Talk:Augusto Pinochet

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Augusto Pinochet article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite, and welcoming to new users Assume good faith Do not attack other users For disputes, please see our guideline	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.

Discussions on this page may turn into heated arguments. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.
( no personal attacks · assume good faith · be kind )

Daily article pageviews

Graphs do not work. You can go to the graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org.

Untitled comment

This article presents very biased point of view. There is no proof of any crime committed by Pinochet, while the article suggest he was a criminal. In fact he saved his country from communism, terror and famine. Most of the victims were Pinochet's supporters, murdered by terrorist communist groups. Any attempt to eliminate defamation is soon reverted. This needs to be changed.

Is it better now? Griffinofwales (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A bit better. But still, the second sentence of the following paragraph is not true: "About 3,000 Chilean people died because of Pinochet's rule and many other people were tortured. In fact, the majority of people who died during Pinochet's rule were communists, which Pinochet disliked."

I would replace the second sentence with "In fact, majority of people who died during Pinochet's rule were Pinochet's supporters, murdered by communist terrorist groups". If such version would be too controversial, I suggest the following compromise, i.e. without absolute comparison: "In fact, victims were on both sides, with high proportion being Pinochet's supporters killed by communist groups". If you agree at least on the latter version, please replace and I will leave it as NPOV.

This (encyclopedia published by a newspaper) seems to contradict what you are saying. Also, the official reports that investigated the deaths agreed that Pinochet was responsible for many of the deaths, and he would have gone on trial had it not been for his death. My intention is to be as neutral as possible, and not to hide any facts. Removing the part about the deaths would be hiding the facts. The article (in my eyes) is much more neutral than before. I suggest dropping the subject and moving onto something else. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously there are many sources that present one-sided picture. But this is POV. Victims were on both sides, and the current article completely ignores the murders made by communists on Pinochet's supporters. If it says 3000 deaths, and makes no mention that this includes both sides, it suggests they were all innocent communists killed by "bad" Pinochet's allies, which is not true. Pinochet's supporters actually claim majority of these 3000 were amongst them. The only controversy is whether it was indeed majority or minority. Leaving the article as it is clearly biased towards the communist side. I would back the Pinochet's supporters side as it is what the facts look like. My suggestion about mentioning "high proportion" was suggestion of a compromise.

I've made a small change. I think that puts precedent on no one group of people, and is more neutral. Thoughts?--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 00:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"00:12, 13 October 2010 Gordonrox24 (talk | changes) (4,129 bytes) (Is that more neutral?)" - yes, that sounds like a good compromise for me.