Talk:Augusto Pinochet

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Honorific in Infobox[edit]

User:Redmacherover points out (in this edit) that it's a bit jarring to see the honorific "His Excellency" right at the top of the Infobox above Pinochet's name, given his responsibility for thousands of murders. I'm sympathetic to Redmacherover's concerns, and since Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Honorifics does not cover this case specifically and since there's no requirement that every fact be included in an article (let alone prominently), we could just remove it, if that's the consensus here. By way of analogy: the article Pope Francis does not include the honorific His Holiness, nor does the article on Adolf Hitler include his chosen honorific Führer. I think we have every justification to remove it. I'll go on record: I support removal of "His Excellency" from the Infobox. What do you think? Mathglot (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support much like other bloodthirsty dictators, he seized power and gave himself an honorific title. It should be removed, he was a despot and a mass murderer. Bacondrum 20:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Listed at:
Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose removal for now. I'm not convinced by the argument to remove it based on his crimes -- I think his morality is irrelevant and would make this a PoV edit. However, I'm sympathetic to the argument that we should make it consistent with other, similar articles. The problem (which is why I'm opposing this rather than supporting) is that there doesn't appear to be a definitive rule on this: for example, Benito Mussolini also contains His Excellency, as well as his other title of Duce. If a broader decision is taken for all similar articles I could change my vote. — Czello 12:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose removal. I agree with Czello: to say he was a bloodthirsty dictator, [who] seized power and gave himself an honorific title is clearly a PoV opinion, and Pinochet's supporters will say that he was a brave general who, yes, committed crimes, but saved Chile from a communist system, an economical crisis and a civil war. This, in fact, doesn't really matter. If we base ourselves only in how we see an authority, we could finally arrive to removing every honorific from every one of them. His crimes or even what a group of people think about him don't take away his right to the title. We, little editors, have no right to decide who deserves to wear a title and who no.
It will be good to see Chile's history before discussing this: although he was responsible, directly or indirectly, of many crimes and human rights violations during his government, he was legally entitled to the honorific, even by popular vote.
Now, if we are talking about definitive rules and uniformity, all the articles concerning a Chilean president show the honorific. James2813 (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as all the articles showing the honorific, maybe that's because you added most of them? Mathglot (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wew, good spot. That said, I think I actually agree with their inclusion. — Czello 21:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, that was more about popping an insufferable comment, than speaking to the merits. Your first comment (with your !vote) was actually pretty persuasive, and I think you're right about a broader venue being a better place for this discussion than here. That said, I'm not invested enough to want to do it, but I'd support anyone else who wanted to take that on. Mathglot (talk) 01:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mathglot: indeed, I added the titles before you started this discussion in an effort to polish the infoboxes of Chilean presidents. I don't think that affects the uniformity argument. Regards, James2813 (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If this question is still alive I'll add my vote to those who oppose the removal, for the reasons set out by Czello. Athel cb (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I Oppose removing the honorific prefixes because while he was a dictator and gave himself the title, he did still have that pre-nominal title meaning that people can look at this page and know he had the pre-nominal title of His Excellency. Another problem is that Wikipedia needs to be neutral with its articles. His supporters do not see him as a dictator, regardless of the fact that he was. I believe we should include his honorific prefix. The Land Admiral (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I say we also include the prefix of Captain General because other Chilean (as well as people from around the world) people who have been in the military have had their rank as prefixes. For example: Douglas Macarthur Omar Bradley Bernardo O'Higgins (a Chilean who was also a Captain General) Sir Preter Cosgrove

As well has hundreds of other example

It seems that most/almost all pages on Wikipedia use military rank as a prefix if said person is known for being in the military and held at least a somewhat high rank. The Land Admiral (talk) 23:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This page contradicts itself on the issue on National Rebirth???[edit]

At the start of the ideology Section it quotes him defining his project as one of National Rebirth. But then when quoting people saying he's not Fascists says it lacks a narrative of National Rebirth. Now I disagree with Eco's Palingenesis definition of Fascism, but the fact that I'm getting contradictory info on Pinochet still annoys me. --JaredMithrandir (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

garbled sentence[edit]

This sentence in the introduction is garbled: "According to the Chilean government, the number of executions and forced disappearances was 3,095.[20]" So was it 3,095.executions? Or 3,095 disappearances? Or 1 execution and 3,094 disappearances? Or, 3,094 executions and 1 disappearance?

Citations for "dictator" in lead[edit]

AFAIK, "dictator" is the scholarly consensus, and should remain in the lead. But we should cite historians. Not news organization, not the "Journal of Design History", not the "Inquiries Journal" (written by undergrads), not a news article attributing use of the adjective to George W. Bush, and not an NSA book (primary source).

The point of citations isn't so editors can defend themselves from accusations of bias ("I'm not saying it, WaPo did!").

It's to give readers a starting point from which to learn more about a subject. For this specific phrase in the lead, we should use exclusively scholarly sources (historians), published by scholarly publishers (not "pop history") of which there are plenty. We don't really care that Reuters thinks Pinochet is a dictator; what matters is that historians think that. DFlhb (talk) 11:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You put label "dictator" in the lead for Pinochet and I invite you to put label "dictator" in the lead for Jiang Zemin. Forza bruta (talk) 00:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've never edited this article or its lead. DFlhb (talk) 01:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You in previous comment support the presence of "dictator" in lead. Forza bruta (talk) 01:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I support it as long as it’s cited to scholarly sources. I don’t think news orgs are a sufficient source for this type of claim about a well-researched historical figure. DFlhb (talk) 11:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Section's wrong title[edit]

Section's title ACCUSATIONS OF FASCISM is wrong because fascism is an ideology founded on economic system named CORPORATIVISMO in Italian language: some Italians were inventors of fascist ideology which have several imitations in all the world. Pinochet ruled his nation in similar manner of Mussolini, Franco, Salazar, Peron, etc. but Pinochet did not inserted economic corporativismo in totally manner: for these reason I suggest title COMPARISON WITH FASCISM. Forza bruta (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your premise is incorrect. Corporatism was a much broader economic phenomenon in post-WWI Europe. Fascism's early emphasis on corporatism wasn't at all unique, and the fascist movement later transcended any and all economic doctrines. Anyone who would like to read a classic bit of scholarship on the topic should check out Charles Maier's Recasting Bourgeois Europe Generalrelative (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please define...[edit]

'Thatcherite'. (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added a link to Thatcherism, which I think is most relevant. CWenger (^@) 23:18, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]