Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:30, 28 January 2006

I added the assasination of the senator Guzman, I think its the most notorious crime of the front Agrofelipe 21/12/2005

Good, although we could use some sourcing and more detail on the assassination as well as what happened to the suspects. Eliot 15:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I cannot imagine why anyone would object to calling Augusto Pinochet a military dictator. He was one. That's not POV, that's an objective fact. --Descendall 14:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

"Dictator" tends to be discouraged as a loose pejorative on Misplaced Pages articles; unfortunately this doesn't hold true for those considered to be on "the right". I have no objections to the usage, however, but "presidency" sounds better in the given sentence. As for the revert war (the only reason this is any issue in the first place), see my user page. --TJive 23:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

There is absolutely no dispute that Pinochet was a dictator. Pinochet even appears on List of dictators. There is dispute as to whether or not he was ever the ligitimate president of Chile. Most people would say that he absolutely was not.

There is plenty of precident on wikipedia for refering to Pinochet as a dictator and various other words that could be seen as pejorative. The article Augusto Pinochet refers to him as the "ruler of Chile from 1973 to 1990 head of the dictatorship that ruled Chile from 1973 to 1990." It later refers to him as the "military dictator." The article military dictatorship, which you link to, includes a picture of Augusto Pinochet. That article lists "Chile (1973-1990)" as a country under dictatorship. Chile refers to Pinochet's government as a "regime." History of Chile refers to his government as a "military dictatorship." The opening paragraph of Chile under Pinochet refers to the government as a "dictatorship" a "military junta" and a "regime." President of Chile refers to Pinochet's rule as "a long military dictatorship." Operation Condor refers to Pinochet as a "dictator." It refers to his government as a "the Pinochet dictatorship in Chile." DINA calls the government "the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet." Henry Kissinger mentions "anti-Communist military dictatorships in the Southern Cone." U.S. intervention in Chile says that "a coup led by Augusto Pinochet... resulted in the overthrow of Allende and the establishment of Pinochet's military dictatorship." Salvador Allende speaks of the "manifestly undemocratic and violently repressive nature of the Pinochet Dictatorship." Michael Townley mentions, in the opening paragraph, the "secret police under Augusto Pinochet's dictatorship." Manuel Contreras refers to anti-Pinochet activists as "opponents of the dictatorship" Anti-communism calls the Pinochet government a "right-wing military regime." Juan Guzmán Tapia calls Pinochet a dictator who ruled during "his 1973-1990 dictatorship." Operation Colombo calls Pinochet a "military ruler." Chile under Allende calls the government " military dictatorship." Joaquín Lavín claims that he "was part of the Chicago Boys group of economists that transformed Chile's economy during Augusto Pinochet's dictatorship." Christian Left Party (Chile) says that the party was "suppressed by the Pinochet dictatorship" Patricio Aylwin speaks of "return to democratic rule in 1990, following the military dictatorship of General Augusto Pinochet." Gladys Marín says that Pinochet's rule was a "seventeen-year dictatorship." List of political parties in Chile uses the phrase "the military dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet." Constitution of Chile uses a similar phrase, "the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet." Chilean presidential election, 1989 claims that the election was "was one of the key events in the conclusion of the Pinochet military dictatorship." I could go on and and on, but I think that you get the point. Futhermore, "The word "dictator" is used a tremendous amount of times on wikipedia. Even you seem to tacitly accept that he should be considered a dictator in the article; you make it so that the word "president" links to Military dictatorship. See http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Search?search=Dictator&fulltext=Search --Descendall 02:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid not only have you missed the point but you are attempting to argue against something I do not personally hold and never contended in any case. "Dictatorship" is, in regards to Pinochet, accurate and valid (in my personal opinion). However, the usage of this terminology is disputed in general and may be in specific cases. Ironically you first mention List of dictators, which has always been heavily disputed, focusing not only on the encyclopedic legitimacy of the concept (and/or its usage) but tortuous combing over leaders in an attempt to reinterpret their power relative to the governmental structure. It is so OR that it is laughable but it remains a fact. That these other articles mention and characterize Pinochet thusly neither surprises nor informs me (I am aware of it), but this does not: 1) resist my argument, which is solely on grounds of linguistic/stylistic preference with respect to the sentence structure (ignoring the fact of why there was originally a dispute), or 2) necessitate that "precedent" is either informed or valid.

These disputes are common, and are often tainted by editors' personal political and ideological flavor. Some editors will go through various Cuba, Argentina, Chile, Dominican Republic, etc.-related articles (to stick to Latin America) and attempt to characterize some dictators in more positive language than others, according to their preference. The only precedent set is whose edit or revert is the last.

I would regret failing to notice that other language you stipulated in regards to Pinochet, such as "rule" and particularly "regime" (if I am not forgetting others) do not mean the same thing as "dictatorship", and especially in the latter case do not necessarily have any emotive connotations. For instance, "regime" can refer to democratic governments or organizational structures--it was often to be heard in the 2003 debates over the Iraq issue about the UN's "inspections regime". This was not meant to signify or decry UNMOVIC as a dictatorship, though I'm certain there are such voices to be heard. Language should not be taken so lightly as to slur all of these together.

Finally, whether Pinochet's presidency was "legitimate" (which is an opinion, not verifiable fact) has no bearing on the reality that it was a presidency (just as in the case of many other dictators) and in this instance I believe it to be the most effective choice. --TJive 06:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

You changed Founded in 1983, the organization was particularly active during the military dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet, during which it was formed. to Founded in 1983, the organization was particularly active during the presidency of Augusto Pinochet, during which it was formed. From what I remember, a sentence has an object, a subject, and a verb. I don't see any difference in the "sentence structures" of those two sentences. The parts of the sentence are structured the same exact way. Neither of them is ungrammatical. I am a native speaker of English, and neither of those sentences sound particularly awkward to me. --Descendall 07:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not know what may technically be grammatically acceptable in this situation, but turning "military dictatorship" into an event or period sounds much more awkward to me than for "presidency", a term very frequently used as such. This was my rationale for the change. The anon's were political and personal. I don't find it to really be worth this much discussion. There is nothing wrong with "presidency".

As for "tacit acceptance", I gave very explicit acceptance of the proposition. I could also very well have linked "presidency" to President of Chile (where Pinochet is both listed and described as presiding over a dictatorship) and avoided the term and question altogether. --TJive 07:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't listen to to TJive, he's an idiotic American nationalist pushing pro-American agenda and POV. Shomehow according to him Fidel Castro is a dictator while his pro-American buddy Pinoshit is not.

East German and Soviet Influence

Can anyone find any source that the East Germans and the Soviets were importing arms to the FPMR? I can't find anything that mentions it. The closest thing seems to be the Heritage Foundation, which claims that the weapons they used were American, Belgian, Cuban, and Vietnamese. --Descendall 07:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The only weapons specifically mentioned in the article are some that are American and Soviet in origin. This operation is only said to be overseen by intelligence of those two countries (but primarily Cuba), as opposed to a direct sale of their own stockpiles. It was not unheard of in the 1980s for American weapons to make their way from abandoned caches in Vietnam to third world battlefronts with the assistance of the aforementioned countries--this was true of El Salvador, for instance. The article does need more sources though. --TJive 07:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)