Talk:Colonia Dignidad

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)

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)

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)