Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of MIR (Chile) members assassinated by the Pinochet regime


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. This is fairly evenly divided between keep and delete (although the delete comments slightly outweigh the keep), and there has been a lot said by those who feel that the lists should be kept. However, the arguments used tend to the Other stuff exists or engages in political debate which we have found from experience to be against Wikipedia's principles, and to be quite disruptive. The arguments for deleting the lists did cite a long standing policy: WP:NOT. These lists also fail WP:NLIST. If, as DGG says, our guidelines and policies change to allowing lists of non-notable names, then these articles can be recreated at that time.  SilkTork  *YES! 20:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

List of MIR (Chile) members assassinated by the Pinochet regime

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Indiscriminate list, if one was to be created it should contain only notable kidnappings. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Very sad, but WP:NOT a memorial. We didn't keep articles on every 9/11 victim either. DS (talk) 00:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site
 * Delete all Although I applaud the effort, one of the core principles of WP:NOT is that Wikipedia is not a memorial, and these list violate that core principle. Harsh as it may seem, it's one of the best rules on Wikipedia, a rain that falls upon the rich and the poor alike.  There is nothing wrong with putting in a link to lists of names, but one cannot create such lists.  Otherwise, we would have attempts to list all of the people who died on 9/11, or at Pearl Harbor, Auschwitz, Hiroshima, the Trail of Tears, etc., or who were killed under the regimes of Pinochet, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, etc.  Mandsford (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Mandsford sums up the reasons well. JohnCD (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Mandsford rationale Upon satisfactory explanation and rationale by the article’s creator moving to keep. . Likeminas (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * KeepLikeminas (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, as the majority rationale is easily proven false:

Wikipedia is not a social network like MySpace or Facebook. You may not host your own website, blog, or wiki at Wikipedia. Wikipedia pages are not:


 * 1)      Personal web pages.  Wikipedians have their own  user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog or to post your resume, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet or any hosting included with your Internet account. The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration. Humorous pages that refer to Wikipedia in some way may be created in an appropriate namespace, however.
 * 2) File storage areas. Please upload only files that are used (or will be used) in encyclopedia articles or project pages; anything else will be deleted. If you have extra relevant images, consider uploading them to the Wikimedia Commons, where they can be linked from Wikipedia.
 * 3) Dating services. Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to pursue relationships or sexual encounters. User pages that move beyond broad expressions of sexual orientation are unacceptable.  However, you very well may make new friendships as you go about improving the encyclopedia.
 * 4) Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Note that this policy does not apply outside of the main article space. Whilst using user space to create a memorial is generally not acceptable, limited exemption applies to the user space of established Wikipedians who have died. At a minimum it is expected that they were regular contributors, and that more than one tenured Wikipedian will have used the deceased user's page (or an appropriate sub-page) to add comments in the event, and after verification of, their death.

If you are interested in using the wiki technology for a collaborative effort on something else, even if it is just a single page, there are many free and commercial sites that provide wiki hosting. You can also install wiki software on your server. See the Wiki Science wikibook for information on doing this. Scratchpad Wiki Labs also allows personal wikis. See also Alternative outlets." - WP:NOT

The above is a wag of the finger at would-be bloggers, lonely hearts, bereaved seeking a eulogy for the departed, etc. To cite it as a reason for the deletion of a historical record of an event that defines an entire country's history is a grievous error. Anarchangel (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying, but deleting the article is not the equivalent of deleting the historical record. The list is drawn from a verifiable memorial to members of MIR who were killed by the Pinochet regime, and such sources will continue to exist.  The procedure is to provide such links within an article, rather than to attempt to list the names of all the victims (as an aside, although there were more than 3,000 people killed under the Pinochet regime, I don't know how many of them would be on a list of MIR members.  Needless to say, people have strong feelings about the victims of murder, and outrage against the perpetrators (who, invariably, get away with it).  When people compile such lists, the emotions become even stronger, since there is a determination to make sure that nobody is forgotten.  Wikipedia has policies that seem callous, perhaps even cold-hearted, when it comes to discouraging point-of-view writing, or discouraging long lists of persons who have died, but it's a hard choice that has to be made in order to maintain an online encyclopedia.  Otherwise, we would have countless projects devoted to making sure that names "will never be forgotten" -- the very definition of a memorial.  Mandsford (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, so come up with a better rationale, then. Abusing WP:NOT to get a just result is still abuse. Anarchangel (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if you want another rationale, I would cite WP:IINFO - this level of detail does not have an encyclopedic purpose. The information is readily available on sites like www.memoriaviva.com/desaparecidos and www.memoriaviva.com/ejecutados, which can be linked to. Do we devalue 9/11 or the Srebrenica massacre or the Rwanda genocide by not listing every victim? But I actually think WP:NOTMEMORIAL does apply here and its scope need not be limited as you say - note the word "others" in the definition. JohnCD (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please explain 'this level of detail does not have an encyclopedic purpose' If I understand you correctly, I am very surprised to see depth of information being used as a reason to delete, it is a grotesque twisting of an excellent rationale for keeping information.
 * Linked where, exactly?
 * Assuming for the sake of argument that a memorial to the victims of a massacre falls under memorial, it remains to be seen how this bland assertion of names, dates, and places of origin would be a memorial, or violate the essential spirit of the rule. I do not see such evidence. This data of names and places is only a memorial in people's minds, I think, and just as we am not allowed to tell them how to think, by being NPOV, they are not allowed to tell us to remove facts from WP because they are concerned about what and how other people will think about them. I am also not buying the WP:OTHERSTUFF about the Pentagon and WTC attacks either; why exactly is there not a record of which people were killed, what companies they were employees of, what part of the building they worked in, what they died of, to verify other reports and clarify issues, for investigators to research the events... I am just spitballing here, the basic premise of including useful information is the key. Anarchangel (talk) 12:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, there's a current discussion (started last week) going on about the interpretation of this policy regarding the subject, under the heading "Requested clarification of meaning of Not:Memorial".  I apologize for not bringing it to your attention sooner.  Some of the comments I've made here, I've made there as well.  Worth looking at, and worth adding to as well.  Mandsford (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete all. This is not a "historical record". It falls squarely in the realm of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: for the reasons A, B, C, D, E, F, I elaborate upon in the comments below.Moshe-paz (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (A) Firstly, there are already such lists in both the Spanish and English wikipedia project:
 * For example:
 * Missing prisoners of Chile;
 * Lista de los 119 desaparecidos
 * Anexo: Detenidos desaparecidos de Chile
 * Anexo: Extranjeros detenidos desaparecidos de Chile


 * These lists did not provide much information on the cases nor where they referenced to sources - the list placed in the English project has information in Spanish that hasn’t even been translated. In accordance with Wikipedia policy I attempted to improve these lists, firstly by providing an introduction to the one concerning the MIR victims, to subdivide the cases already listed in the project, using a better navigational format and had commenced to add sources to them from which individual biographical articles could be written of them. In many case I provided multiple sources pointing to the level of notability of the individual cases.


 * (B) NOT A MEMROIAL: The term memorial is very ambiguous it means “a reminder of some event or incident.” In essence anything having to do with the memory of history could be deemed a memorial.
 * Albeit, this list of cases are related to a historically period commencing on 9/11, 1973 to the present; many cases have formed part of numerous criminal complaints and judicial actions and hitherto many remain unresolved, some are pending in the tribunals of justice and some are likely to be reactivated as Chile further reforms legislation left by the Pinochet dictatorship. This is not a reminder of an event because many cases involve individuals who are still legally victims of “secuestro permanente.” Because their cases have not been fully resolved and their relatives are still campaigning to bring the perpetrators of the atrocities to justice. These people are often seen in demonstrations with their relatives photographs and images which have almost become part of Chile’s national conscious.


 * There is a fundamental difference between the millions of people exterminated by Stalin and Hitler and the thousands of victims of the Pinochet regime. Whilst Stalin and Hitler applied the strategy of exterminating whole demographic groups or populations under their rule to halt the processes of history, Pinochet opted to exterminate, in a surgical fashion, individuals deemed most likely to prevent the consolidation of his regime. The principle criteria applied by the Pinochet regime in exterminating an opponent was the opponent’s grade of notability in his respective community or field of expertise - this was done to create the biggest social impact and maintain a climate of terror upon the broadest layers of people possible.


 * In essence most of the workers, peasants, actors, editors, cinematographers, physicians, political leaders, student leaders, scientists, foreign nationals, writers, listed where highly notable people.


 * (C) NOTABILITY OF CASES INDIVIDUALLY AND COLLECTIVELY: Most of these cases were initially documented and archived semi-clandestinely by the Roman Catholic Church organisation Vicariate of Solidarity, the work of the Vicariate was legally recognized in the Rettig Report which was officially released in Chile by President Patricio Aylwin in 1991. Further study and investigation was articulated and compiled in the Valech report. Most of these cases have been documented by various media: in film/documentaries, in newspapers around the world, in published books, and in numerous human rights journals. They have been presented in many prominent websites including the website of the United States Institute of Peace (at one stage these cases were available in USIP in html they are now archived in this website as PDF files which makes it hard to retrieve individual cases), in Memoriaviva.com, in Centro de Estudios Miguel Enriquez (CEME) and the website ecomemoria.com is also working on presenting biographies on the cases.


 * Whilst Pinochet was under house arrest in London some of these cases were heard before the parliaments in Europe – cases involving foreign nationals, they have also been the subject of judicial actions and law suits that have been extensively covered by the media.


 * According to John Dinges the victims of the Pinochet regime constitute probably the only case in history in which almost every individual case of human rights abuse that was reported to human rights organisation were meticulously and painstakingly documented and archived.


 * (D) CASES EXPOSE ROLE OF MAINSTREAM MEDIA IN THE PINOCHET REGIME: The Operation colombo or the case of the 119 (sp. Caso de los 119) included in this list has become a major unresolved social scandal exposing the role the mainstream media played under the Pinochet regime in covering up some of the worst atrocities committed by the dictator. The mainstream media principally the newspaper el Mercurio (one of the oldest, most important and prestigious newspaper published in the Spanish language – owned by the Chilean oligarch, Agustín Edwards Eastman) - published a cover up of the extrajudicial killing of up to 119 people in the torture centre of Pinochet in Chile – by presenting them as killings that had occurred in foreign countries. (100 of the 119 were MIR members) The newspaper’s director and editors used doctored photographs and fabricated information provide by Pinochet secret police DINA to present its readership and audience with a campaign of misinformation that the 119 had been killed by their own “communist” organisations outside Chile.


 * (E) CASES ARE ASSOCIATED WITH ADVANCEMENTS IN THE APPLICATION OF HUMANITARIAN AND INTERNATIONAL LAW IN RELATION TO HUMAN RIGHTS: These case led to the application of the judicial thesis of secuestro permanente (permanent kidnapping/abduction) conceived and upheld by the Chilean Judge Juan Guzmán Tapia. This was the outcome of the laborious attempt by the Chilean judge to inactivate the Ley de amnistía (1978) (Chile’s Amnesty Act of 1978) that Pinochet established to prevent perpetrators of the worst crimes in his regime from facing prosecution. By redefining the legal status of victims of forced disappearance to that of victims of permanent kidnapping the Chile’s Amnesty Act 1978 was revoked in light of numerous cases involving MIR victims (and others) of the Pinochet regime. Since such crimes had not been officially “committed” but were in essence “ongoing” by the fact that the victims remains had not officially been found and their relatives were still campaigning to know their whereabouts, many members of Pinochet secret police – previously protected by the Amnesty Law - were put on trial and convicted. In English wikipedia there is not even an article on “Secuestro permanente” a judicial tool that will see future heads of state who subject their political opponents to forced disappearances encounter major obstacle in enacting Amnesty laws to protect people who carry out this specific form of crime.


 * These cases also lead to improvements in how judicial systems treat charges of human rights violations and the application of international law by reigniting the debate concerning crimes against humanity unheard since the Nuremberg trials. These cases where also part of Baltazar Garzón initial charges of genocide against Pinochet that indirectly culminated in creating the legal precedent that lifted the diplomatic immunity granted to former heads of state that had historically protected them from being prosecuted for crimes against humanity. The Australian QC Geoffrey Robertson has written extensively on the Pinochet case and the historical significance of this precedent.


 * The importance of the MIR case among other cases related to the Pinochet regime which consist (-ed) of several thousand people rests on the fact that it has had a more profound impact on humanitarian and international law than the Nuremberg trials established to prosecute the Nazis for exterminating millions of human beings. Wherefore, mention the millions of anonymous victims of Stalin that have had absolutely no impact whatsoever on the judicial management of human affairs or the conduct of states.


 * I am sure editor Likeminas (who took part in deleting a previous article I contributed to the project) who is majoring in the field of international law would be more familiar with this material than I.


 * (F) A COUNTERPRODUCTIVE POLITICAL AND CULTURAL BIAS: To delete the List of MIR (Chile) members assassinated by the Pinochet regime and not lists such as:
 * List of Coalition forces killed in Iraq in 2006
 * List of Iraqi security forces fatality reports in Iraq
 * List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada
 * List of veterans of World War I who died in 1999


 * list that escape my understanding and probably that of 95% of the people on the beautiful planet we share:
 * List of Honorverse characters
 * List of General Hospital miscellaneous characters
 * List of Bobobo bo Bo bobo


 * Lends the project to a cultural and political bias.


 * Finally, given that the original basis on which this list was nominated for deletion is not very well founded or consistent due to the fact that there were already such lists in the project both in the Spanish and the English one - the “consideration for deletion” tag should ideally be removed.


 * Furthermore the following comment introduced in the introduction of the article for deletion page “Indiscriminate list, if one was to be created it should contain only notable kidnappings” by editor Backslash/forwardslash is also not very well founded as I have explained in my comments above most of the people on the list were/are victims of “secuestro permanente” the most notable form of kidnapping, the rest were victims of notable political extrajudicial killings or assassinations.


 * If those who believe the list should still be removed want to delete it he/she/they should ideally nominate it again for deletion but on a different basis for another specific reason – that can be specifically challenged.
 * I emphasize the word ideally because in this project miscarriages of policy seems to be a major weak point of this collaborative encyclopaedia. ______Regards____, Moshe-paz (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment on your point (A) - the list Missing prisoners of Chile was only introduced in the last few days, is no more appropriate than these ones, and its presence cannot be used as an argument for keeping these. The Spanish Wikipedia has its own standards and again, what is allowed there is not a useful argument here. JohnCD (talk) 20:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I was asked to comment. By our current standards, until we change them, this violates NOT MEMORIAL. Whether or not we should change them is another matter. There's a discussion at the WT:NOT page. If the guidelines on this change, this can be reconstructed if it meets whatever rules we then have.    DGG ( talk ) 20:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, defending the policy is key for some - and perhaps that is better in the long term or so to speak. Thanks for your comments anyway - honestly I didn't expect this list to last. But then again nor do I expect an editor from Baghdad named Mohamed to nominate the "List of Coalition forces killed in Iraq in 2006 List of Coalition forces killed in Iraq in 2006" and successfully get it removed from the project on the basis of policy. Regards_Moshe-paz (talk) 04:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Moshepaz proved a point theres a list of US coalition forces killed in iraq unsourced which hasnt been nominated for the deletion bin. Why is one specifically about revolutionary left movement victims of pinochet selected for deletion. No one answered this point made. policy policy is not applied evenly by admins most are of the right who don't know nothing. Moshepaz made a point of bias i've been noticing this for a very long time which is why i hardly contribute to wikipedia. Chilevic (talk) 11:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment the political overtones implied by Chilevic provide another powerful reason why none of these lists should be allowed - Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If we allow them, we will soon have competitive lists of dead Northern Ireland Catholics/Protestants, Armenians/Azeris, Palestinians/Israelis, Hutus/Tutsis, Serbs/Bosnians/Kosovans... JohnCD (talk) 11:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.