldwide economic slump, the GDP dropped 19%, largely as a result of a downturn in the copper market. In 1970, the daily diet of the poorest 40 percent of the population contained 2,019 calories. By 1980 this had fallen to 1,751, and by 1990 it was down to 1,629. Furthermore, the percentage of Chileans without adequate housing increased from 27 to 40 percent between 1972 and 1988, despite the government's boast that the new economy would solve homelessness. In 1970, the richest one-fifth of the population controlled 45% of the wealth, after much of their wealth had been seized by president Montalva. In comparison the poorest one-fifth controlled 7.6%. In 1989, the richest one-fifth controlled 55% of the wealth while the poorest one-fifth controlled 4.4% I moved this from the Augusto Pinochet article. The results of economic policy should be discussed here (or maybe in a more properly titled article). Intangible2.0 13:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

needed: how the regime created a new class of ultra rich, and the public and private resources appropriated by the military
many among the ultra-rich people in chile are not related to the traditional rich but were opportunists who took advantage of connections to the gangsterial power to land sweet deals and take over huge portions of the chilean economy. this sociological cataclysm needs to be stressed and there are several books about it.

during the gangster's rule the military "acquired" significant real state and land holdings. this needs to be mentioned since it changed the ownership landscape of chile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.104.218 (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Chile Junta002.jpg
Image:Chile Junta002.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot 20:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

French support
That section is nonsense. It is the frenzy of just one journalist which is known for repeted lies. I think this section should not be kept in WP, as long as there are no other sources for it. 83.158.13.117 (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

President of Chile: really?
Pinochet was never head of state or President of Chile, and therefore never had head-of-state immunity, if there is such a thing. His appointment was illegitimate. Just because you steal something, doesn't make it yours. Grassynoel (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes he was, after the 1980 plebiscite. His title was President of Chile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.160.68.57 (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's right, just becuase a rule is unjust does'nt mean does'nt rule. There are many such examples throughout history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elcaballooscuro (talk • contribs) 14:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, Augusto Pinochet forced then President Salvador Allende was forced to commit suicide. Pinochet killed the former President and therefore became President. 190.141.88.36 (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Article name
What about renaming this article as "Presidency of Augusto Pinochet" or "Augusto Pinochet administration"? MBelgrano (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Presidency of Augusto Pinochet fails to emcompass the pre-presidential rule of Pinochet. I would rather suggest to rename the article to Military government of Chile (1973-1990) since it is more inclusive and less personalistic. At the end Pinochet was not the ideolouge of the Chilean state and many other military and civil figures contributed to the regime. Dentren  |  Ta lk  16:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I had not realized somebody changed this article's name to Presidency of Augusto Pinochet. I think most reasonable people would agree that Pinochet was not elected president in 1973. Albeit, Pinochet was latter named head of state, it is noteworthy to mention that right after the coup, the Military junta (made of the three generals of the armed forces) acted as the executive power and not Pinochet by himself. And last but not least an overwhelming majority of sources refer to Pinochet's government as a Military regime, Dictatorship or Junta government and not a presidency. Likeminas (talk) 21:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move
Presidency of Augusto Pinochet → Military government of Chile (1973-1990) — Includes the whole period of military rule not only the "presidency of Pinochet". As the proposed title imply it would give the article a broader look beyond the figure of Pinochet, who to say contributed little to many of the emblematic policies of the government. Dentren |  Ta lk  17:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Most sources refer to it as a military government anyway.
 * I would go right ahead Dentren, it doesn't seem like a controversial move at all. Likeminas (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

✅ (but I changed the hyphen to a dash, per WP's style).--Kotniski (talk) 07:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Name
Comparing the Spanish version this line (Partidarios y detractores se refieren a él como Gobierno militar y Dictadura militar, respectivamente/ Supporters and detractors refer to it as a military government and military dictatorship respectively.)  makes me think, did we get the name right? The name of the Spanish version is Régimen Militar (Chile), should we rename this one Military Regime of Chile ? any thoughts? Likeminas (talk) 02:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If the purpouse is to focus on the whole epoch and not just government perhaps Military Regime (Chile) or Régimen Militar would be better than Military Regime of Chile. Dentren  |  Ta lk  10:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's ok with me Dentren, should we go ahead and make the change? Likeminas (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Military Regime (Chile), Military Regime of Chile or Régimen Militar (Chile)? I would incline towars an option involving the last, since it would differentiate it from other military regimes and will be more easy to conceptualize as an epoch  defined by the regime, just like Victorian era goes beyond the queen and the term Age of Liberty goes beyond to define a whole epoch in Swedish history. The title Régimen Militar (Chile) would give similar aproach to the article. Translation into english Military Regime (Chile) would, in my opinion, give a less epoch-like outlook and more centered in the military and government, but is still an option.  Dentren  |  Ta lk  09:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a delicate subject for chileans, but the title "Military Regime (Chile)" is considered to be more neutral, because it stands in the middle of two points of view or extreme positions. People from one side calls it 'government', because it has a 'positive connotaion' to them, and people form the other side calls it 'dictatorship', because it has a 'negative connotation' to them. After many discussions, mainly done by chileans, the term "Military Regime (Chile)" was the one considered more neutral, and the one that included both visions. Therefore, the article should be renamed to Military Regime (Chile), since it wasn't a government when it was a dictatorship, and legally, it wasn't a dictatorship when it was a government. 3BRBS (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Good, bad or inhumane a government is government. Regime has the advantage of accomodating more than pure government issues, as I understand it a regime is broader than a government. I have a negative opinion on the rule of military in Chile and I guess most people will come to think the same when they read in the lead some of the aspects that characterized it. Conclusion: the name is not too important. But if a change in name brings more stability to the article (which it already seems to have) it might be worth some consideration. Chiton magnificus (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree, a government is a government, but there are kinds and kinds, and also, the whole period, might not be considered a single unit, or single way of government (which wasn't), therefore the title could be misleading. The name might not create that much conflict in english, but I still consider it unaccurate to the situation, and besides stability we should consider also: neutrality in the point of view, and consistency with other articles. I don't want to move the article's name on my own... anyone in favour?--3BRBS (talk) 13:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * To make this article fit other Chilean articles I'm actually thinking "Military Regime (Chile)" would be better widening its scope beyond just government but to describre under it a societal, economic and cultural epoch in Chile, just like it has been done on the Spanish wiki. Chiton magnificus (talk) 13:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Therefore, it should be moved! Please proceed ;)--3BRBS (talk) 18:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree, move the article. Adville (talk) 11:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not agree. If you look up the definitions of "regime" and "dictatorship" it is clear that the first is more general than the second. A Regime can be feudal, democratic, etc. Whereas a Dictatorship is a particular type of regime. Even more so, a Military dictatorship is a particular type of dictatorship, and I think that is what we had in Chile. I made the same claim in the spanish article and it was accepted. I propose moving the article to "Military dictatorship in Chile (1973-1990)", so whoever locked this option please unlock it. Cheers! --Shuvit90 (talk) 13:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup, you do not agree, and it's fine, but still 'Regime' is better than 'Government', and this article is still called "Military Government". About your claim that in spanish was changed, I believe you are wrong becasue its still called Régimen Militar. So, at least some should change the title of the article to 'Regime'.--3BRBS (talk) 13:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's then move the article to "Military dictatorship in Chile (1973-1990)", it is like 3BRBS said anyway better than any title containing government.Chiton (talk) 17:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Moved to "Military dictatorship of Chile (1973–90)", per Chiton. Küñall (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I missed the last point by Chiton. Just want to say I agree with taht and with your move, Kuñall. Adville (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

POV-pushing
Can someone please read the last three edits by the IP number 128.151.150.17? He/she erased 5 400 bytes of fact that in my eyes tries to give another view of the dictatorship. He/she also also changed the article about the dictator Augusto Pinochet, but I changed that back. Adville (talk) 07:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I Copied the last version not written by the IP-number of the article. That after no reaction here and after reading on the ip-numbers talkpage User talk:128.151.150.17 that it is warned earlier for similar editings. Adville (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Social Consequences
Pinochet started his rule in 1974 yet this section averages in Allende's economic shortfalls with Pinochets: "Between 1970 and 1989, there were large cuts to incomes and social services. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kokothegorilla3 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Links
(Lihaas (talk) 19:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)).

Trimming
I just cut a significant amount of content; the reason simply being that a vast number of differing estimates add very little to the article. I have kept the most notable of them, as well as the largest ones, so that no significant detail is lost. I have axed the questionable intermediate estimates. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you also help to shape the lead? I have some disagreements with an other user there. I don't want to engage in an edit war. Sietecolores (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * @Sietecolores: I was planning to look at the lead; what were the specific issues you had? Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This article is prone to partisan POV-pushes from one side and the other. The issue is about presenting the dictatorship in a neutral POV and to establish at least a weak consensus on what is be mentioned there. This article is prone to partisan POV-pushes from one side and the other. Sietecolores (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

200,000 exiled?
Source talks about 200,000 people exiled by the dictatorship: I wonder if these author might not have got it wrong, because plenty of people did also migrated for purely (or mostly) economic reasons, like the Crisis of 1982. Sietecolores (talk) 22:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It is not presented in Wikipedia's voice, and the source seems to be a reliable one, so I don't see to much of a problem. Estimating any such number during an authoritarian regime is always fraught with difficulty, and is bound to create wildly different estimates......If you found a source directly disputing the methodology of this one, though, we could perhaps remove it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Military dictatorship of Chile (1973–90). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070615015027/http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDQxNTJlM2M4OTRhOGJhNTMzNTkyNDQ2YmYzMTU3ZTU%3D to http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDQxNTJlM2M4OTRhOGJhNTMzNTkyNDQ2YmYzMTU3ZTU%3D
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://fpmr.org/heroes8.html
 * Added tag to http://mingaonline.uach.cl/scielo.php?pid=S0718-09502000000100003&script=sci_arttext
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121017034327/http://www.musicapopular.cl/3.0/index2.php?op=Artista&id=315 to http://www.musicapopular.cl/3.0/index2.php?op=Artista&id=315

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Military dictatorship of Chile (1973–90). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20131002040217/http://www.omaha.com/article/20110818/AP15/308189901 to http://www.omaha.com/article/20110818/AP15/308189901
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091004110250/http://www.memoriaviva.com/culpables/criminales%20p/pinochet.htm to http://www.memoriaviva.com/culpables/criminales%20p/pinochet.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if this can/should be merged
I had a student that was going to work on the Economy and Free Market Reforms section, but they never merged any of their information. They have some draft work at User:KarenPerez96/sandbox, but I'm not really sure what could be merged into the article. I wanted to post it here so that someone more familiar with the topic can judge whether or not it should be merged. Offhand it looks good, but I don't know if it duplicates too much of the content that's already in the article. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Misleading or incorrect information
"The U.S. government had been interfering in Chilean politics since 1961, and it spent millions trying to prevent Allende from coming to power, and subsequently undermined his presidency through financing opposition. Declassified C.I.A documents reveal U.S. knowledge and alleged involvement in the coup." This sentence is factually incorrect.

Both the declassified CIA documents and the Church Committee Report reveal no such thing. What they reveal is that the CIA was actively trying to overthrow Allende in a previous coup attempt years earlier, but that the US had no involvement in Pinochet's coup -- even going so far as to explicitly tell Pinochet's deputies that this was strictly an internal Chilean matter. "...a Chilean military officer reported to a CIA officer that a coup was being planned and asked for US government assistance. He was told that the US Government would not provide any assistance because this was strictly an internal Chilean matter."

The US was involved in the Schneider Plot, but had expressed disapproval for the plot to the coup plotters associated with General Viaux prior to it being carried out. This plot is not the same one as Pinochet's.

From the Church Committee Report -- "Was the United States directly involved, covertly, in the 1973 coup in Chile? The Committee has found no evidence that it was..."

So why is this a talk instead of a simple edit? This is one of those historical truisms people repeat that isn't correct, and it's a very politically sensitive one at that. The citation that this part links to seems to be a secondary source which undoubtedly derives its narrative from either the Church Committee Report or the CIA declassified documents itself. We can cut out the middle man since we have both of these things and can easily access them without a third party narrative.

The very high estimates
The very high estimates: "Other sources place the number of all the victims of the dictatorship as high as 15,000 killed and 2,000 disappeared" should be considered fringe and may be mentioned (because until 1990 we didn't know anything for sure), but then this must be done carefully and with further explanation. I.e. it seems it's a 1990 estimate that has just been mentioned again in 2016. That is to say, I guess no-one really believed in 2016 any more that the 15,000 victims estimation was accurate.Italofiil (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree that 15,000 is a very high number and not in line with the Spanish version of the article where these things have been scrutinized more thoroughly. I suggest we use the formulation, numbers, and sources used in the Spanish version of the article here. Dentren &#124; Talk 14:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Totalitarianism
This regime was clearly totalitarian, throwing people out of helicopters and sending them to torturing centers for having the "wrong ideologies". If we label stalinist and fascist regimes as such, then we also do the same for neoliberal military dictatorships like this one. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the sources that you have presented fail to substantiate the label, as explained in detail here. (Furthermore, opinion pieces cannot be used for such a statement in wikivoice per WP:RS: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.") Regardless of the perceived truth of the matter, it is against Wikipedia's content policies to introduce unverifiable material. Please self-revert.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Totalitarian is an inaccurate label for the regime. Life continued as normal for many Chileans, the regime did never invaded the intimacy of private life and propaganda was much reduced when compared with classical "totalitarian" examples of the Old World. Dentren &#124; Talk 23:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Sham referendum?
The article calls the 1980 Chilean constitutional referendum a "sham referendum". Irregularities, questioning and accusations of bias do not automatically transform a referendum into a sham. I suggest describing the problems of the referendum in other terms. Dentren &#124; Ta<b style="color: Green">lk</b> 23:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 20 September 2023
<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move (non-admin closure) Reading Beans (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Military dictatorship of Chile (1973–1990) → Military dictatorship of Chile – Simply because of WP:PRECISE: The current title seems to imply that there were other military dictatorships in Chile other than the one from 1973–1990, but there weren't any. The title "Military dictatorship of Chile" is unambiguous, and sufficient. Mathglot (talk) 02:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that.


 * Support appears to be a WP:MISPLACED situation. estar8806 (talk) ★ 04:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. As a post closure comment I'd like to point out there were actually other military dictatorships in Chile, the most recent is that of 1932, following the coup that ousted Juan Esteban Montero Rodríguez, although that period is most commonly referred to as "Socialist Republic". The Ibáñez government was also a military dictatorship, although most commonly referred to as just a dictatorship. Anyway, the premise of the requester is wrong. Bedivere (talk) 23:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you propose, then? You're within you rights to ask for a closure review, if you think it was wrong. I searched before I posted, and found nothing in the first 100 results (books: 1-100; journals: results 1-10; results 91-100) having to do with anything other than Pinochet's time. Mathglot (talk) 00:12, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not opposed to the renaming, I just meant to correct your statement, as there were some other military dictatorships in Chile ("there weren't any"). Have a good day! Bedivere (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)