Talk:Augusto Pinochet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Pronunciation of "Pinochet"[edit]

I made this edit, reflecting the pronunciation as it actually is in the US, which is quite different from what was indicated previously. Although the previous version was supported by dictionary citations, those cites appear to reflect an attempt by the sources to document the Chilean pronunciation of the name, rather than the US pronunciation. So they should not be considered authoritative here. -- Hux (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Lead[edit]

For the second time I have changed the lede as to avoid unnecessary name-dropping of scholars [1]. I have not deleted any material, just re-arranged it so the lead is easier to read. There is no reason to highlight just some scholars in the lead. The question here is that the article needs a clear lead devoid of unnessary details that can be left for other parts of the article. Dentren | Talk 14:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

It's quite evidently not the scholar's names that concern me but rather the statement regarding the complicity of the United States. Simonm223 (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
If you put that part back in the lede I don't care about the attribution remaining. Simonm223 (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Take the names out if you like, I seem to recall their being included because of a dispute over who was saying that, but I'm not keen on them; don't use that as an excuse to remove information about US involvement, which has broad support among scholars. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Precisely. Attribution is usually in place to satisfy that a due and notable statement may not be preferred from Wikipedia's voice, but what matters is that the lede continue to note that Pinochet's coup depended crucially on US support. That's rather different than just saying they had some. Simonm223 (talk) 15:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Both you Simonm223 and Vanamonde are showing a zealous attitude. Leave it behind. The only thing I have attempted is to have a more tidy article. I have not challanged any "fact". I illustrate my point We don't have articles on controversial leaders such Hitler, Stalin, or Margaret Thatcher cluttered with name-dropping so assure fact. Further, the article of Thatcher does also use footnotes in the lead. Dentren | Talk 15:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Please review WP:OSE - the issue is again not with the name-dropping, it's with how you revised the narrative of the lede. Nobody who has spoken with you is concerned with removing the attribution to the scholars in the body as long as the other text remains accurate and isn't softened toward the dependence of the Pinochet regime to US support. Simonm223 (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
So, what is missing in the proposed footnote? (Several academics – including Peter Winn, Peter Kornbluh and Tim Weiner – have stated that the support of the United States was crucial to the coup and the consolidation of power afterward.[1][2][3]). I you speak with clarity and stop your ad hominem rethoric it will all save us a lot of time to we forward to the real issue that concerns us here —to have a good lede on the Pinochet article. Dentren | Talk 09:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Nothing is missing in the footnote. The problem is that the content is in the footnote where it should be in the body. 14:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Cluttering the lead with name-dropping is contrary to WP:MoS. So no there is no need for that. Dentren | Talk 10:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
If you object to them so much, rewrite the sentence to exclude the names. It's possible to do that without moving the whole thing to a footnote, which you do not have consensus for. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I did mantain the names in the footnotes to placate the guardians of the article, in case they had sentimental or other motives to mention these authors. Vanamonde, I can try do as you suggest but I dubt this will bring down opposition to changes. It seem it all melts down to a deep fear of POV-pushing, making the guardianship reclutant to the slightest changes in the lead. Dentren | Talk 10:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Dentren please read WP:IDHT - the dispute with your edit was how moving key information to the footnote impacted the clarity of the information in the lede - you were quite literally burying (a part of) the lead. Again, if you believe the names of the scholars cited clutter the lead, nobody is challenging you on that. But find a way to make the edit that doesn't change other details of the lede. Simonm223 (talk) 12:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Simonm223, authors are usually "buried". No need for namedropping. Also, this article is about Pinochet not the US. Mentioning US-role in such lenght and whith such strenght ("crucial") takes the focus off what concerns the article: Pinochet, and seem to be an attempt to "make a point". Actually Pinochet had very little to do with the US until after the coup was done. Dentren | Talk 11:10, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Troublesome emphasis on US-role[edit]

The lead has much space to explain how "crucial" the US was for the coup. While Icontest the need to highlight this, it also appears to no be true, at least if we trust the article Military dictatorship of Chile (1973–1990) that reads:

"The coup was the result of multiple forces, including pressure from conservative and women's groups, certain political parties, union strikes and other domestic unrest, as well as international factors. According to an article written by lifelong CIA operative Jack Devine, although it was widely reported that the CIA was directly involved in orchestrating and carrying out the coup, subsequently released sources suggest a much reduced role of the US government.[1]"

The cited source [1] is Jack Devine & Peter Kornbluh, 'Showdown in Santiago: What Really Happened in Chile?', Foreign Affairs 93 (2014), 168-174.. Given that there is a guardiannship over this this article, I will first leave the question open for others to comment on how we can improve this article to better weight the mention mention of the US-intervention in the lead and how to describe it. I see forward a constructive discussion and not one of distrust or presumption of ulterior motives. Dentren | Talk 10:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok, you can't exactly ping me and then say, "you're guarding the article." The US role in the coup is well established in a plethora of sources. Simonm223 (talk) 11:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Furthermore, Wikipedia is not, in fact, a reliable source. So the fact that another page excludes key information is neither here nor there. It would be a serious violation of WP:NPOV to exclude the information on US involvement in setting the stage for the coup and in providing support to Pinochet while he consolidated power. Finally the timing of this request is unsettling considering yesterday was the anniversary of the coup. I hope that this was a coincidence. Simonm223 (talk) 12:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Simonm223, the source in question was not the WP article but "Showdown in Santiago". As I don't have quotes from the book at hand I will not argue further on this. While I have heard contemporary leaders (on TV) dismiss notions of "crucial" US influence, I have to revise my opinion (for now), because I have failed to find less anecdotal written sources doing the same. So I will drop this point because most of the literature on the topic seem to emphasize the role of US not to diminish it. There may be bias as scholars tend most of the time to claim their subject of choice is important, yet this is speculation and not a bias we can adress here. Dentren | Talk 14:10, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Or it could be that Pinochet really was groomed by the CIA and installed with their help. But I appreciate that you're willing to leave this alone for now. Simonm223 (talk) 14:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of key information from the lede[edit]

Hiding the statement that the United States was instrumental for the Pinochet regime's coup from the lede by putting it in footnotes is not an appropriate edit. @Dentren: you are at your second revert of this contested edit back in. Per WP:BRD you should have come to talk rather than engaging in an edit war. I ask you to please self-revert immediately. Simonm223 (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

k ansh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.31.215.10 (talk) 04:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Mention of Peter Winn, Peter Kornbluh and Tim Weiner in the lead[edit]

Sorry for creating yet another section, but I thought it would be better to discuss things issue by issue. As stated before I have dropped the concern about how "crucial" US role was. Im not disputing that point any longer because written sources I thought existed are unavailable, undiscovered or do not exists. My suspicions stemmed from remarks I heard on Chilean TV. While technically TV-commentary from relevant people can be cited it would not have the streght to challenge written academic sources.

What concerns here is what hinders us from putting "– including Peter Winn, Peter Kornbluh and Tim Weiner –" in a footnote among "Notes"? What is the reason to have these scholars mentioned in the lead? Its about lead economics. What will the average reader who is attempting to grasp who Pinochet was get from learning "Peter Winn, Peter Kornbluh and Tim Weiner" consider US-role crucial? Is that one of the first things one should learn about Pinochet? It seem to me these authors are used to reinforce the statement, but there is no need to do so in the lead. Dentren | Talk 14:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Literally nobody has objected to removing the names of the specific scholars cited from the lede that I can recall; it's the substance that matters. I'd contend the scholars were probably inserted to bulwark against the exclusion of the substance. However I'd not object to a cleanup of the lede that retained the statement regarding the significance of US involvement in the coup. Simonm223 (talk) 14:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
"the scholars were probably inserted to bulwark against the exclusion of the substance" That, precisely. If we can have the substance withouth the names, I have no objection whatsoever. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Winn, Peter (2010). "Furies of the Andes". In Grandin & Joseph, Greg & Gilbert (ed.). A Century of Revolution. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. pp. 239–275. Retrieved 14 January 2014.
  2. ^ Peter Kornbluh (11 September 2013). The Pinochet File: A Declassified Dossier on Atrocity and Accountability. The New Press. ISBN 1595589120
  3. ^ Lubna Z. Qureshi. Nixon, Kissinger, and Allende: U.S. Involvement in the 1973 Coup in Chile. Lexington Books, 2009. ISBN 0739126563

What sources are they that establish Pinochet had a cult of personality?[edit]

Yes I wonder that, if this is not established in any WP:RS this should not be in the article. Indded years ago it was not in the article until someone reworded it. Clearly a case of WP:OR say Gabriel Salazar said that in the article. Remeber Salazar is a living person (WP:BIO) and should not be attributed controversial opinions he have never said. Dentren | Talk 16:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Salazar, in the quote provided, is describing the cult of personality. That's not OR. Nor is it assigning a controversial opinion to a BLP; it's simply summarizing his position clearly. Simonm223 (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
There are reasons to dubt Salazar means that. He is an outright critic of Pinochet who went into exile during the regime, further he is a rather outspoken historian who is regularly in the media, had he really meant that he could have sayd it on many opportunities. Salazar has himself studied authoritarian figures like Diego Portales, and he has much to say about them. He may have avoided "cult of personality" for a reason. Pinochet was an atuhroitarian leader who inspired unity and "devotion" among the right wing, being highly visible and popular (among the right wing) to the degree that people attribute him the work of others is not the same as a cult of personality. Sometimes you hear "Piñera" or "Bachelet" did this or that, when it was not them that did so, its just the way people talk about things in the presidential system that governs Chile. That is a reason to dubt Salazar did not consider a cult of personality just a fascist-like devotion for president-dictator. I resist to think Salazar is so ill-informed as to put Pinochet in the same category as contemporary to Sadam Hussein or Mao. Dentren | Talk 16:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
"Piñera and Bachelet are certainly not Pinochet by any stretch of the imagination. I do see what you're saying but I still think what Salazar is describing is a cult of personality, regardless of whether he said so with those precise words - however I suspect other sources are likely available, so I'll leave it for now while I do some reading. Simonm223 (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Pinochet governed without parliamentary opposition for 16-years, of course "he" got more done than succesors. I do think a mention of cult of personally, as opinion or "fact" (which I doubt there are the RS to establish) would be good in the article. There are reasons to hint he was close to a cult of personality. But given that it is not overly clear (compare to Mao) it may end to be a matter of opinion. Dentren | Talk 17:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Augusto Pinochet in popular culture[edit]

Such a section is still missing --105.4.0.164 (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Augusto_Pinochet&oldid=937135976"