Talk:History of Chile

Chile position in World War I and World War II?

Can someone please add information on Chile's prosition during the two world wars? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.185.113.36 (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allende election

"Elected with only 36% of the vote and by a plurality of only 36,000 votes, Allende never enjoyed majority support in the Chilean Congress or broad popular support."

If Allende never enjoyed broad popular support, how could he gather 36% of the vote and split the country into two parties? --zeno 03:24 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)

Probably "broad" should be changed by "mayoritarian", even if it repeats the word for the congress.--AN

Use of "Indians"

I would like to point that the word "Indians" is utterly ugly. Use "indigenous" or "aborigine." Better yet, explain that the original people inhabiting our country were:

Inca, Diaguita in the north;
Mapuche, Picunche and Huilliche people in central zone;
Ona, Yagan in the south (Called "Patagones" by Hernando de Magallanes.)

I would like to edit this page myself, but I'm not english speaker. --Leus

Death of Allende

According to my knowledge of the 11th of September, Salvador Allende shot himself and was not killed during the assault. I would have changed it already but maybe that information is not completely correct. --fsateler

That's right. Allende shot himself with a gun gived to him by Fidel Castro. The version of Allende's murdered in the assault was told by Castro a few days after the coup. The members Allende's personal guard (GAP) and eyewitnesses of the event remained in silence and some chilean left parties embraced the murder version. Nevethernless, one of the witnesses declared allende killed himself but was not taken serious and accused by some allendist as traitor, until in 2003 other surviving witnesses confirmed the suicide version.

Baloo rch 02:15, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep editing

I see no mention of any dispute on this talk page, so I can't see why any admin would "protect" it from editing. Please explain why you don't want the community to edit the History of Chile article. --Uncle Ed 14:37, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

1970 election results

Article currently says:

...elected by a narrow plurality. Allende won with 36% of the vote against Allesandri's 34% and Tomic's 27%.

My questions are:

How should we mention the Constitution of Chile and its requirement that the "winner" receive a majority of votes?
Did Allende really "win" the election, if he did not meet the Constitutional requirement of getting a majority?
What did the constitution say about resolving election disputes? Specifically, how did it address the situation wherein no candidate gets 50% of the vote?

Pending resolution of these questions, should the article say that Allende was elected president, or what? --Uncle Ed 14:49, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Allende hadn't absolute majority, so it was not directly elected. Chilan Constituition of 1925 stablished if no candidate had absolute majority (50% + 1 votes) the congress had to elect the president between the two most voted candidates. (on current consitution there is a second round).

In chilean democratic tradition when this situation ocurred the Congress had always voted for the first relative majority. But in this case the national situation was tense - considering that the three parties had excluding goverment programmes. So, the Christian Democrats negociated with the UP a agreement of democratic clauses ("garantías democratic"). Allende's coalition signed the treaty (however they didn't follow it) and the DC voted for Allende in congress. The right coalition abstained.

I've have also a few observations about the 1973-1978. I wish to know the sources of the information about the numbers of prisioneers during the first time of Pinochet's regime. I think it's important to clarify and distingish between the number of people who was imprissioned and the number of people who dissapeared.

The junta relied on the army, the police, the oligarchy, huge foreign corporations, and foreign loans to maintain itself. As a whole, the armed services received large salary increases and new equipment. The oligarchy recovered most of its lost industrial and agricultural holdings, for the junta sold to private buyers most of the industries expropriated by Allende's Popular Unity government. This period saw the expansion of monopolies and widespread speculation.

Also i think it's important to say that the military regime had also a non neglectible support of a important minority of the population.It is true that the upper class was mostly for the regime, but it had also some some support of other parts of chilean society. As example, the result of 1988 plebiscite was 54,7 % for "no" vs 43% for "si".

Baloo rch 02:06, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Some edits. Repression was brutal and large scale, but "the most brutal of Latin America"? Say that to the mothers of May in Argentina that still protest their 30,000 dead in the "Guerra Sucia". Guess someone confused the country, as they put that number here...when 3,000 is closer to the truth. Walter Rauff supervisiong Contreras? Better have a good source for that...Rauff was in Chile, but this is the first time I hear of him helping Contreras. --AstroNomer 05:15, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

Timeline

I've brought the timeline in from Cronología de Chile in the Spanish-language Wikipedia. At first I thought I would try to properly merge this material, but I've just translated it. I'm pretty weak on Chilean history before 1970; reading this has only made me more aware of my ignorance. There may even be contradictions between the material I've translated and what was already here. I wouldn't know how to resolve them properly; it looks like others who have worked on this article know more than I. I hope that what I've translated will at least be suggestive of more topics to cover.

neutral?

i think the part of this article referring to the militar dictatorship is way too left-winged. it only speaks about the mistakes and wrong things they did, but doesnt explain why 43% of the population (which is more than Allende got) wanted Pinochet to continue being President. i hope this gets fixed soon; i would do it , but i do not speak or write much english . i'll try though . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xkoalax (talk • contribs) 19 Sept 2005.

Just because a large percentage hated some jerk(Allende) doesn't mean they support the worse dictator Pinochet. Many people who do not know Pinochet may have been asked who is worse.173.180.214.13 (talk) 09:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mercosur

Uncommented removal of mention of Mercosur. Does anyone have any idea why? I would think this should be restored. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Broken interwiki link

The bn: link appears broken, and has been for some time. I don't know whether there is a corresponding article in the Bangla Wikipedia. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On Allende's regime

I would like to see some discussion about the enviroment that Chile was under during Allende regimes. First, about Allende in regards to hyperinflation and the "disappearences" of goods, I would like someone with firsthand knowledge (and a little backup with sources, hopefully) to describe the economic conditions of Chile after the initial boom period. I've heard from people who lived in Chile during the 1970s that there was a lot of opposition to Allende from various groups, but especially from business interests who resented the increasing state intervention in the economy. This resulted in some of the "disapperances" that I would assume only made inflation worse as warehouses withheld their goods, especially near the twilight of Allende's regime. There also was a large trucker's strike, a strike I have heard from some sources that was orcestrated by the distributors and shipping companies interests, but made to look as if the truckers themselves where striking Allende's policies.

In regard to Allende's popularity, I would be hardpressed to say that Allende was embraced by a wide majority of the population, but then that is true of many democratic countries. There were those who supported Allende with great enthusiasm, there were many who absolutely did not, and still many who were either wishy-washy, apathetic or accepting him on the grounds that he was elected president, but not necessarily fervently supportive of him. In regards to this aspect, I would also like to see some discussion on the Santiago/provincial divide in Chile at the time and how this affected popular support for Allende. Perhaps this could shed some light on if Allende was really supported by the people or not, like many would like to quip. Santiago is the only large metropolitan area in Chile, with a significant percentage of the population (a "primate city", so to speak) and a significant middle class. Additionally, Santiago is also the heart of Chile's social liberal viewpoint, whereas provincial Chile was very conservative socially. Finally, Santiago was the most modern section of Chile, embracing its increasingly urban lifestyle, while the provicial areas where very traditional. This is important to note because in the rural areas of provincial Chile, the hacienda system was still utilised as way of organization by large landowners, and to see a peasant lowering his eyes when speaking to the "patron" was still common. I've also heard accounts where the patrons would directly have influence politically and otherwise over those even not working on their land, such as in the surrounding villages, therfore influencing many to hold certain viewpoints, even if they themselves were not completely sincere about those beliefs. This is not a phenomenon that would be restrained to Chile, there has been occurences where the person with the most power has influence over other's opinon. I would like to hear other's opinion about this. L pour soi 04:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the trucker's strike: I gather that a lot were owner-operators, and were indeed on strike. And certainly in any rural area of Latin America, there is at least some degree to which landowners function as caciques, delivering the vote for their favored politicians. I don't have a lot else to add; these are topics that—if enough citable material can be found—would probably belong better in Chile under Allende than in this more general article, in which the Allende years already get a lot of column inches. - Jmabel | Talk 06:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

weak

I think some of these article parts are somewhat weak specially the begining of the XX century —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.215.193.42 (talk • contribs) 6 March 2006.

Merging?

How about moving some of the text to the main articles and have this article shorter. Right now it's the same information in several articles about the history of Chile, e.g. Salvador Allende, Chile under Allende, Augusto Pinochet, Chile under Pinochet, Chilean coup of 1973, U.S. intervention in Chile, 1970 Chilean presidential election. For example the article History of the United States is very short but has several main articles instead. Vints 18:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits with an agenda

Here, and at Salvador Allende, and doubtless elsewhere, someone seems to be editing with a strong anti-Allende agenda. I don't have time to do more than note this and hope someone else will follow up, but two points leap out: the mention of the Resolution of Aug 22, 1973, with no mention that the legislature could not muster the two-thirds majority that could have legally removed Allende, and the addition of "Soviet-aligned". Chile under Allende was certainly somewhat friendly toward the Soviets (and very friendly toward Cuba) but aligned? I don't remember any Soviet bases in Chile, nor any military treaties. - Jmabel | Talk 05:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chiloé

Where the article refers to Chiloé, does it mean Chiloé Island or the whole province (which also includes other islands)? - Jmabel | Talk 18:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Map

In this article, as well as in Chile, the map that appears is very weak. It doesn't show important cities, and the more populated ones (Copiapó, Viña del Mar, Talca, Valdivia). I recommend replacing it for a better one... i'll do it myself if i find one. Rodcontr 20:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free, though I would have to say that it looks to me like the map we currently have shows more or less the most historically important cities, which seems appropriate for a map for an article on Chile's history. - Jmabel | Talk 20:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prehispanic Chile

The information given here about prehispanic Chile is considerably weak, just a few lines, and nothing actualized according to the latest archaeological discoveries. Has anyone anything to write abou it? I'd do by myself. Is it possible to write a special article about prehistoy of Chile? DaniloVilicic 02:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)DaniloVilicic[reply]

I noticed that much of the pre-historic section is copied directly from this site, but it is not sourced:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+cl0014)

Is it okay to copy these words directly or should it be paraphrased? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.69.106 (talk) 08:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Pinochetjunta.jpg

Image:Pinochetjunta.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed reference for foundation date of Santiago

mapsofworld.com is blacklisted, and was probably not a trustworthy source anyway, so I'm not going to be asking for whitelisting. The reference was to mapsofworld.com/cities/chile/santiago/ William Avery 22:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Pinochetjunta.jpg

Image:Pinochetjunta.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Moe ε 18:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major changes to this page

The summary for the article has been changed from:

The territory of present-day Chile has been populated since 12,000 BC. In the 16th century Spanish conquistadors began to subdue and colonize the region of present-day Chile. Chile gained independence from Spain in the early 19th century. Chile's development was marked by the export of saltpeter and later copper until the Second World War. The wealth of raw materials led to an economic upturn, but also led to dependency, and even wars with neighboring states. After a decade of Christian Democratic presidency, the socialist President Salvador Allende was elected president in 1970. The coup of General Augusto Pinochet in 11 September 1973 launched a 17-year dictatorship and radical market-oriented economic reforms. In 1988, Chile made a transition to a path of democracy. Michelle Bachelet was elected the first woman president in the 2006 presidential election.

To:

The territory of present-day Chile has been populated since at least 12,000 BC. In the 16th century Spanish conquistadors began to subdue and colonize the region of present-day Chile, and the territory became a colony from 1540 to 1818, when it gained independence from Spain. Chile's economic development was successively marked by the export of first agricultural produce, then saltpeter and later copper until the 1970s. The wealth of raw materials led to an economic upturn, but also led to dependency, and even wars with neighboring states. The country has been governed by elections for most of the time, except in the 1920s and 1973-1990. In 1988, Chile made a peaceful transition to democracy. Sound economic policies have contributed to steady growth.^[1]

So the revised (and current version) has no mention whatsoever of the coup? The military overthrowing of an elected president and establishment of a 17yr long military dictatorship is not worthy of a few sentences in the introduction? Why is that?
Wasn’t the coup of 1973 one of the landmark events in Chilean history?

Likeminas (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 17 year long military government led by Pinochet should be included. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input Selecciones de la Vida, I also think there's a strong and compelling argument for its inclusion.

On another point, I think that the last sentence stating Sound economic policies have contributed to steady growth is kind of opinionated and not too neutral. But that's just a minor thing compared to the blatant omission of the coup.

Likeminas (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two observations. The Coup IS mentioned in the lead. Second, the coup may be ONE of the "landmarks" of RECENT Chilean history, but is not the whole history. Chilean recorded history covers a period of over 500 years and the Allende Government, Coup and subsequent political events are only part of the LAST 30 years, that's it, less than 6% of the whole period. There are other events that are much more important in the overall scheme of history that are glossed over. So, please stop trying to make this page about the a single event and allow it to be what is meant to be, a page about the PROCESS of formation of the Chilean nation. --Mel Romero (talk) 23:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take this personally. And most importantly, avoid making spurious accusations. I see nobody here trying to make this page about a single event as you suggest.

What I do see, however, is an attempt to include a very (if not the most) important historical event in recent Chilean history.

The coup IS mentioned in the lead because, I added it.[1]

The lead you had previously edited made NO mention of this (see both versions above), as if trying to dismiss it altogether. Why, may I ask?

While it’s possible that events such the Holocaust, which happened more than 60 years ago, within a time span of less than 10 yrs of German history, don’t make up a huge chunk of the overall history of the country (which by itself is thousands of years old) I doubt anyone thinks that people attempting to add it to the article are trying to make it about a single event. Nonetheless, a whole paragraph is dedicated to the Holocaust, even though that event constitutes, perhaps, only 0.0001% of German historical landmarks.

Likeminas (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Operation TOUCAN

The last paragraph of Collapse of democracy (on KGB disinformation) is ungrammatical and unclear. When was this disinformation campaign launched? Who was it aimed at? What was its objective? Even if these points can be clarified, I don't see how the number of articles the NY Times ran on human rights abuses in Chile vs. in Cambodia in 1976 proves anything about the success of this disinformation campaign. Also, the article cited in footnote 30 was from the Washington Times, not the Washington Post. I would make some of these corrections, but I don't believe the paragraph belongs here at all. Someone who does should make a better case for its inclusion. RRvR (talk) 03:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to "16,000 documents" is not a valid reference

Per WP:V the source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books. Reference to "16,000 documents" is not acceptable because readers can't be expected to read all of them. Luis Napoles (talk) 05:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Major propaganda/bias

This article seems heavily flawed, key assumnptions left unsourced, citation of sources that don't match the point being made (Allende and the KGB in particular). Request this be locked and gone over with more direct scrutiny, this topic is too significant to allow this levelof misinformation have free play. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.71.243.80 (talk) 15:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Likeminas, -- it is not historical revisionism to INCLUDE history -- such as the Chamber of Deputies resolution authorizing the removal of Allende -- which you are attempting to airbrush from history.

Flushing the Chamber of Deputies Resolution of August 22, 1973 down the memory-hole

Editors please keep an eye on the concerted efforts of (Marxist?) revisionists to erase or at least marginalize the importance of the Chamber of Deputies call upon the armed forces to physically remove Allende.Mike18xx (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need to provide reliable sources to verify both the call itself and its significance (to avoid risk of WP:SYNTHESIS). You may have such sources, or be able to find new ones; some quotes from them may be helpful, and prior discussion here is probably better than jumping back in with editing. Also WP:AGF - editors should not call each other revisionists (I think you're not the only one to use the word here). Rd232 ^talk 11:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also called Mike18xx a revisionist and I apologize for that. It wasn't the right thing to say in a disagreement.

In any case, what I think Mike18xx wants to change in the article is that Allende was legally removed from office by the military, acting on an order by congress rather the current version that states that Allende was overthrown in a coup. I just gathered a few sources here is what I found:

His government, however, was overthrown by a military coup on September 11, 1973. During a concerted attack on the presidential palace, Allende was killed, though the manner of his death has been a subject of controversy.

Encyclopedia of World Biography

Salvador Allende Gossens (1908-1973) was President of Chile from 1970 to 1973. He died in the Presidential Palace during the brutal military coup which installed a military dictatorship in Chile in 1973.

If we need to discuss this any further please let's keep it in this talk page. Likeminas (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Allende was killed by the military coup. Probably, some people from the Chamber of Deputies helped economically the army forces, but that's nothing I can guarantee nor I have sources for that, it's from what I've been told by History teachers. Apart from that, what Mike18xx claims is incorrect. Diego Grez (talk) 15:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An error that lasted 2 years

This vandalism [2] was inserted on 6 May 2011, i.e. it lasted almost two years. See also Aprenda sobre Chile en Wikipedia in today's El Mercurio. Letuño (talk) 13:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of Chile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on History of Chile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

chile

chile is cooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo0000000000ooooooooooooooo00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo()oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool and preety≠≠≠≠≠≠≠ΫἕᾟᾟᾏᾏἜϋἅᾈὛῂἝῊῖΘυἚὲἣ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.190.44.235 (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery of Chile

I've just stumbled upon the article Discovery of Chile and I'm left with the impression that it might have evaded proper scrutiny. It's completely unsourced, and entirely focused on the period of European exploration, without going as far as to even mention the indigenous people who were already there, their ancestors having discovered the region thousands of years previously. Now, I don't know a thing about Chilean history, so I'm deferring to you here: should that article be rewritten, or just redirected to History of Chile#Early history (pre-1540)? – Uanfala (talk) 22:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^ Cite error: The named reference ciafactbook was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[ciafactbook-1] Cite error: The named reference ciafactbook was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]