Talk:Augusto Pinochet/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

POV edits I've been reverting and why

  • I've slightly reworked the reason the House of Lords used to extradite him. It previously said he could be extradited to Spain only to face charges of crimes committed after the UK signed the Torture Convention in 1988, which is false. The House of Lords decision was that he could only face charges for crimes after the UK incorporated the Torture Convention (which it had signed years before 1988) into UK law via the 1988 Criminal Justice Act. I have amended it accordingly.
  • removing Marxist and replacing with Socialist: this is a POV omission, it might be most informative to say Marxist Socialist Party of Chile or some such.
  • adding "dubious" to "a dubious referendum" is completely true, but POV, find another way to phrase it such as mentioning a first or third-party's assessment of the referendum.
  • removing "but five of his military bodyguards were killed." is unnecessary and definitely POV.

I don't disagree fundamentally with these edits, but you have to find a better NPOV way.

Daniel Quinlan 23:29, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Cantus, please justify the continual POV attempts you are making to this article. It's not like the article portrays him as a nice man, I don't see the need to keep trying to tweak it with your POV. Daniel Quinlan 04:57, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
As a specific example, Cantus gives this edit summary: ("In 1980 a new constitution was approved in a highly irregular and undemocratic plebiscite" -- From The US Library of Congress' Country Studies: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/cltoc.html). I don't find that precise quotation on the website (I followed the link for "The 1980 Constitution"). Even if it's on there somewhere, though, simply asserting this view without attribution (except in the edit summary) is POV. What I do find on the site is a somewhat cursory discussion of the 1980 referendum, stating, for example, "Because there were no safeguards for the opposition or for the balloting, most analysts expressed doubts about the government's percentage and assumed that the constitution may have won by a lesser margin."
I suggest this approach: In the passage here at issue, in the lead section, we refer only to a "controversial" plebiscite or some such. More elaboration could come at the point in the article where 1980 falls chronologically. Either at the end of "Suppression of opposition" or at the beginning of "End of the Pinochet regime", there could be a paraphrase or direct quotation from the Library of Congress site, with a proper attribution. We might well be able to find a notable spokesperson (opposition leader, international human rights activist, or some such) to go beyond the cautious wording that there "may" have been "a lesser margin" and who would instead come right out and say that the election was stolen. It would be misleading to refer to a 1980 plebiscite while remaining silent about the objections to it, but the current version is too dogmatic. JamesMLane 07:09, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment on latest edits: As indicated above, I don't agree with the wording inserted by Cantus. I do agree with his latest edit summary, however, in which he says that the criticisms of the 1980 referendum aren't made clear in the text absent what he inserted. My take on it is that Daniel Quinlan's edit suppresses the criticism completely, while Cantus's states one opinion as a fact. Does anyone want to take time out from reverting to comment on the approach I suggested above? JamesMLane 03:02, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The phrase is under Chapter 4 - Government and Politics, Constitutional History, Imposition of Authoritarian Rule. Your suggestion to put controversial first, and say why later in the article makes sense, however that can only be implemented when there is a 1980 Constitution section in the article, which is not the case as of now. —Cantus…☎ 05:31, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the more precise reference. I don't think the 1980 plebiscite needs a separate section. It was an instance of "Suppression of opposition" so it could be discussed in that section. It could also be considered the beginning of the process by which democracy was eventually restored so it could be part of "End of the Pinochet regime". I wouldn't object to a separate section about 1980, but I think it would be disproportionately small. JamesMLane 07:30, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Where is operation Condor and the murder of Ronni Moffitt?

No article on Pinochet would be complete without mentioning doing murders outside of Chile. There should some mention of the audacity of doing a terrorits hit inside Washignton DC. John wesley 14:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC) ~!

Let's be grown ups

Okay, I have adopted the compromise suggested above and I even allowed the "violent" adjective (which I think is a POV addition because tell me about a coup that is not violent), but I seriously object to my compromise edits being reverted as "vandalism". That is serious abuse on the part of Cantus. I have tried to compromise, I have discussed by changes and objections, and I am not blindly reverting, I am working my edits towards some middle ground. Please do the same. If you disagree, call for a vote on one of my last set of changes and see how you fare. Actually, I'll call for a vote right now to see if we cann putput an end to this. Daniel Quinlan 09:43, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Vote: "violent coup"

  • violent coup
  • coup
  • violent coup violent is not point of view. i dont think anyone would disagree that weapons fire murders and bombing campaigns are not violent acts and these are undisputed this is how he came to power therefore violent is not a POV issue. Qrc2006 02:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • violent coup I agree with Qrc2006, there are many ways of conducting the overthrow of a government. I would even dare add "violent military coup", as there have been various civilian coups, such as the "Fujishock" self-coup conducted by elected president Alberto Fujimori of Peru in the 1990s, where he proceeded to give himself unchecked authoritarian powers by closing the legislative branch. The Pinochet coup was particularly brutal - with mass arrests, torture, assasinations, tanks in the streets, and jet fighters bombing civilian targets including the presidential palace of La Moneda. Komunysta 02:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Vote: Allende: Marxist or Socialist

  • Marxist
    • Reading biographies of Allende, he is clearly best described as a Marxist or a Communist. To be sure, he was anti-Russian domination, but he was no Socialist. Daniel Quinlan 09:43, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • The distinction is really non-existent. Allende was a marxist in that he was a progressive who implemented land reform and partial nationalization with the purpose of empowering the workers, the producers of his country. This also fits the modern definition of a socialist. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:25, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Definitely a Marxist, because it is the more accurate definition. A socialist is a very wide spread definition, but might still have a very democratic tone, even sometimes almost free-market oriented, like in the European scene (just think about Tony Blair, Gerhard Schröder, etc...). A marxist is still a socialist, but more radical. Marxism doesn't get well along with democratic systems, and therefore I would rather chose the definition Marxist for Allende, as he clearly acted and stated towards an autoritarian state like his friend Fidel Castro with Cuba. Allende even disrespected and motivated to disrespect democratic insittutions like jundgments done by the Supreme Court during his own presidentship. RapaNui 13:12, 06 Dec 2005 (CET)
  • Socialist
    • I tend to agree with what JTD says below, and I'd also like to point out that while Marxists may be socialists by definition, not all socialists are Marxists. What Marx offered was first and foremost a technique for analyzing contemporary society, less so a concrete program for social change. I don't associate Allende with dogmatic assertions of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and that kind of thing. -- Viajero 17:47, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Don't know about your language usage, guys, but this is my understanding of the words' meaning applied on my knowledge of Pinochet. The idea that one can be a Marxist without being a Socialist, when expressed without qualifications, is totally alien to me. /Tuomas 09:42, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I think Socialist doesn't have the negative connotations that Marxist has. Samboy 14:47, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I vote Socialist. Basically because of three reasons: 1) 'Marxist', while not a negative word, was the word used by the military Junta to refer to any and all leftists in Chile during that time because it was an important part of their "marxist cancer is going to destroy the country" speech. therefore, to call Allende a Marxist may relate to this instead of correct political definitions. 2) He was one of the founders of the Socialist Party in Chile and is still considered a Socialist in everyday political activities in Chile (the logo used for the Socialist Party during the propaganda of the upcoming Chilean presidential election is and image of Allende's eyeglasses). And 3) RapaNui's argument is mistaken: he claims that "he clearly acted and stated towards an autoritarian state like his friend Fidel Castro with Cuba", but one of the main reasons why his government failed is that he never went against democracy (in fact, in Patricio Guzmán's documentary "Salvador Allende, Soviet political figures of the time appear criticizing Allende precisely for his commitment to democracy). Jjatria
  • Marxist and Socialist
    • This is my attempted compromise version. —Cantus…☎ 00:13, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree. The standard way in many works for describing someone who different groups attach different terms to, is to say, applying the same standard here, "variously described as a Marxist or a Socialist". The problem, a little over a decade after the fall of communism, is that words like marxist carry implicit negative meanings. Unless the word is strictly defined in a totally neutral, objective manner it carries baggage that may distort his political viewpoint or push the agenda of the writer of the article. BTW, Daniel, a marxist and a communist are different terms, like say Catholic, Anglo-Catholic and Roman Catholic, Anglican and High Church Anglican and Low Church Anglican. In all of these, like marxism and communism, there is a degree of overlap, but they are not identical. FearÉIREANN 01:10, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      I realize that. I wasn't proposing that we call him a communist. I think Marxist is the most accurate term or I wouldn't be proposing it. Daniel Quinlan 07:24, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • He was both! He belonged to the Socialist Party of Chile, but the party in his time defined itself as Marxist-leninist, and was partidary of revolucionary violence. In the UP coalition, it was even to the left of the Comunist Party of Chile. So, if you just say "socialist", it may be mistaken by the tame Socialists of today. --AstroNomer 11:08, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
      Well, I guess it all depends on your perspective. Allende's nephew, Andrés Pascal Allende, who was a leading figure in the avowedly Leninist Movimiento de Izquierda Revolucionaria (MIR), criticized his uncle's government as "timid and reformist".
    • He's a Socialist who believed in Marxist dogma -- the proleteriat will soon triumph, all that. Dr. Trey 08:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

No he wasnt up for violence, it has all been so god damn biased through your eyes. Allende was going to make up a plebicit to vote if he should stay in power or not. You words are completely chauvinism, as he never EVER considered to use strenght. The MIR and the GAP sympathized with him, but he was in no way in control of neither of them.

> "No he wasnt up for violence" --? That is simply nonsense, as Allende was certainly up to having imported Cuban enforcers terrorize the country.--Mike18xx 04:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Vote: Referendum quote

  • Reference inline
  • Reference via footnote
    • This is the standard way to quote sources in scholarly articles. There are even special tags on wiki to use when quoting sources, which I did not use this time. (See 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake.) —Cantus…☎ 00:13, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • I think footnotes should be used rather than in-line references where possible. That is the standard academic and encyclopaedic notation. FearÉIREANN 01:15, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Inline external references are considered undesirable (see: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)). Ideally, we should be using the citation guidelines and templates described on Wikipedia:Cite sources. -- Viajero 11:29, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for voting. Daniel Quinlan

Capitalisation

From Wikipedia:Manual of Style:

Philosophies, doctrines, and systems of economic thought do not begin with a capital letter, unless the name is derived from a proper noun: lowercase republican refers to a system of political thought; uppercase Republican refers to a specific Republican Party.

Thus: Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, Luddism; but capitalism, neoliberalism, fascism. "Socialist" appears with a cap in the article, because Allende was a member of a specific Socialist Party (and perhaps that word should link to the Chilean Socialist Party, if we have such an article, and not to "socialism" in general). It's not an expression of bias, and writing Neoliberal with a capital letter Just Looks Unprofessional. Leaving the other disputes to one side, can we at least follow these grammatical rules? –Hajor 01:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

relationship between Allende and Pinochet

Can the article shed some light on this relationship? I am just curious, because was Pinochet pretending to be Allende's loyal counterpart, and acting all along to become head of the Army, or was he once genuinely a friend, was it a betrayal, change of mind? What exactly happened to the relationship between the appointment in August and the coup in September, I'm just curious and thought the article should shed some light on this. -- Natalinasmpf 21:19, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From what I understand, Pinochet was an anti-Communist who was concerned over the unrest occurring in the country during the UP's tenure. Chilean military officials have said that he didn't plan the coup, but that when it came, he essentially decided to go along with it.
I seriously doubt they were friends. Allende was extremely concerned about a coup long before it occurred, and asked Prats for reassurance that Pinochet would stay loyal. J. Parker Stone 08:04, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

What the hell

happened to the Marxism article? J. Parker Stone 07:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

jesus christ, saying marxist is too ambiguous, saying it means that Allende agreed with taking the power violently, something that he did not agreed with. The best description for him is socialist

not true numbers

"As a result, approximately 3,000 Chileans were executed or disappeared, more than 27,000[2] were imprisoned or tortured, and many were exiled and received abroad as political refugees." The numbers that say the highest amount never go over 2500 people dead or disappeared, including the people who died during Allende's government, and including people who died on combat (i.e. terrorists who attacked Chilean soldiers. As a result of these battles, lots of terrorists AND soldiers died). Soldiers are also counted on these figures. A better approach would be "about 1500 people", and I still think that it's just too high. There are lots of people known to be living outside of Chile that are also added to this numbers.

The Rettig Commission verifies about 2000 dead and 1000 disappeared. The issue of whether these people were dissidents or "subversives" as the junta called them is addressed in the article. J. Parker Stone 04:15, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I checked the inform and you are right here. But checking the inform allows me to say that the "brutal repression against leftist parties" is not true. Here I go with the dead numbers divided on political parties (I'll put political party names in spanish... "-" means leftist and "+" means right. (some parties ahve changed from side, I'll put - or + according to those times).

P. Socialista -: 405

M.I.R.* -:384

P. Comunista -:353

M.A.P.U.* -:24

Frente Patriótico Manuel Rodriguez* -:19

P. Radical (centre):15

D. Cristiana +:7

I. Cristiana -:5

P. Nacional +:4

Other political parties:15

NO POLITICAL PARTY:1048

This information was extracted from the Rettig inform. Using this I demand that the part of "brutal repression against left-pary members..." (something like that) is removed and never again written.

x* means that they are not political parties. Those are terrorists (because they where fighting (with violence) against the government) groups.

So I guess according your definition (fighting with violence against governments), the American forefathers were "terrorists", any independence movement that uses armed resistance is a "Terrorist", and in fact anyone who resists state coercion through non-state approved apparatus, is a "terrorist". You should try looking up the very long and complicated Wikipedia definition of terrorism, and realize that it is not merely limited to non-governmental actors. Also its ridiculous for you to be making "demands" upon anyone on Wikipedia, since you are in no place to "demand" anything of anyone.SiberioS 23:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

That is a stupid assertion Siberio. The Pinochet government was keeping stability after the former Marxist Allende was ready to turn Chile into a Soviet client state, with the help of Castro as a medium. Pinochet issues a reform platform that would have him as ruler for an X amount of time before he decided to step down from power. From there there were thousands of people engaging in anti-government violence, terrorist acts, political assinations, radicalizing the college youth. I doubt that the founding fathers killed people with car bombs, killed civilians, had massacres out in the street, radicalized the youth at the college and planned guerillas style tactics against the Redcoats. They were open and honest about thier longing for independence and made an accord with other colonies, held town meetings, and reported thier results to the throne of England. - ANON

I am very sorry to say that... its ambiguous. The Official numbers are 3200, but the true number is around the 5000. The Rettig report was made just as best as it could be made, it had no help by the militars whatsoever. I guess we will never really know the true numbers, since Rettig is made by the testimonies of relatives or church reports or other sources.

I have a question: how do you think that a campaign against Communist subversion should be run in a free country? (In Chile, it wasn't a free country, because they had a military junta.) But, what do you think? Should Pinochet have called for free elections? What if the people had elected the Communists again? A legally-elected Communist is still a Communist. (Communists don't believe in, or practice, free elections, or run free countries, or believe in freedom at all, for that matter. Under a Communist government, there is tyranny enough for everybody. The only shortages are in commodities, gas and food. Oh, and also in freedom. In Soviet Russia, everyone, except for Communist Party members, stood in lines for seventy-five years, and the stores were empty. If you complained, they took you out and shot you. Or sent you away to slave labor camps in Siberia, for "re-education". Look at the former Soviet Union, the proto-type of a Communist government: they ran the military, the secret police, who were as bad or worse than the Gestapo; the Communist party apparatus, the only allowed party in the country; they controlled all the food supplies, and the people they didn't like starved to death; transportation and the newspapers, schools and radio stations, which all taught Marxism: where was the freedom there? Also, in the Soviet Union, millions of people disappeared! Not just thousands. How many people disappeared in Castro's Cuba after the Communist revolution there?) Perhaps at the beginning, Allende was giving away free government money or jobs to the poor people, in order to buy their votes. But, free government money doesn't last forever. Americans are largely ignorant about how bad Communist tyrannies are, having never lived under one of them. What do you think was going to happen to all of the various capitalistic businesses in the country, such as the banks, the copper mines, oil fields, plantations, etc.? And what do you think was going to happen to the military (whose leadership had been trained in the U.S.-run School of the America's? These people are not idiots, just because they are South Americans. Do you think they wanted what happened in Cuba to happen there in Chile? No. They saw what was going to happen to them, and the military stepped in, and took decisive action. By nature, a Communist revolution is a declaration of war against the middle class (which Karl Marx called the bourgeiousie), the intelligentsia, the entrepreneurs, business-owners, mayors, teachers, the literati, the clergy, foreign Christian missionaries, and against all those who own private property, as well as foreign investors (such as the United States), whom Marxists view as being "enemies of the state". Communist theology states, "These institutions will either give way, or be destroyed." Pinochet and his men saw all this coming, and they stopped it. They used sufficient force to do so. If they had been kinder and gentler, they might have lost. The Communists play for keeps. Now, the Communists, who are the world's most brutal mass-murderers and torturers, are crying that Pinochet and his men played too rough. As far as American journalists, or Spaniards who were in Chile and got killed, were they Communists? What were they doing there, if things were so bad? Aside from torture, which I don't agree with, any Communist or terrorist in a war zone is a fair target for the military. As far as the American Revolution goes, I think that is a fair question. What if there had been an inquiry made into the guerilla war tactics carried out by the Americans against the British? Was any torture or terrorism carried out? As an American, I like to hope not. But, there was a war going on at the time! I read that some of the mobs tarred-and-feathered some British Loyalists, or rode them out of town on a rail. Some Americans were hanged by the British for treason against Parliament. Washington and his men were all in uniform at the time, I believe; unlike some guerillas, who pose as ordinary peasants or workers. But there was no such thing as the "Geneva Convention" yet, not 'til around eighty years later. In war-time, you were taking your chances back then. I don't believe that all of the American colonists would have come out smelling like roses. Also, native-American Indian war parties fought on both sides during the Revolutionary War, taking scalps as they went. Most of Washington's colonial army fought partly in the native American style. The British burned several towns in New England during the war. Is that terrorism? Would it terrify you? The British believed they were fighting a lawful war, over Parliament's lawful debt claims in New England, tariffs, taxes and smuggling. Washington and his officers were also educated, religious men, as were the British; not Socialist revolutionaries, who tend to be atheists (if God is not watching you, then "anything goes"). No one has asked what the Communist revolutionaries in Chile were doing. How many atrocities were committed by them? (Sept.)

ok, answers to all questions (or most)

1-"Should Pinochet have called for free elections?", he did, first in the 80s and then in 89, the first one was a fraud, as there were not even records of the votings (plus it is unexplained how it was so successful considering it took place after the most violent years of the dictatorship), in the second one Pinochet lost properly by mayority.

2-"What if the people had elected the Communists again?", dont people have the right to elect the goverment that suits them the best?, if they choose communism they probably do have strong reassons for it, and Allendes goverment was socialist, not communist.

3-"(Communists don't believe in, or practice, free elections, or run free countries, or believe in freedom at all, for that matter. Under a Communist government, there is tyranny enough for everybody. The only shortages are in commodities, gas and food. Oh, and also in freedom. In Soviet Russia, everyone, except for Communist Party members, stood in lines for seventy-five years, and the stores were empty. If you complained, they took you out and shot you. Or sent you away to slave labor camps in Siberia, for "re-education". Look at the former Soviet Union, the proto-type of a Communist government: they ran the military, the secret police, who were as bad or worse than the Gestapo; the Communist party apparatus, the only allowed party in the country; they controlled all the food supplies, and the people they didn't like starved to death; transportation and the newspapers, schools and radio stations, which all taught Marxism: where was the freedom there? Also, in the Soviet Union, millions of people disappeared! Not just thousands. How many people disappeared in Castro's Cuba after the Communist revolution there?)" Im sorry, but... do any of the examples you just gaved have anything to do with Chile?... yes, communism can be bad in other countries, but that can be sayd for pretty much any type of goverment. The goverments you just mentioned went through revolutions before turning to communism, and in most cases Jacobism is justifiable only by history. But that was not chiles' case, there was no "Communist regime" here. All threats about Allendes goverment turning into communism were mainly for propaganda purposes and to justify the coup itself (Plan Z to this day is seen as a lie by all Chilean historians). Goverments like the one of Allende are indeed pretty common today, almost all of Latin America is turning to socialist elected goverments, such as Bolivia, Peru, Venezuela (as Chavez was elected in order to be president). You have no grounds in ever comparing Allendes' goverment with harsh communist regimes, it clearly shows a great deal of ignorance on your behalf, and in the future i suggest you dont confuse them anymore (and im serious here, theres a HUGE difference between communist regimes and democratic socialism).

4-"Perhaps at the beginning, Allende was giving away free government money or jobs to the poor people, in order to buy their votes" , why would he do this in the beginning if he just won the election?. He didnt "bought" their votes, he did something called "doing what he promised", in this case it was socialization of resources and the increase of salaries (that were just insignificant at the time).

5-"But, free government money doesn't last forever": There were numerous other implications for the economical downfall, your view is a little too over simplistic (did i mentioned heavily biased?), the reassons for the economical downfall ranged from the stablishment of the black market, the failure of the agricultural reform (wich was necesary at the time), the numerous strikes supported by the oposition (with money from the US). All these things pointed towards inflation, the first step into taking over any country is to first destabilize it, the economy of a country is important towards the goverment they may have (Hitler might had never shownd up if the economy wouldnt had played a mayor role there)

6- "What do you think was going to happen to all of the various capitalistic businesses in the country, such as the banks, the copper mines, oil fields, plantations, etc.? And what do you think was going to happen to the military (whose leadership had been trained in the U.S.-run School of the America's?": well you just described very well the oposition, indeed, Allendes biggest oposition were business men, who were kind enough to sweep the banks after Allende won (as a way to secure their insterests), later on the same money people would finance most of the economic downfall (with a little help of the U.S. there, nothing like 10 millions to support the oposition there)

7- "Pinochet and his men saw all this coming, and they stopped it.": hehe, you dont know much of what happened there, dont you?. For starters, Pinochet wasnt the mastermind behind the coup, Merino & Leigh were, Pinochet came just in time and later took the power as dictator. Pinochet was more of a Fouché in this case (you do know who Fouché was, right?)

8- " As far as American journalists, or Spaniards who were in Chile and got killed, were they Communists?": actually, most werent even communists there, and not only Spaniards died, a number of other foreigners were killed, mostly europeans (reasson why Pinochet was prosecuted in London to being with). Ill tell you a little story here, 3 priests were assasinated during the dictatorship by the militars, none of them were communist, BUT, they sure got the tag of communist after they got killed, thats for sure.

9- "Aside from torture, which I don't agree with, any Communist or terrorist in a war zone is a fair target for the military": surprisingly most people who were tortured were not communists!

10- "No one has asked what the Communist revolutionaries in Chile were doing. How many atrocities were committed by them? (Sept.)" Skipping through the whole American-revolutionary war mumbo jumbo, lets skip to this issue, how many militars did the FPMR killed during the dictatorship? = less than 50... as oposed to the 3200 that the militars killed. People have asked about things that revolutionary groups (trotskist groups... you do know who trostsky was, do you?)as far as MIR and VOP (who were responsible for the assasination of Edmundo Pérez Zujovic, wich was the cause for the cristian democracy to stop supporting Allende), their tendencies were clearly trostskists and they were mainly aiming to stage a revolution like the cuban one, but not Allende, he had nothing to do with armed ultra-left groups and he even got to agreements with them to stop their acts of terrorism. The only group that was affiliated with the president was GAP, and they never commited any terrorist act, as they functioned as the personal guard of the president. But of course, to say that only leftist trotskist groups were the only ones behind the acts of terrorism is just one deep confirmation bias, there was a facist group called Patria & Libertad, and they had nothing to envy to MIR or VOP in their acts of terrorism.

Bottom line, you are a little too biased there, for some reasson you believe that Allende wanted to turn Chile into a soviet state and for some other reasson you believe that since he was leftist he just HAD to be BAAAAAD. Do a little research, youll see that not all leftist leaders were or are necesarely bad (Gadafi used to be a feared enemy for the U.S. 10 years ago, but now that hes a great leader for Africa, nobody cares about him anymore. Or for example Tito, he was communist and YET managed to keep peace in the Balkans, something monumental for its time, but right after his death the balkans turned to war again... are you aware of Josip Tito?, or you only know the bad communist dictators?), some indeed have been great leaders indeed. Just a hint here, Allende, before the coup, was planning for elections as the state of the nation was indeed critical at the time, the resolution finnally took place on september 10, yet the elections never took place (for obvious reassons, the coup was the day after). But from then on, many historians question what was the real purpose of the coup, as Allende was helding elections to see if he should stay in charge or leave. The day after the coup, numerous oposition newspapers justified the coup by saying that the "marxists were planning a coup for themselves", wich turned out to be not only false, but hardly believable also. But its history, it happened the way it happened and nobody can do anything about it, safe being consequent, tell the story the way it was, and most importantly, to not be biased about it.

At least this is being disputted

"(...)allowed Pinochet to implement profound neoliberal economic reforms while at the same time committing gross human rights violations both at home and abroad." This says that Augusto Pinochet ordered those "gross human rights violations". This is being discussed, and no one has ever proved anything against General Pinochet. This MUST be edited, at least until Pinochet is sown guilty on a trial.

Information must always be neutral. Some sources can't be used for obvious reasons, specially the Valech inform (if you said that you where tortured, then you obtained money... This is true and if you don't believe me, just do a search. President Lagos said that people who where abused would receive money for themselves. The problem is that the people who checked each inform had only 1 minute per person (considering that they worked 12 hours a day)... not a reputable source). The CIA inform shouldn't be used either. The CIA has obvious reasons to be against Pinochet.

...the money is compensation for trauma caused by the torture. And 7000 claims were rejected based on believed shaky evidence/false allegations. J. Parker Stone 04:52, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
"The CIA has obvious reasons to be against Pinochet." On the contrary, the CIA has every reason to downplay just how bad the man they put into power really was. Redxiv 08:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Again: 1. This inform was never made to become a reliable information source (President Lagos (socialist) and bishop Valech already said that). 2. Investigators took less than 3 minutes per claim to check them, and that time is true only if it's correct to say that they worked 12 hours a day including weekends and that every time they went out to investigate different places thay stayed working even more time that day, until they completed 12 hours. 3. There are lots of people that showed lots of evidence and where not believed, while others just said that they where tortured and they got their money. 4. You can't make a reliable inform if you offer money for the rest of your life for everyone who says something credible.

The only (somewhat) reliable information source about deaths and abuses is the rettig inform, and even that inform is not good for this article, because officers and terrorists who died on action are also counted.

So wait a second...if a court rules that you should be compensated for damages, that means your claim MUST of been dishonest, because you got money AFTER the claim was ruled? So the whole entire civil court system is America is full of liars and crooks? Hilarious.
SiberioS 23:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
See the Valech report: financial indemnization is lower than minimal wage. Really harsch conditions

were given to be included in this report. It is a high lack of respect given to the victims to even insinuate that they would have lied for money !!! Beside, as judge Juan Guzman admits it, even though chilean Supreme court will probably always block attempts to convict Pinochet, because three of the judges are "fundamentalists" supporting Pinochet, as Guzman dubbed them, most people, in Chile and abroad, are rightly convinced of Pinochet's culpability. Moreover, why should CIA's report be doubted? CIA has admitted actively supporting Pinochet, not of opposing him!

And this is NOT being disputed

"(about allende's death)(...)The exact circumstances of his death are being disputed" There's NO ONE who still says that Allende was murdered or killed on combat. Even Allende's family agrees that he killed himself.

Where's the damn evidence?

I'll say a book first and then some webpages. I've selected webpages that say that Allende's government was something excellent and other things. You can search for reputable sources for yourself (I wouldn't use the rest of these pages as a source, as they are obviously biased in favor of Allende) (everything is in spanish... I think that I may find some chilean sites that are written in english): Book: "Páginas en blanco. El 11 de septiembre en La Moneda" Webpages: http://www.puntofinal.cl/010915/nactxt.html (they are deffending Allende's legacy saying that suiciding isn't bad at all) http://www.puntofinal.cl/010302/esptxt.html (interview to Luis Fernández Oña, husband of Allende's daughter, saying why did Fidel Castro didn't say anything about the suicide, but then he adds that accordingly to what Allende thought, he had to kill himself before leaving the power to his enemies). Then you have Isabel Allende Bussi (relative to Allende (how do you call your sister's daughter? nephew?)), who said for El Mercurio (biggest and most reliable newspaper in Chile)on august 17, 2003 that she was convinced about Allende's suicide. Also note that Allende's body was unburied a few years ago (2000-2002... I can't remember the year right now) and that the official version was only confirmed with new tests that where made to the body.

Isabel Allende Bussi, ´diputada'and former President of the Deputies Chamber, is Salvador Allende's daughter. The Isabel Allende you mean is the world-famous writer (cousin of each other). Baloo rch 22:47, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

        • The article says Isabel Allende Bussi (I copy/pasted the name). I confused the names of each other. Either way, it's his daughter who agrees that he killed himself.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/u/g/Talk%7EAugusto_Pinochet_Archive_6_57e2.html"