Talk:Colonia Dignidad

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2019 and 17 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Claire.newberg17.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

name of article

"Someone" (cough) has renamed this article to reflect the former name of the settlement, claiming that it is the most common usage. While I agree that the former name is widely used and recognized, it still seems that it is more accurate to have the actual, legal name of the settlement as the title of the article, with a re-direct from the original name. Naturally, the article will include an explanation as to the change of the name.

Does anyone else have any views about this issue? --JAXHERE | ^Talk 16:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we should split the articles, to help wash away the bad name. The only thing that remains the same is the infrastructure.

--Korosuke 20:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this needs a full discussion. However I would suggest follwoing the chilean article at all times, given their relative expertise in the matter, at present they have chosen the new name.

The name should be the original name and reference the new name. Why? because the new name, for the turist resort is largely uninteresting and doesnt warrant such a long article. The history, ie the original name is that of the cult that makes it interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.46.26.73 (talk) 05:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The article is about Colonia Dignidad, not Villa Baviera, and the name should reflect that. rathersane (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I just stumbled across this, and... the title is really weird. Read the article. The title appears in the lede, and then in a microscopic section at the end. Actually, this could give the people of Villa Baviera grounds for a libel suit, given that the article associates all the atrocities of the Colonia with the Villa. (And assuming their claims that it's now completely different are true, which would be a part of a suit). --jae (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I have to take a very deep breath at all your views. I am 49 years old, son of a "legally recognised" (it hurts my fingers to even write this) tortured person in Colonia Dignidad, now Villa Baviera portrayed as a tourist resort and nothing more, poor people who have to live with the past (really??? I made a comment about some concentration camps changed to Disney resorts and was rectified dully, I guess, because after all it is an opinion, but won't stop me from calling a cat a cat...). You nitpick about legal libel suits, name changes, poor Augustito Pinochet portrayed in a bad way. Words elude me. But hey, my dad faced Schaeffer as a felon, some odd 30 years after he applied electrity to his balls, while you people debate. Same as he helped the visit to the CLinic of poor Augusto and his stay at Thatcher's little country house, while you people debate. In the 80's I had a personal file in Germany saying where I lived and studied, only for being the son of another Schaeffer's victim. Debate that. My name is Marcos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2788:1038:C72:51B8:6990:90DD:B67E (talk) 23:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry your family was affected by this. I am a Branham cult survivor from the USA. I didn't know about Colonia Dignidad, or many of the other terrible things Branham and his cohorts did, until a couple years ago. Easalalnahl (talk) 03:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

https://william-branham.org/site/research/topics/colonia_dignidad Easalalnahl (talk) 03:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

images

The spanish version has a wealth of photos. I dont know how to copy them across please see https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villa_Baviera

Any help appreciated. I can put the descriptions if someone copies the pictures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.46.26.73 (talk) 04:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

references

This article needs references. They can be extracted from the spanish version or found in the bibliography at the foot of the page. Any help appreciated in this long task. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.46.26.73 (talk) 04:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Fictitious article

The further down you get on this entry, the more it smells like BS. Supreme Moolah of Iran 05:18, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

many sources are biased against Pinochet: we should try to find completely NPOV sources, or try to balance information from two opposing POV sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.119.230.104 (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2005 (UTC)

It may smell like bullshit, it is strong stuff indeed. But over here in Germany, the facts reported in the article are more or less accepted facts, including very strong rumors of sexual molestation and more than a little help for Pinochet's secret police (which does not really surprise me - German Nazis helping a reactionary regime does not sound too far-fetched...) Torben

Anybody knows that outside of Chile Pinochet has had lots of "destructive advertisements". There are several reasons for this (starting with the CIA and several news sources such as CNN). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtad (talk • contribs) 03:29, 15 June 2005 (UTC)

What makes Paul Schäfer an "ex-Nazi"? He was forced to join the armed forces in Germany to work as a paramedic, a nurse, for Gods sake! But of course, the word "Nazi" looks good on headlines. Many newspapers and internet pages, like Wikipedia, makes it sound like Schäfer was a nazi war criminal that fled to South America. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pursuit_of_Nazi_collaborators "As in Argentina, several former Nazis escaped to this country. After Augusto Pinochet's 1973 coup, some of them, such as Paul Schäfer, chief of the Colonia Dignidad cult..." He fled to Chile to avoid being arrested for child molestation. Nothing else. And here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_living_Nazis "Prominent ex-NSDAP Member" He wasn't an NSDAP member. Logically, every paramedic in the U.S. is a prominent republican! :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.121.143 (talk) 23:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Got to agree with this 100%. CIA and fraudster Simon Wiesental are by no means credible sources. He once persecute a Pole as a Nazi, because the man had to work in Germany as a boy during world war two. Mention the controversy surrounding the place, but be honest about the biased sources as well. 41.146.6.51 (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Schäfer was a member of the Hitler Youth, so I doubt anyone had to force him to join the Wehrmacht. His crimes and the atrocities carried out in his name in Colonia Dignidad are well documented. The only things smelling like BS here are comments doubting Schäfer's guilt. Sam Golden (talk) 09:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I had a reaction similar to 213.114.121.143's above. It seems akin to having the article on the Catholic Church read: "The current office-holder is ex-Nazi Pope Benedict XVI." —Morning star (talk) 06:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

biased against Pinochet???

surprised to read that this article is biased against Pinochet. I thought it was biased in favor of Pinochet. Pinochet and this part of Chile's history harshly divide Chilean society. With reasons. But, others parts of the world have a less passionate look at it. Many informations, since Pinochet arrest in 1998 in London, have been given, including by the CIA (the most reliable of all unreliable sources, or the most unreliable of reliable sources?). This article has to be actualized. After Paul Schäfer arrest in march 2005, chilean authorities have taken administrative control of the place in august 2005 (this can be easily verified in mainstream media). No doubt they will find lots, lots more than what is said here, with a bit too much caution.

Why does this not mention anything about the former Nazi members' involvements? This seems like it would be a very big deal.

What makes you think that everything related to nazis must be a big deal? Nazis were "evil" only on Europe. The nazis living in southamerica behave accordingly. Sure, they are still biggots, but they don't go spreading propaganda or murdering jews, even those who did back in the day. Therefore, for articles regarding civilian life, having been a nazi or not in Chile is completely irrelevant, moreso to this article.

--Korosuke 20:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

reference

i just wanted to point out that, while i'm sure it's a lovely book, "History of the Nazi Involvement With the Occult" sounds incredibly suspect, especially as it is the only thing in the reference section. --dan 01:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

cat :former German colonies

to list this under above mentioned cat is simply wrong. It is a "colony" in the old latin meaning of the word. A settlement. It never was part of Germany. I´ll remove the cat.--Tresckow 04:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

History Channel Special

I just happened to stumble across a History Channel special on cults (it was a special episode of "Decoding the Past") and this cult was mentioned. It agreed with such accusations as torture, killing, pedophilia, nazi involvement, and involvement with Pinochet. I figure the History Channel is a pretty reliable source, but is there anyone who knows how to look up or source information from a television show? Galactor213 18:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, there are still no reliable sources for chilean history involving Pinochet. Foreign sources are even more unreliable since most are based on hear-say, some going to ridiculous exaggerations such as saying there were submarines on the Mapocho river (which is 3 mt deep).

--Korosuke 20:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Added NPOV flag

The article is terribly biased, from the relation with Pinochet (which is pretty much irrelevant since most of the nation was supporting him) and the nazi title... ¿Is it relevant? They were sexist but not racist. And the part with finding a tank? I live in Chile, very near the Villa and I had NEVER heard about that. I checked the source but it talks about suspected biological hazards, not weapons. I was going to correct these mistakes, but what's the point? Internet is flooded with fabricate evidence anyway. Also, the good parts are not mentioned. Before the child abuse issue the population was very happy with the social work done by the germans, who gave free education and medicine to the locals. Finally, a german friend of mine said that the Villa is actually part of a cult that was banned in Germany decades ago. Anyone has information about this?

It was not banned, but Schäfer hat a court history of molesting children, forced sex with minors etc since the 1950s. Obviously, people didn't look too kindly on such a person opening up a secretive cult in their neighborhood. So they were ostracized actually.

Schäfer has just received 3 more years in the slammer. See here.

There was an article detailing events at the Colonia in Spiegel magazine, back when they were still doing respectable journalism (1980s methinks), giving a lot of eyewitness reports.

Also, dignidad is "dignity, no? Arguably, in the full name of the organization it is not very well translatable, but "Colony [of] Dignity" is probably how the name was understood locally. The irony is of course rather poignant.

The reluctance of Chileans to stir up the sleeping dogs of the past may be understandable, but it is actually not very consequential here and can be largely left to the Chileans discretion. The Colonia received some support from Germany - not on an official basis, but it was a well-known part of the German ex-pat community and of course they had benefactors back in their native country. But then, some folks left the Colonia and started to talk about what they had seen; it raised quite a stink over here I remember (I was barely a teen then, but I can remember the debate; it was quite present in the media for some months, and it led to the Colonia being dropped like a hot potato after Pinochet was gone. What this means is that a lot of good material is available, but it's in German. The de: community might be of help here. The books of Gemballa seem to be pretty much authoritative.

BTW Schäfer's activities have very little if anything to do with him having been a card-carrying Nazi (if he ever was; IONO). The Colonia episode was much later; if Nazism had anything to do with it, he would have left Germany in 1945 and not in the 1960s. If anything, he was a fascist; he had the opportunity to make the Colonia a mainbase for South American antisemites but he didn't; those guys were always welcome, but not as antisemites specifically but just as one faction among many in the Alianza Nacionalista de Repúblicas Americanas which occasionally used the Colonia as a kind of "conference center".

And as a last remark - a lot of leading Colonia personnel have given full confessions. The allegations, in short, are correct: torture, murder, sexual abuse, imprisonment, you name it. This place made Waco look like a holiday retreat. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you know this, and I know this, but apart from sources, how does the reader know this? Are we simply saying, "Just trust us, we know about this?" Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Tank?

Officials found a tank at the colony? Are there any references? Which tank did the police find? A main battle tank, a tracked armoured fighting vehicle,...? 93.196.63.164 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

A false claim, like most accounts of this colony.Royalcourtier (talk) 04:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Colonia Dignidad - Nazi Sect in the land of Pinochet

There is a documentary from 2006 with interviews with ex-settlers, amnesty international, and many others. It would be useful to include the information there 72.208.186.17 (talk) 21:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Location?

The article claims Villa Baviera/Colonia Dignidad is "[l]ocated in an isolated area of central Chile, [lying] 35 km southeast of the city of Parral, on the north bank of the Perquilauquén River." While I've not been able to find another reference to its physical location, Google Maps places it quite differently. Whatever lies at the Google-mapped location looks more like the descriptions of VB/CD than anything I can find 35 km SE of Parral. Mazoola (talk) 04:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC) That google map shows the Bavarian Village standing about 35km SE of Parral - so what's the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.251.16 (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Utterly fantastic sentences in an unsourced section

In the History section, which as a whole violates WP:VERIFY, the following sentences appeared until my edit today:

the ideas included poisoning rivers, and killing civilians utilising chemical and biological warfare. There was even an attempt to produce an atomic bomb: Weisfeiler, a backpacking tourist walking near colonia Dignidad disappeared, however in his backpack was a Geiger counter to measure radiation. Part of the original plan included arming helicopters with sarin bombs.

This material is just too badly written, and too utterly fantastic, to remain in the article, without solid, reliable published sources appearing as inline citations, to make clear that they are not fiction, or the thoughts of theorists that are not widely held. Please, only return this prose to the article, with 2 reliable published sources at each claim biological warfare, atomic bomb, sarin, etc. Then, please help in making the rest of the article encyclopedic, including the long history section, which remains, as of this timestamp, so much WP:OR. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Expert needed

Due to length, moved from {{expert needed}} template (Boghog (talk) 06:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC))

The article needs to be rewritten entirely, and comply with WP:VERIFY and WP:OR. The lede and other parts of article are egregiously unsourced/under-sourced; the entire extensive History section is without a single one. Moreover, the article fails utterly at a first principle of being encyclopedic, establishing terms and definitions: e.g., it fails to establish clearly, through sources, that the title name is equivalent geographically and organizationally to the name Colonia Dignidad, which appears in some of the few article sources (e.g., whereupon the whole argument becomes a seeming house of cards). Scholarly attention is needed to identify best sources, and to check all material, line by line, against them. And as Talk has addressed, various fantastic unsourced statements appeared earlier (now moved to Talk, or to inline hidden notes), but some remaining are still questioned.

Content returned to tag, in shortened form. Editors and readers deserve to know what the issues are, if they are to help improve the article (editors), or if they are to be cautioned in their reading of the material (readers). Tags remain because the issues remain. Boghog is invited to come and help, and not drive by edit through reversions and cut and paste moves. Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Given that there is a lot of unsubstantiated rumour about this place, such as Josef Mengele being harboured there, I am inclined to do a root-and-branch pruning of unreferenced material, which, otherwise, will come back to us through citogenesis. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC).

I'm not finding the "Working Group on Forced Disappearance of Persons" via Google. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC).

The name was wrong: the real group can be found here. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC).

And I could only find mentions, no "report by the UN".

E.G. "Issues of alleged violations of human rights committed in Colonia Dignidad seemed to be a problem between the Federal Republic of Germany and some of its citizens living in a settlement farm located in Chile. (trans)[1]

And "In 2004, concern was expressed by CAT that few cases of disappearances which occurred during the military rule have been clarified.64 It recommended that Chile provide updated information on the status of investigations into past crimes involving torture, including the cases known as the “Caravan of Death”, “Operación Cóndor” and “Colonia Dignidad”."[2]

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Villa Baviera. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160303191934/http://www.cooperativa.cl/p4_noticias/site/artic/20050330/pags/20050330114755.html to http://www.cooperativa.cl/p4_noticias/site/artic/20050330/pags/20050330114755.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

That can´t be true

From the text: "....and also had allies in the army and the Chilean far leftist socialists, who would warn them in advance when the police were preparing a site visit." ... There is no reference. Why on earth would any part of the socialist left have cooperated with Colonia Dignidad. I never ever read such things, and i have read a lot about Colonia Dignidad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.192.81.218 (talk) 10:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree, it doesn't make any sense. It was used as a torture place (against left wing people) during Pinochet's rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.164.180.152 (talk) 02:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

DBS involvement

It defies logic that the German intelligence service would co-operate with an obscure religious cult in South America to manufacture weapons. Even if this was remotely likely, why would the manufacturing be hidden even within the cult. And what does "This subject was proactively hidden, because of the problems experienced at the time associated with Argentina." even mean? Is there any source for this claim, other than one clearly deluded journalist?Royalcourtier (talk) 04:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Killed is not the correct term, write murdered (also killed means termination of operations but I know you mean murdered)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:587:4100:a900:154:ab57:9171:7b4b (talk • contribs) 03:01, July 22, 2017 (UTC)

Disputed title

This article should be entitled, "Colonia Dignidad". Per WP:AT, the title of an article indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles. If the content of the article is about one thing, and the title is something else, then there is a mismatch. That is the case here: there is a mismatch. All of the content of the article, save two sentences at the end, is about the infamous Colonia Dignidad complex used for torture in the 50s and 60s and which housed a sect led by Paul Schäfer. The title must match this content.

It does not matter what the building is called now, or who is there now. This is not an article about a particular building at a particular geographic location that has served multiple purposes, like, say, the One Times Square article about a famous New York City building that housed the New York Times, the Lehmann Brothers and other tenants and is notable enough as the most famous address in a major world city that it rates its own article.

The fact that Colonia Dignidad and Villa Baviera occupied the same building, does not make them the same thing. Colonia Dignidad is like Lehmann Brothers, in the sense that both are highly notable, and both deserve their own article, even though neither one exists now. Perhaps Villa Baviera is notable and deserves an article, but if so, you couldn't tell from this article, which says almost nothing about it at all other than saying it's a tourist trap for people who want to visit the site of a former torture location. That is to say, even in the current incarnation of the building, Villa Baviera appears to be notable merely for sharing the geographic location and building of the former Colonia Dignidad.

What seems abundantly clear, is that this article—even the last two sentences which are in a section named "Villa Baviera"—is entirely and exclusively about the former Colonia Dignidad. The title must match the content of the article. Therefore, it must be renamed to "Colonia Dignidad". To call it anything else is a violation of WP:AT. Mathglot (talk) 07:23, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 19 November 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 07:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

---

Villa Baviera → Colonia Dignidad – The entire article from beginning to end is about Colonia Dignidad—the 1950s and 60s Chilean torture complex and sect led by Paul Schäfer. Per WP:AT, the "title of an article indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles." The current title does not match the article content, and a rename is required. Full details at Talk:Villa Baviera#Disputed title. Mathglot (talk) 07:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. B dash (talk) 14:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment:This would reverse 17:24, 6 April 2008‎ CieloEstrellado (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (27 bytes) (+27)‎ . . (moved Colonia Dignidad to Villa Baviera). However CieloEstrellado has been inactive here since July 2009. Andrewa (talk) 08:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks for that bit of research. That move was was performed unilaterally without discussion. But it wasn't the first one; the article started out as Colonia Dignidad, was first moved to Villa Baviera, then back to Colonia again, before being moved to Villa again in the move you found. Since these are obviously controversial moves, none of them should have been performed without discussion as it is contrary to move policy.

  The first section above from 2007 discusses the same issue. This needs to be decided by reference to policy, not personal opinion, and I don't currently see a policy-based argument for keeping it under its current name, but that's why we have discussions. Mathglot (talk) 12:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

  Quite right. Agree. Andrewa (talk) 14:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support. We may long term have two articles, but for now we just have the one, and the sourced material is more concerned with the "colony" rather than the site. The article needs work, and giving it a stable name that reflects this focus is a good (probably essential) first step. Andrewa (talk) 14:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Previous moves

Just to summarise.

02:33, 24 January 2007‎ Jaxhere (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (7,562 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved Colonia Dignidad to Villa Baviera, Chile: name changed)
22:46, 25 March 2007‎ Tazmaniacs (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (7,583 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved Villa Baviera, Chile to Colonia Dignidad over redirect: most used name)
17:24, 6 April 2008‎ CieloEstrellado (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (7,819 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved Colonia Dignidad to Villa Baviera)

These all appear to have been without discussion, and the edit summaries tell us nothing really.

The article had an inauspicious start as a deletable substub in 2004 when an IP posted a weird place in chile. some think it was a nazi resort used by pinochet to kill people in occult rituals. literally nazi because of the nazi german emigrants to chile involved in it. see '_Unholy Alliance_' by peter levendas, reviews on amazon.com at the title Colonia Dignidad. But it now contains sourced material that should be preserved and developed. Andrewa (talk) 14:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Follow-up adjustment to the Lead

Following implementation of the move, I've adjusted the lead to reflect the new title, and moved the material about Villa Baviera, the old title, to the last paragraph. Also removed a bunch of cruft (hidden text, overly-long descriptions that belong better in the body, if anywhere), and generally tried to smooth the segues. It's better than it was, but the last two paragraphs have duplicate content and need to be merged, and the long, middle paragraph needs a rewrite. Mathglot (talk) 05:50, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

@Andrewa:, can you have a look, and either comment here if you prefer, or just go for it and fix up the article as you see fit. There's still a lot of stuff crying out for improvement, but hopefully we have a base now upon which to build. Mathglot (talk) 05:53, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Rather busy IRL and fighting a battle with uncertain connectivity in rural Australia, but I'll try! Andrewa (talk) 10:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Netflix series: October 2021

In October 2021, Netflix released the original documentary series "A Sinister Sect: Colonia Dignidad". Lots of archival footage, and first-person accounts from people who were there and knew Schafer. See a review. Mathglot (talk) 08:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

It might be a very good source, actually, as it's far-better researched than most of what I see in this article, which seems to lean heavily on tabloid-fodder and conspiracy theories. The truth about Colonia Dignidad is shocking enough without having to spin some kind of Boys from Brazil fiction around it. I think this article could use a ruthless edit from stronger sources, really. Looking around, there actually are scholoarly sources about this topic, but largely in German and Spanish, and often not on the internet. Editors who rely on 'convenience' sourcing might not be happy with that, but that's the reality. Peter G Werner (talk) 22:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Nazi

Colonia Dignidad founder Paul Schäfer was a Nazi, this is not in dispute. This article has long had the word "Nazi" in the WP:LEADSENTENCE. It was not previously referenced in the WP:LEADSENTENCE, because it doesn't have to be, since it was well-documented in the body]] of the article. In the edit of 22:12, 21 July 2022 Peter G Werner removed the word "Nazi" from the lead. So, I restored "Nazi" to the lead again in this edit, adding two impeccable references. This was rapidly reverted by Timbouctou, restoring the white-washed version added a day ago. I will be reverting again shortly, restoring the proper version. Please do not remove accounts of Schäfer being a Nazi. Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Please refrain from loaded terms such as "whitewashing" and also try to refrain from edit-warring. What constitutes "well documented" seems to be your opinion as no source has ever provided any evidence that the man was ever a member of the Nazi party - those who did call him a "Nazi" did so only because they conflate Germany in WWII with Germany in general. In fact there is not a single source argumenting that he himself was a Nazi in this article at all. Also, please refrain from weasel words such as "impeccable references." Timbouctou (talk) 21:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

We must follow what the sources say, and the majority of them say that he is a "Nazi". I am compiling a list, and will release it soon. Your removal of the term "Nazi" and the sources that backed it up was without justification, and I don't know what else to call it, other than whitewashing. And exactly who are you accusing of "edit-warring"? I have one edit to the article in the last year. Mathglot (talk) 19:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

This is, in fact, very much in dispute. Please see the discussion at Talk:Paul_Schäfer#Ex-Nazi??. Better sources demonstrate that Paul Schäfer was not a member of any National Socialist organizations, nor ideologically a Nazi. None of this serves to whitewash the very real crimes of Schäfer and Colonia Dignidad. This article and the Paul Schäfer one need to be rewritten based on more solid sources, however, and the falsified "Nazi" label simply nees to be dropped. The ideological roots of Colonia Dignidad are in Christian fundamentalism, not National Socialism, and this is well-documented. Colonia Dignidad's later very real association with neo-Fascism is something that begins much later with their opposition to Allende. It is a mystery to me why someone feels the need to edit war this and make pounding-on-the-table level assertions that don't even engage with the better source material I've offered. Peter G Werner (talk) 08:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

"Better sources"? Editors here don't get to decide which sources they consider the "better sources". As long as a source is reliable, it is admissible. Among reliable sources, the principle of proportionate representation governs how we handle differences among reliable sources; this is part of the neutrality policy. And who are you accusing of edit-warring? Mathglot (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Stop trying to pass off the editorial decions that *you* want as the voice of some kind of consensus, and that I'm behaving as some sort of rogue editor. You are WAY out of line, and I will report this as a breech of WP:CIVIL if you don't tone it down. Your views on sourcing are nothing short of bizarre, actually, and you continue to demand that journalistic sources be privileged over academic ones. User:Timbouctou has already explained elsewhere how reliable sources are supposed to be understood in proper context. Peter G Werner (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I have no editorial preference at this article of any kind, only that policies and guidelines are followed, which currently they are not. My views about Schäfer or his colony are irrelevant, but my views about sourcing at the article follow policy. Please stop your accusations about my behavior here; I have not been uncivil to you, but if you disagree, you may by all means raise a discussion about it on my Talk page (the proper venue for it) or even at WP:ANI; be sure to include diffs if you do. I will not stop attempting to keep this article verifiable and in line with the majority of reliable sources, and I will not be cowed by your empty threats. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

If one looks at Talk:Paul_Schäfer, you'll note that you have not just myself, but a second editor who finds User:Mathglot's views on sourcing entirely tendetious and off-base. At this point, I have no intention to try to reason with this editor, who will clearly continue to push a strange view of WP:VERIFY against all comers. There is nothing that can be accomplished in a discussion on that editor's talk page that cannot be accomplished here.

I understand the need for proper sourcing in Wikipedia and that is in fact what I'm acting on, which is why I'm editing these articles based on the consensus view of scholarly sources. This does indeed mean changing much of what's stated this article, which has been based on 'convenience' sources that are poorly-researched. If this results in an edit-war, I will definitely go to arbitration with this. If Wikipedia cannot prioritize scholarly sources, then Wikipedia is broken. Peter G Werner (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Just to add one more point, I consider User:Mathglot's ongoing assertions that their views on the shape of the article and on sourcing to be a "consensus" view while claiming my edits are point of view pushing is explicilty accusing me of an agenda and is the very opposite of WP:AGF, and I'll add, rhetoric I find extremely uncivil and the opposite of WP:CIVIL. I am asking this person to stop accusing me of point of view pushsing and to stop pretending that their views on the article represent a 'consensus'. (BTW, I'm quite willing to call for other interested parties to step in if consensus-building is needed!) This rhetoric smacks of the psychological tactic of gaslighting, and I really don't appreciate it. Peter G Werner (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Unconstructive tagging at "Nazi ties" section

Peter G Werner, in your edit of 8:07, 23 July, you added an unsupported {{disputed section}} tag to the § Nazi ties section of the article. The section you tagged as "disputed" has six citations in it:

• Mengele's visit is sourced to Infield (1981). (The citation should be consolidated with note 5 as they are the same.)
• The Nazi underground in South America, and the sheltering of Nazis in Chile is sourced to Levenda (2002).
• The impact of Germans in Chile, and the nature of the immigrants is sourced to Cassigoli (2013).
• The quotation about "Nazi stronghold" protected by Chile is sourced to Infield.
• The assertion about the Nazi past of some followers escaping criminal investigations is sourced to Infield.
• The impact of CD in the region and ties to the Chilean government are sourced to Valades (1992).

You added this tag without a link to a Talk page discussion, as required by the template. That the section on "Nazi ties" is "disputed", is merely your opinion; *you* dispute it, but that is not a proper use of the tag. Please remove it. Mathglot (talk) 19:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

The factual accuracy of this section is in fact very poor. I can (and will) reference other sources that note that the supposed visits by Josef Mengele and Martin Borman are clearly *debunked* in further edits to this section. In fact, Mengele was hiding out in Sao Paulo State in Brazil from the time of Colonia Dignidad's founding up to his death, and was not taking far-off journeys to Chile. That said, there is an actual well-documented Nazi visitor during the 1970s, namely Walter Rauff, who was hiding in Chile at the time.

It is not my intention to get rid of this section, since the academic books that are solid sources all have a discussion of ostensible Nazi ties and the more general "Nazi" claims that have long been asserted in the popular press. However, they debunk any claims that Schafer was a National Socialist or that Colonia Dignidad was a continuation of pre-1945 Naziism or was part of the "ratline" phenomenon. This section does need a substantial rewrite for factual accuracy and to reflect the consenus of scholarly sources on the topic.

In general, I think your arguments are unhelpful, push your own point of view while feigning NPOV, and treat fringe sources the same as (or even above) scholarly ones based on an aberrant and tendentious view of WP:VERIFY.

I have no intention on removing the tag until there's been a substantial re-edit of this section, and if you do so uniformly, I'll consider that edit-warring and will take it to arbitration. Peter G Werner (talk) 23:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)