Talk:Alberto Fujimori

Peruvian courts have ordered his release from prison, Dec 5th 2023

I updated the page to reflect the news but it still needs a citation and more updates as news develops. Thanks Heydre (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

"Figurehead" refs

I have removed a wall of references from the lead speculating that Fujimori was a "figurehead". A list of ten people speculating is no more persuasive than one; it must also be noted that Vargas Llosa is not a neutral party here, having lost to Fujimori in 1990. For the record, here is the material removed.

It was reported that Vladimiro Montesinos, the head of the National Intelligence Service at the time, was the real power behind the throne, with the backing of the Peruvian Armed Forces, while Alberto Fujimori acted as a figurehead president under the influence of Montesinos and the military forces.

References

Walsh90210 (talk) 00:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it should be completely discarded, at the very least, more than 10 sources documented it:

• Hoy se sabe con certeza que el verdadero poder detrás de Fujimori eran las Fuerzas Armadas y su instrumento clave el SIN con su pieza más valiosa Vladimiro Montesinos... (Nowadays it is known with certainty that the real power behind Fujimori was the Armed Forces and its key instrument, the SIN with its most valuable piece Vladimiro Montesinos ...) Source: https://archivos.juridicas.unam.mx/www/bjv/libros/6/2528/10.pdf
• Words of the lawyer and friend of Fujimori, Fernando Rospigliosi, "Peruvian history is punctuated by military and civilian dictatorships, but never before had an authoritarian government supported by the armed forces been managed by the intelligence services. These services, led by former captain Vladimiro Montesinos, became the real power in Peru during the decade of Alberto Fujimori's government. Source: https://fondoeditorial.iep.org.pe/producto/montesinos-y-las-fuerzas-armadas-como-controlo-durante-una-decada-las-instituciones-militares/

Ultranuevo (talk) 03:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

"Neoliberal"

This word is highly constested in economy and political science. The word is mostly used in pejorative manner and has modern usage that emerged from the critics of such policies/reforms. The editors of the article should consider if alternative terms such as "free market", "liberal" etc., may make the article more neutral. As a reminder, the fact that "neoliberal" is used in some articles in academic journals does confer it neutrality. Nemehuinco (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Neoliberalism is an actual, well-defined ideoligy, not just a pejorative. Other ideologies such as fascism and communism are much more often used as pejorative and still these words are used as descriptors on Wikipedia. The reason why is because these words have rather clear meanings to the non-indoctrinated, and so does neoliberal. Neoliberalism is also much more specific than "liberal" and "free market". I therefore think the only reason why "neoliberal" should be substituted is if it's inaccurate in the cases where it used. Hexaltee (talk) 00:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

It's literally stated in Wikipedia's own article "The term has multiple, competing definitions, and is often used pejoratively." I had to look the article up as, even though I would consider myself more politically informed than the average person, I had only ever heard this term used in a negative way and wasn't sure what it was supposed to mean, so I have to disagree on pretty much all points. 198.166.214.4 (talk) 10:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Given the competing definitions and possible pejorative use, perhaps better to substitute with a different more precisely defined term. seefooddiet (talk) 18:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree, neoliberal shouldnt be used here. Its a vague and meaningless pejorative used by left leaning people to describe all sorts of different people and ideologist that its basically meaningless. There is an actual "neoliberal" economic model, but it was something developed in Germany after WW2 and not this. I believe it should be changed to he made free market reforms because its a more accurate and clearer statement of his economics rather than a vague buzzword like "neoliberal" which would just confuse readers. Friedbyrd (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Nemehuinco As a reminder, the fact that "neoliberal" is used in some articles in academic journals does confer it neutrality. ...Did you mean, "does not confer it neutrality"? FeRDNYC (talk) 07:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Date of birth

The date of birth is the 28th. Stop vandalizing the article by placing the 26th as the date of birth, this is widely debated and the media (BBC, CNN and Peruvian media) have always accepted the 28th.

You could put the debate in the body of the article. Dariodemh (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@Dariodemh can you please provide links to those articles? The New York Times obit also uses the 28th: Alberto Kenya Fujimori was born in Lima on July 28, 1938, the second of five children of two Japanese immigrants. Also, please do not accuse editors of WP:vandalism which has specific meaning on Wikipedia and could be construed as a WP:personal attack which I am sure is not your intent. You are just frustrated. S0091 (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@S0091 Ok, maybe I overreacted. But I seriously don't understand why they keep pushing the 26 date. I understand that theres some debate, but this is an enciclopedia. It'd be great if that thing is expanded in the body of the article.

Aldo, here are the links, they're in Spanish:

https://www.bbc.com/mundo/lg/america_latina/2009/04/090407_1140_fujimori_perfil_ms

https://cnnespanol.cnn.com/2024/09/11/obit-fujimori-gobernante-peru-fujishock-ddhh-orix Dariodemh (talk) 23:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Fujimori's Children

The infobox currently lists the number of children at "5," but the "Personal life" section of the article only documents four children.

It looks like some recent edits updated the infobox to include a stepson, but without a citation or any elaboration in the article's body. I'm not sure if this addition is factual, though I'm sure that if it is, it should certainly be expanded upon in the body of the article and include a citation.

Could an editor familiar with this page and/or Wikipedia conventions help reconcile this, or clarify if we should revert the count to 4? Thank you in advance.

Coolgarbagecan (talk) 10:14, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, the source we have says four, so I've changed it back. Cheers, -- irn (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2026 (UTC)