Talk:Indonesian mass killings of 1965–66/Archive 1

Archive 1

Genocide of Chinese

The section of the Chinese is biased and embarrassing. It has been removed until something more accurate can replace it. Note that Charles Coppel is an infamous abuser of Wikipedia and self-promoter (see his page for evidence of this - he has written up his own personal situation as if this is a publicist's office) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.35.123 (talk) 04:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Maybe a more precise title?

Considering the scope of this massacre (one of the biggest of the 20th century) I think it would be perfectly appropriate call it "mass killings". "Killings" alone sounds like something much smaller was going on. Every time I look for this page, I type "Indonesian mass killings", then discover (again) that it's only "killings". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slavantiquity (talk • contribs) 17:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

New article

I put this article up last night (15 June 2008) after having worked on it in my user space. Before the criticisms on apparent omissions, writing style, and god-forbid POV accusations fly, let me say that while I thought it “good enough” to post in main space, I’m not pretending it is “complete”. It’s a sensitive and contentious topic, and I still intent to work on additional info, additional sources, prose (still awkward in parts), and general formatting. Any assistance and constructive rather than accusatory feedback would be most appreciated. Would love to have some photos or other graphics, but I doubt there is much around – great effort was made at the time to ensure that there wasn’t in the way of images.

I also intend linking the article from numerous other articles, and also trimming down the coverage of the killings in other articles not that the detail is here. The main but summarised punch lines will of course stay in related articles such as Suharto and History of Indonesia – just not all the details. Regards --Merbabu (talk) 01:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

hello, Merbabu. can you add the reference for "McDonald (1980)" in the References section, please? thanks. kmc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.137.65 (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ooops - I forgot. It's in there now. thanks for the heads up. --Merbabu (talk) 00:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

U.S., Australian and British involvement

Some info is repeating info already in the earlier parts of the article and other articles that could be linked SatuSuro 04:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

yeah, some is repeated, but it's not too bad. A little bit of tweaking will help. --Merbabu (talk) 04:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

PS, this section is also probably a bit too long/detailed and over does the quotations, but again, it's not too bad and there's no great rush to tweak. regards --Merbabu (talk) 05:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

What happened to this section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.105.206 (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree this is important and should be included, but this particular writing (it seems) reasonably removed, as noted in History, "(rm this whole section as it is plagiarised from the source [1])"--see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indonesian_killings_of_1965%E2%80%9366&diff=222145392&oldid=221863322 Doprendek (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Current article...

[2] --Merbabu (talk) 13:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ie, that's a link to a recent newspaper article about the events in this article. Could be useful. --Merbabu (talk) 09:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Removal of referenced content

User:TheTimesAreAChanging is currently going through dozens of articles and removing reliably sourced information which he believes reflects negatively on the United States. He removed a large amount of content from the U.S. involvement section, with no valid information for why it was being removed. I have restored it, and request that TheTimesAreAChanging stop removing reliably sourced content here and elsewhere. I think the content should be integrated throughout the article, rather than in it's own section, because really the U.S. was playing a role in the affair from its beginning to its end. What should not be done is removing content that is backed by reliable sources, just because we don't like what it says. Wikipedia is not censored, and we need to adhere to WP:NPOV which means including ALL perspectives in reliable sources -- not just those that paint our favored nation in a positive light. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It's disturbing that you would seek to go through all my edits and revert them just because we disagreed on a different article. Apparently, that's how you came here. For the record, two other editors agreed with the changes; none objected.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It is irrelevant how many editors agreed with you here. You cannot remove content that is backed by reliable sources without an explanation. You need to, for each statement/source you remove, explain why the source does not satisfy WP:RS or why the content does not belong in the article. Are you refusing to provide such an explanation? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Now, Jrtayloriv, if you are interested in being serious: Drop the vendetta. Don't monitor everything I do and revert it without thinking. I'm not "currently" going through "dozens" of articles and deleting "reliably sourced material". If you notice, I was very careful to include all the main accusations against the US in this section. I merely trimmed the ludicrously excessive, copied-and-pasted masses of text from Horhey420 and added other countries. The New York Times piece is basically a rebuttal of Kadane, so I was surprised to see it used out of context to support her. The section should not be larger than all of the rest of the article. The sourcing and one-sidedness was not even a primary concern; it was hardly readable. If there is another allegation you wish to add, then tell us. What other sources or claims should we add? It does matter that all of the editors familar with this topic formed a consensus that trimming was obviously needed.

TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

A few things...

• The previous version of that section was by far the longest section in the article. Indeed, it was longer than some of the other sections combined. This suggests that so-called "US involvement" was the most signficant issue of the whole subject when it was a peripheral issue. Yes, I tagged the section as too long and disppoportionate a long time ago. It was often removed without my knowledge. On at least one occassion it was removed at the same time new content was added.
• The previous version selectively cherry-picked through the sources to include only info that painted the US in a bad light.
• Of the info it included, it actually misrepresented the sources.
• The previous version did not include the very important (more important?) fact that most of the arms used were of Chinese or Soviet origin.
• Much of the sources used are actually disputed.
• Accuracy of content aside, it was stuipidly detailed mentioning specific cables, etc, etc. It read like a court document. The rest of the articles is not in such detail.

Personally, I don't even want to see a separate section. If the info is relevant and reliable then it can be in the article, but interspersed at the appropriate point. Currently, it sticks out like a dumping spot complete with red flag for anyone with an axe to grind. But that's my opinion, I appreciate others may disagree (particualy those who like inserting "US Involvement" sections in these types of articles), and as such I have not (yet) decided whether this is a battle I want to pick.

Whatever issue Jrtayloriv may have with TheTimesAreAChanging's edits in other articles are irrelevant to this article. TheTimesAreAChanging's edits here are a vast improvement. It certainly is lot more accurate and neutral than it was. To reinstate it would be to make the article both biased and inaccurate. regards --Merbabu (talk) 03:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Merbabu. All I will say is that if Jrtayloriv wants to restore some text, I would much prefer that he explain why here. The whole section had to be redone. Most of the sources were misrepresented or distorted in appalling ways by Horhey420, and so much of it was either copied and pasted or excessively detailed that it is absurd to suggest that I need to justify in detail why I removed each sentence. Even if I did, he could still take issue with my interpretation of what key sentences should be kept and which trimmed.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so you remove ALL OF IT instead of IMPROVING on it or ADDING to it? Please prove your assertion that "Much of the sources used are actually disputed", "inaccurate" or "misrepresented or distorted in appalling ways"? How so? US GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS are disputed? Information from the Director of the Indonesian documentation project at the National Security Archives is disputed? Thats all I used. That's it. Only those sources. Please prove me wrong. Show me. Debunk my information and I will go away. You're using information from some authors book and Im using US government documents.--Horhey420 (talk) 09:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

(after edit conflict). "ALL OF IT" was not removed. You clearly have a problem writing accurately. What part of "it's too long" and "undue weight" don't you understand? One does not have to go to excessive detail to assert a point. It can be said in a few sentences if required with no loss of impact (as are the rest of the points in the article). Why is "ADDING" to it such an imperative? An please cut out the "shame on you" moralising and try and be objective. --Merbabu (talk) 09:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You dont understand. Im not really talking to you. User:TheTimesAreAChanging erased over a months work of information I added to another page. ALL of it. Gone. No reason. Just cause he didnt like it. Said it wasnt pretty enough. Anyways. It wasnt all that excessive because at the end Washington confirms that they were deeply involved in helping to facilitate the killings. I was just giving as many details as possible.--Horhey420 (talk) 09:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

If your issue is with another editor and/or other articles, then this talk page is not the place. Don't take your personal battles (no matter how noble) across wikipedia. If you continue to fight other battles on this page, I will ask for administrator assistance/advice.

It is excessive to be longer and so much more detailed than all other sections, including longer than a few section combined. Why does that section need soooo much detail, and so much more compared to the others? Yet every other section is summarised in form. I really fail to see how this point is so hard to understand. You don't need "to give as many details as possible". In fact, it's more than counterproductive. Just state the main points clearly and concisely. --Merbabu (talk) 09:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me give you an example. How do you remove this?

"DCM [CIA deputy chief of mission] made clear that Embassy and USG generally sympathetic with and admiring of what army doing." http://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/johnsonlb/xxvi/4446.htm

That's a key point.

Also this one..

The State Department urged the Embassy to make this known to Suharto's army: "The next few days, weeks or months may offer unprecedented opportunities for us to begin to influence people and events ... Small arms and equipment may be needed to deal with the PKI ... As events develop, the army may find itself in major military campaigns against PKI, and we must be ready for that contingency." http://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/johnsonlb/xxvi/4445.htm

And finnally..

Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara informed President Johnson: "I believe that our Military Assistance Program to Indonesia during the past few years contributed significantly to the Army's pro-US orientation and encouraged it to move against the PKI when the opportunity was presented." http://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/johnsonlb/xxvi/4435.htm

How you leave all this out and then say US involvement is still an "open question?"--Horhey420 (talk) 10:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

If you're not going to address my points (which I made first), then I don't see a need to answer yours (again). How come you didn't mention Sukarno's USSR and China relations? Or that most of the arms used were from these countries? Why not provide an equal amount of excessively loooooooong and detailed info on this? Or maybe you could just write a few clear sentences forming a paragraph on each? Or you'd rather just make a long list of biased condemnations against the US only? --Merbabu (talk) 10:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I knew it. Politics.. That's what this is about. You cant answer my question because there is no justification. Cling to your "communist conspiracy" theme. I'll turn it on its head and show things you'll want to forget.--Horhey420 (talk) 10:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you are not making sense. If you think I belong to the communist conspiracy brigade then you are gravely mistaken. The article (mostly my words) don't suggest that, and none of the changes I support to your "US is evil" section detract from that. Indeed, I am very proud of the fact that this article has been translated in full into INdonesian wikipedia and is a feature article there. I'm very proud that this is receiving the WP coverage in Indonesia (because being so knowledgeable on the topic, you already know that the 1/2million deaths is still not discussed or taught in Indonesia).

Unless you become a bit more objective and stop with all the hyperbole and emotion, then this discussion cannot continue.--Merbabu (talk) 10:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You should already know that when I did my edits the section was called "US Involvement". Not "US/Soviet/Chinese Involvement" or "Foreign Involvement" as it is now. That is why I suspect you.--Horhey420 (talk) 10:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Btw. I will be happy to show you why the "communist conspiracy" theme is without merit, this case particularly.--Horhey420 (talk) 10:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so now it's time to answer my question. How you leave all that out and then say US involvement is still an open question?--Horhey420 (talk) 11:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say it was an open question. I just said one doesn't need 1/2 the article to make a point. Why should US involvement be many times longer than any other section? YOu still cannot answer that. --Merbabu (talk) 11:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Nah, you have it as an open question right now. That's not by accident. Goodbye.--Horhey420 (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I dont understand what you mean ("open question"?) so I cannot respond. Or that you "suspect" me. Niether make any sense. Ciao. --Merbabu (talk) 21:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

User:TheTimesAreAChanging you...You know what you're doing wrong. I dont have to tell you.--Horhey420 (talk) 09:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Horhey420, I've warned you about these outbursts. You need to stop posting rambling, hyperbolic, overly emotional personal attacks on talk pages. The Chinese and Soviets were involved, and that's not a "communist conspiracy" theory. You went through the New York Times article and selectively took "facts" and "quotes", often from people who later disavowed them, and deliberately removed all the claims that didn't make the US look bad. You're a propagandist. You combined irrelevant documents to add to the synthesis. For example, you added a CIA report from decades later that called the killings one of the worst massacres of the twentieth century. What are we to learn from that? That the CIA only knows this because they were involved? That the CIA takes pride in Nazi-like tactics? And you inserted this claim, with the rest of your copy and paste garbage, in a totally random place in the middle of the article where it interrupted the flow. Wikipedia doesn't exist to publish your original thought. When sources are disputed, Wikipedia has to explain the dispute. If there are "questions", Wikipedia cannot provide answers. If you fail to see why Kadane's report is considered "disputed", then you failed to read the current revision or are otherwise profoundly self-delusional. The US embassy documents requesting arms are mentioned here, along with the reply that "there was to be no implication of providing" them. You just said that we can't dispute the official records--but you deliberately ignored those that didn't suit your agenda. It's no accident that all of your ommissions support your POV. Even now, the article is still weighted against the US. It still puts stronger emphasis on the US than any other country. If you hadn't made the article so unbelievably long and incoherent, I probably would have left it alone due to my intense dislike of working with you; you start edit wars and use personal attacks to get your way, and your tantrums usually succeed. But this had to be one of the most blatant NPOV violations I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Why not include a brief response to Kadane, even if you support her? Are you afraid that other people might come to different conclusions unless you weight the argument? Do you always have to get your way, to such an extreme of bias and distortion? The only legitimate point you have raised, in this entire discussion, is the quote about US aid increasing the army's pro-Western orientation. I sincerely considered including that quote, but the three paragraphs provided are more than lengthy enough, and the quote was talking about US actions years prior to the crisis.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• "Btw. I will be happy to show you why the "communist conspiracy" theme is without merit, this case particularly" Talk pages are not here so we can "talk". They're here to discuss improvements to the article. You're the only one who has made this political. And you were talking to the guy who made an entire page on the killing of 500,000 suspected "communists".TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I get heated because I know what is motivating you. It's so obvious. Im tired of you erasing my contributions. Your ommissions are POV in themselves. This "too much information" argument is not credible. When I look for information Im looking for as many details as possible about a certain issue. Not just bits and pieces especially when key points are left out. Your interpritation of the info is slanted. You're a censor. That is what you are. Im being honest and straight forward. That is it.--Horhey420 (talk) 01:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Horhey, you are fundamentally wrong when you say there is should be as many details as possible on a topic. That is not how wikipedia works. In fact, it is impossible to have no limits on page details.

This discussion is not progressing for the following reasons:

• You have failed to show that you understand fundamental editing principals such as limiting word count. As I mentioned above, you are fundamentally wrong if you think there should be no limit to the detail in an article.
• You have failed to address, let alone resolve, the question of why this section in particular must be sooooo much longer than any other section, indeed, why it must be longer than several other sections combined. I raised this question several years ago. No-one, including you, has answered this. This has made discussion fruitless.
• Your language is unclear. You told said to me “I suspect you.”. That doesn’t make sense. You suspect me of what? While there is no rule about contributing if your first language is not English, your inability to communicate effectively makes the discussion fruitless.
• You provide red herrings, straw man arguments, and completely irrelevant responses to questions/issues. For example, when I mentioned the fact that the majority of the army’s military hardware in 1965 was Chinese or Soviet, you responded by saying that you can disprove the “communist conspiracy theories”. Firstly, I never alleged a communist conspiracy, and secondly any alleged conspiracy (or your ability to disprove it) is completely irrelevant to the fact that Indonesian military hardware was largely Chinese and Soviet. This is but one example of your completely irrelevant responses which make this discussion impossible.
• By your own admission, you get “heated” in your discussion. That’s not acceptable on wikipedia. While we all see things we don’t like, in our communications and editing on wikipedia, we must all remain calm, civil, and rational at all times.
• Accusing people of being censors and of being biased are border line personal attacks. They are certainly not civil show that you do not assume good faith. See WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:AGF. These are fundamental to positive collaboration and your style here breaches all of them. By directly and openly accusing other editors of bad motivations, you are breaking WP:AGF. Again, making discussion fruitless. (The irony which you apparently fail to see is that there is a good case here to accuse you of bad faith and bias, yet that has not yet been done).

In the light of the above points, it is apparent to me that the issue is no longer the content, but the way you engage with other editors on Wikipedia. As such, I will probably not engage in further discussion if you continue with this style. Instead, I will advice of administrators. Regards --Merbabu (talk) 02:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

If you do that they're just going to see censorship by TheTimesAreAChanging and probably tell me to keep it civil. That's fine. I just dont like my work being erased for really no good reason in my view. I put a lot of time into all this so when it all disappears of course Im going to get upset.

• Horhey420 subsequently goes completely off on a tangent by trying to promote awareness of US support for the invasion of East Timor, an unrelated issue, by copying and pasting news articles. Only read if you are interested. Otherwise, ignore. Do not respond. This page should not be used for any further discussion of East Timor.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It's relevant because it has to do with the communist conspiracy pretext for US policy in Indonesia. And you did promote that pretext in our discussion above. I said "no it's not true and here is why." No, this is not about "promoting awareness" as you say.--Horhey420 (talk) 04:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• I don't even know what you are talking about anymore. This discussion has run its course.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, Horhey's off-topic rant below proves my bullet points above. He is unable to engage in relevant and on-topic discussion. I agree that this discussion has run its course. --Merbabu (talk) 04:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You really think the administrators arent going to see this as censorship? We will see. Reagan Foreign Policy page and all.--Horhey420 (talk) 04:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:TALK WP:SOAPBOX
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
On the issue of the "communist conspiracy" theme. In the 1990's during the Clinton administration, the Soviet Union no longer exists.. The National Security Archive: A Quarter Century of U.S. Support for Occupation East Timor Truth Commission report uses declassified U.S. documents to call for reparations from U.S. for its support of Indonesian invasion and occupation of East Timor from 1975 until U.N. sponsored vote in 1999 The National Security Archive: East Timor truth commission finds U.S. "political and military support were fundamental to the Indonesian invasion and occupation" Report estimates 100-180,000 Timorese killed or starved 1975-1999 The final report of East Timor's landmark Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation (CAVR) has found that U.S. "political and military support were fundamental to the Indonesian invasion and occupation" of East Timor from 1975 to 1999, according to the "Responsibility" chapter of the report posted today on the Web by the National Security Archive, which assisted the Commission with extensive documentation. The Gaurdian: US trained butchers of Timor Exclusive: Washington trained death squads in secret while Britain has spent £1m helping Indonesian army Indonesian military forces linked to the carnage in East Timor were trained in the United States under a covert programme sponsored by the Clinton Administration which continued until last year. Motive: The New York Times: Why Suharto Is In and Castro Is Out Administration officials said the treatment of Mr. Castro, Mr. Jiang and Mr. Suharto was driven by very different litmus tests, a potent mix of power politics and emerging markets. Mr. Suharto, who is sitting on the ultimate emerging market: some 13,000 islands, a population of 193 million and an economy growing at more than 7 percent a year. The country remains wildly corrupt and Mr. Suharto's family controls leading businesses that competitors in Jakarta would be unwise to challenge. But Mr. Suharto, unlike the Chinese, has been savvy in keeping Washington happy. He has deregulated the economy, opened Indonesia to foreign investors and kept the Japanese, Indonesia's largest supplier of foreign aid, from grabbing more than a quarter of the market for goods imported into the country. So Mr. Clinton made the requisite complaints about Indonesia's repressive tactics in East Timor, where anti-Government protests continue, and moved right on to business, getting Mr. Suharto's support for market-opening progress during the annual Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in Osaka in mid-November. "He's our kind of guy," a senior Administration official who deals often on Asian policy, said the other day. So who here knows about this? Should this be shown or ommitted? That is the crucial question.--Horhey420 (talk) 02:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC) Here. More details of Clinton's role... Published by the Federation of American Scientists Fund No. 41 (October 1999) ARMS SALES MONITOR Arms Sales to Indonesia by the Clinton Administration: U.S. Complicity in East Timor --Horhey420 (talk) 03:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC) If I were to add this information to the relevant page TheTimesAreAChanging would conjure up some excuse for erasing it: "misinterpreted", "innacurate", "propaganda", or not pretty enough or whatever. I cant imagine that he wouldnt.--Horhey420 (talk) 03:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of recent edits

Horhey420 recently added text to the article. Fine. That is far better than reinstating the old version. Although my version already gave undue weight to the US role, let's allow his edits further consideration, solely for the purpose of compromise. Here are two quotes I removed:

• Secretary of State Dean Rusk advised the US Embassy in Jakarta: "The next few days, weeks or months may offer unprecedented opportunities for us to begin to influence people and events ... Small arms and equipment may be needed to deal with the PKI ... As events develop, the army may find itself in major military campaigns against PKI, and we must be ready for that contingency."

• This quote is irrelevant because the article already mentions the requests that were eventually made to provide arms. There is nothing here not in the article already.

• During the assault on the PKI, U.S. Ambassedor Greene informed the State Department that "DCM [deputy chief of mission] made clear [to a contact in the army] that Embassy and USG[overnment] generally sympathetic with and admiring of what army doing."

• This is not a court case. We don't need these quotes. We already know that the US was in favor of much of what the Indonesians were doing. We're not here to comment as to the sympathies of the actors involved. A brief summary of US actions will suffice.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I notice he being derailed and biased on some edit. I tried to rollback but it failed because he make new edit entry, then i decide until he done with his edit. Ald™ ¬_¬™ 07:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, now that I understand the protocol here..

• You didn't understand it before? Then how could you justify your personal attacks on Merbabu and I? For all you knew, you were totally in the wrong.

My reaction was wrong. Yes.

• Dean Rusk's request is relevant because the request you noted was by Suharto's army, not Washington as you wrote it (although I think the request was really by the Embassy if I remember correctly). This shows Washington's intention to provide material support for the army.

• You've just manufactured an imaginary problem: The article currently states that "U.S. Embassy staff reported Indonesia’s request" for arms. Yes, Indonesia made the request, but the Embassy passed it along. The article is perfectly accurate in that regard. Rusk's request demonstrates nothing except that Rusk personally thought and suggested that the US should have a contingency plan to provide arms if neccessary. Since the Embassy later openly asked for arms, there is no need to establish that other US officials also felt the same way.

Ok, I agree. That's fine.

• Ambassedor Greene's cable to the State Department is relevant because it shows that Washington was "generally sympathetic with and admiring of what army doing." It speaks for itself. The average reader would not know that Washington was in favor "of what the army is doing."--Horhey420 (talk) 07:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• How would they not know? The article says that the US downplayed the killings, considered sending arms, and encouraged the army's anti-communist orientation. It doesn't even matter what the US was "in favor" of. All that matters is US actions during the crisis. No analysis of motives based on primary sources is relevant.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You're fighting pretty hard to keep such an insignificant quote out. The message to the army was "we support and admire your massacres." Very rarely are such explicit declarations revealed in declassified papers which is why it is significant. I know. Ive read many of them.--Horhey420 (talk) 08:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all, Horhey, I'm glad we've made progress here. We've already reached one point of agreement! Now, the quote we disagree on is "insignificant", as you say. I'll add it back in, if you want (even though US policymakers' sympathies are not relevant), but only if you agree to possibly consider a comparable concession as we discuss this further. Or, we can move on to more significant problems, without that hanging over your head. What do you say?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Remember through all of this discussion, most of the killings were actually carried out by militia and private individuals at village level. The army provided some direction and logistical support. And sure, the New Order helped with incitement. And the army was split into communist and anti-communist camps itself. But the hatreds were already there. The weapon of choice was the machete - not US or Soviet or Chinese hardware. The rest of the article explains this well enough. Please keep some perspective - it was not an army campaign as such. --Merbabu (talk) 08:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder. You're the expert here. It was an outburst of collective, paranoid insanity. You can't even blame it all on Suharto.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Alright. I'll have to look into it more. I admit, Im no expert on Indonesia, although I know quite a bit. The Middle East and Latin America, that's different. Gotta go to the store.--Horhey420 (talk) 08:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's an obvious problem, one I think that even Horhey should appreciate: The article currently has two paragraphs that say exactly the same thing. So, let's compromise: Let's keep one. Does that sound good? The quotes are as follows:

• "In a Telegram from the U.S. Embassy in Indonesia to the State Department on October 27, 1966, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara informed President Johnson: "I believe that our Military Assistance Program to Indonesia during the past few years contributed significantly to the Army's pro-US orientation and encouraged it to move against the PKI when the opportunity was presented."

• "During Congressional testimony, Paul Warnke, Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs acknowledged the purpose of U.S. military assistance to Suharto's army before the 1965 coup: [Connecticut Senator John] Monagan: Speaking of military assistance programs, I think of one that is in Indonesia, where at least in the latter days the purpose for which it was maintained was not to support an existing regime. In fact, we were opposed, eventually and increasingly, to the then existing regime. It was to preserve a liaison of sorts with the military of the country which in effect turned out to be one of the conclusive elements in the overthrow of that regime. Warnke: That is correct, sir."

I lean towards removing the lengthy interview and using the telegram. I deleted the telegram earlier, and I spent a good long time debating if it should be removed. I ultimately removed it because it was about actions years prior to the killings, but I will compromise and keep it. You'll compromise and accept my eliminating the redundant paragraph. How about it, Horhey?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I will wait for Horhey to respond before suggesting additional changes. Hopefully, we can be reasonably satisfied with the article as it is (despite compromises on both sides). I would like this to be a point of agreement, before further disputes take place.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The Congressional testimony was added to confirm what the purpose of the US military assistance program was. As you indicitated earlier, though I disagree, all the telegram showed was the "pro-US orientation of the Army." Please, let's not go too far.--Horhey420 (talk) 18:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

No, the telegram says that US aid "encouraged [the army] to move against the PKI when the opportunity was presented". That's the same thing the testimony said.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Now you're changing your interpritation of the telegram from what you said before. The testimony confirms what the purpose of the program was for to like-minded folks as you. There are many people that will interprit that telegram as you did before. Confirmation is needed.--Horhey420 (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

A counter argument could be made that the telegram does not clarify if the US assistance program was intended for that purpose. Im very familiar with these arguments.--Horhey420 (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not changing my "interpritation [sic]". You're engaging in personal attacks again. You're the one with a confused understanding of what has been said. The telegram establishes the same thing as the testimony. The only difference is that the testimony also establishes the subjective motivations of a primary source involved at the time. This isn't a court case, and the motives are not relevant.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Saying that you changed your interpritation is a personal attack? Ok, you're not going to sit here an try to find loopholes in the system to engage in censorship. You clearly stated that the telegram only shows that US aid only made the army pro-US and thats all. That is what you said and now you are conveniently contradicting your own argument so that the confirmation of the purpose of that aid will be left out of the record- information that you once again removed. This is not North Korea. Administration may actually have to get involved after all.--Horhey420 (talk) 03:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Changing your mind is not a personal attack. Ongoing accusations of bias and censorship, and making bad accusations about an editor's motivations are assuming bad faith (see WP:AGF) and are not in the spirit of positive collaboration. And you have been asked to modify this poor behaviour consistently. And user Jrtayloriv (whose advice you sought) has also recommended you act in a more civil way. Surely you see that it creates an unproductive atmosphere, and doesn't help you at all. --Merbabu (talk) 03:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Jrtayloriv also repeatedly said TheTimesAreAChanging has a long record of censorship. Im sure you've read it already. Look up top. He called it censorship. Read his talk page. Im on solid ground here. Let me give you an example. One of the citations given is by Noam Chomsky. Since it says "Most of the arms used in the killings were supplied by the Soviet Union and China," he has not removed it. However, on the Reagan Foreign Policy page I cited Chomsky and he said he removed it exactly for that reason. The difference is, it concludes that "US-controlled aid [to military regimes] has been positively related to investment climate and inversely related to the maintenance of a democratic order and human rights." Clearly, that's the wrong conclusion for the United States so he censored it.--Horhey420 (talk) 03:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You're off topic again. I didn't cite Chomsky in this article, and I never have cited him for anything. I am busy right now, but I will respond fully ASAP.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I didnt say you did. One of the citations provided is credited to Chomsky but after reading the article I realized it's a critique of Chomsky so dont even worry about. Still does not undercut the underlying issue with your behavior.--Horhey420 (talk) 04:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Quotations

This is becoming a quote farm again. It reads like a court transcript. Horney has reinstated the quotations (or are they new?) while at the same time removing the dispuite/undue tag. This is unacceptable. Note that I do not have the time at this moment to give this matter the attention it requires and that you have not reached a consensus or agreement for your edits. I will look into it in detail in the coming days. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 04:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

There shouldnt have been a dispute in the first place because removing that information was censorship. That is unacceptable. You should be upset about that but you are not. You are supportive of it. You're not being consistant in your concern about following the rules. Administrators will be notified.--Horhey420 (talk) 04:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Please advise administrators. Use the WP:ANI board. Provide me with the link, and I will respond. --Merbabu (talk) 05:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Please address point below (rather than continue your bad faith accusations of censorship). --Merbabu (talk) 05:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Section size

It is once again THE LONGEST SECTION in the article. Yet it is a peripheral issue relative to the broader massacre of 1/2 million people. Horney has failed to explain to address the issue at hand - that has been at hand since June 2008. --Merbabu (talk) 04:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

One way to resolve the length issue is to integrate the section with the rest of the page instead of removing information. Ever think about that?--Horhey420 (talk) 05:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Why have a seperate section? It's not really all that necessary is it?--Horhey420 (talk) 05:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's another idea. How about splitting the sections between Western and Eastern involvement?--Horhey420 (talk) 05:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

No. That is more POV. It confirms to me that you want to highlight the western side. I know you will not contribute/expand the eastern side. --Merbabu (talk) 05:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Solution has always been to paraphrase to remove word count. Splitting into different sections, etc, does not achieve that. I will look into this over the following few days and edit accordingly. Note that TimesChanging and SatuSuro are already in agreement. --Merbabu (talk) 05:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I could always paraphrase it. I could say 'in Congressional testimony this US official said this'. How's that?--Horhey420 (talk) 05:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

And why worry about me not highlighting the Eastern bloc's role? Surely you could offset that with your extensive knowledge on this issue.--Horhey420 (talk) 05:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The solution is not for me to develop an equivalently long section on "eastern" countries. The solution has been provided.

Where's your complaint to administrators? --Merbabu (talk) 05:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You kind of destracted me with this discussion here. I thought maybe it could be resolved. So, can we agree on the paraphrasing solution?--Horhey420 (talk) 05:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I tried to work with you here. Seems removal of the information is the only acceptable option for the three of you. That;s not gonna happen. And I still havent made my way to other pages.--Horhey420 (talk) 06:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I did not mean to remove the undo weight tag. Sorry.--Horhey420 (talk) 06:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

you say "thats not going to happen"? That's claiming ownership. See WP:OWN. So you are saying u alone control this page? You've now removed it twice and it remains removed. When will u reinstate it? Or do I have to do it. Where's the info in the Chinese and soviet arms? Why are u adding more material without agreement during a dispute? Why are you not using edit summaries? If you don't play by the rules you run the risk of getting blocked. --Merbabu (talk)|

It's not going to happend because CENSORSHIP is in North Korea. Not here. Censorship is not allowed here no matter how many editors dont like the content. Understand? Ive seen your talk page. You're just gonna get yourself banned.--Horhey420 (talk) 07:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, so you won't negotiate. You're the boss hey? You are not playing by the rules. You should listen to experienced editors. And you have already admitted you know little about these events. --

I said Im no expert but I know quite a bit. That's what I said. Ive read your talk page. You're going to keep harrasing me for I everything I add because your mission is to sanitize.--Horhey420 (talk) 08:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC) Merbabu (talk) 08:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I didnt mean to remove that. I was only trying to remove the quote box.--Horhey420 (talk) 07:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe you anymore. You say one thing, and do another. --Merbabu (talk) 08:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I never believed you. Your talk page shows what you are--Horhey420 (talk) 08:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I dont know how to reinstate it.--Horhey420 (talk) 07:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe you. --Merbabu (talk) 08:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Horhey, you are fortunate that I have not yet had fine to pursue this issue. Removing and adding disputed content without edit summaries or agreement is enough to get you blocked. It also tells me that your claim to work together is meaningless. --Merbabu (talk) 07:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I tried to work with both of you but your unwillingness accept anything less than removal of key content is unnacceptable and is what is known as censorship which is prohibited here. Meaning, you cannot keep it out no matter how much you dont like it. I even paraphrased it for you. Not good enough. Only removal is good enough for you, therefore administrator will have to decide. You do understand the concept of censorship right? Only those with authoritarian personalities would engage in it with such vigor. That is "anti American" by definition.--Horhey420 (talk) 08:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Pursue it then. Get yourself in trouble for censorship.--Horhey420 (talk) 07:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Save me the time. Do it.--Horhey420 (talk) 08:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It's being discussed. --Merbabu (talk) 08:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Good. They're going to be like "you again?"--Horhey420 (talk) 08:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Horhey: You just threatened and verbally attacked Merbabu, saying things like "Ive [sic] seen your talk page", "I never believed you", "Your talk page shows what you are", "get yourself in trouble", ect. Can you back that up? What is so problematic or revealing about his talk page?
• Anyone who reads our discussion will clearly see that I bent over backwards to try to work with you. I avoided further edits while discussing to let you respond. Now, you have unilaterally added large chunks of text to the article while engaging in vitriolic commentary and refusing to respond to meaningful objections. I see no possibility for further discussion with you. We probably will need an administrator. Editors like you ought to be banned. And my patience is at its end.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I too have had enough. The fact that we've barely touched his edits yet he mangles and removes anything he doesn't like without edit summary is enough. Comments like "it ain't going to happen" and, I'm going to say it now after holding back, his POV warring. How many times have I asked why this section should be so much longer than any other? --Merbabu (talk) 09:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You've touched just about everyone of them. Just glance at the history. Now, "The neutrality of this article is disputed." This is almost black comedy. Ive never seen anything like this. Even the most extreme reactionaries who openly advocate whiping out the entire arab race are more reasonable than this. That's not hyperbole. It's really astonishing.--Horhey420 (talk) 10:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You're not going to change any minds talking like that, Horhey. But thanks for the quote. It will help the admins understand what Merbabu and I have been dealing with.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Nah, I'm calling it hyperbole. And more confirmation of refusal to AGF. --Merbabu (talk) 10:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Cherry picking

Putting aside my issue with just parroting large slab of texts to show "foreign reaction" etc, let's look at how Horhey is cherry picking quotations to maintain this, the largest section, as a condemnation of the United States and the west. He chose the following quotations (in inverted commas) along with his own scary embellishment ("regime"):

In "Aid to Indonesia", the New York Times urged Washington to provide a "large international loan" to the Suharto regime-- "perhaps as much as a half-billion dollars. It is vital that the United States play a positive role in building an international aid consortium."

The careful selection of words to paint the US as cooperating with the (presumably) evil "regime". He did chose not to include (from the same article) this criticism of the failed leftist "regime":

The army take-over in Indonesia, after an abortive leftwing coup, has halted a twenty-year trend toward Communist ascendancy that was accompanied by adventurism abroad and economic decline at home.

Now, I don't have a subscription to the NYT so I don't know what else he didn't use in the article. --Merbabu (talk) 10:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Nice try. This is the entire quote. This is why I rarely paraphrase..

The New York Times: Aid for Indonesia

August 25, 1966

"The staggering mass slaughter of Communists and pro-Communists -- which took the lives of an estimated 150,000 to 400,000 -- has left a legacy of subsurface tension that may not be eased for generations.

Washington wisely has not intruded into the Indonesia turmoil. To embrace the country's new rulers publicly could well hurt them. They themselves want to retain a neutralist posture. There is an urgent need for a large international loan -- perhaps as much as a half-billion dollars. It is vital that the United States play a positive role in building an international aid consortium."--Horhey420 (talk) 10:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

So, what's your point? You chose the condemnatory stuff, but left out the less condemnatory stuff. Just like you don't expand on the China and the Soviet angle which you'd rather, um "censor" to throw it back at you, rather you remove it hidden amongst a large edit without edit summary and then plead once again plead ignorance. --Merbabu (talk) 10:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

This is silly.--Horhey420 (talk) 10:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I get criticized for quoting too much and then I get criticized for paraphrasing.--Horhey420 (talk) 10:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

No, in this particular instance, you're being criticised for being biased in your selection of quotations. Hence the paragraph heading "cherry picking". (and yes, you shouldn't paste in slabs of quotes, then embellish with your own words, but I said "putting that aside" to focus on your biased cherry picking) --Merbabu (talk) 10:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

And like has been said many times, you really need to get your indentation right. --Merbabu (talk) 10:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Im not going anywhere so you both are just gonna have to get used to it and not lose your minds. Goodbye.--Horhey420 (talk) 10:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

We're going to have to get used to your biased cherry picking? hmmm. --Merbabu (talk) 10:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

This is libel and I will remove it immediately. Here is what the Wikipedia article currently claims: "Most of the major U.S. news media celebrated what the New York Times described as the "staggering mass slaughter" of the PKI and it's supporters. New York Times columnist, James Reston's headline read, "Washington: A Gleam of Light in Asia," in which he described these events as "welcome developments".

Horhey implies that Reston praised a "staggering mass slaughter". However, the "staggering mass slaughter" phrase was used in an unrelated editorial from August 25, 1966, which clearly denounces the atrocities. In fact, it disproves everything Horhey has said. "Washington wisely has not intruded into the Indonesia turmoil". "To embrace the country's new rulers publicly could well hurt them". And so on. The editorial states that the US refused to support the "staggering mass slaughter", and was right not to do so, because it "has left a legacy of subsurface tension that may not be eased for generations". It would be more accurate to say that the NYT vociferously denounced the killings, although a month earlier (on June 19, 1966) James Reston wrote a column describing strategic shifts in Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Japan, the Philippines and China as "welcome developments" without mentioning the killings. This is original research and libel of Reston.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

That's it. You're done. Not playing this time.--Horhey420 (talk) 11:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a good pick up Times. I will try to check for myself soon. --Merbabu (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Whoa

This talk page and article are becoming a circus. It is about the death of over 400,000 people and it is total disrespect for the dead to be treating this article and talk page like some plaything. Please desist from WP:TROLL like behaviour here, if you have problems try some other venue, an online encyclopedia article about mass killings is hardly the place for most of the discussion above. I suggest an admin archives it as closed and somebody has to start cleaning up from scratch. SatuSuro 09:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

As I've said above, we've been extremely patient with Horhey and I'm giving up. He just abuses the system. When I get time, I will put together a case for ANI, RFC, or similar dispute resolution measure. Unless someone else volunteers. --Merbabu (talk) 10:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Misrepresentations

How did Horhey go from this:

• "Speaking of military assistance programs, I think of one that is in Indonesia, where at least in the latter days the purpose for which it was maintained was not to support an existing regime. In fact, we were opposed, eventually and increasingly, to the then existing regime. It was to preserve a liaison of sorts with the military of the country which in effect turned out to be one of the conclusive elements in the overthrow of that regime."

To this:

• "In Congressional testimony to the Committee on Foreign Affairs in 1968, Paul Warnke, Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs confirmed to Senator John Monagan that the U.S. military assistance program to Suharto's Army before the 1965 coup was for the purpose of overthrowing the Sukarno government."

And this edit summary?:

• "Confirms US material support for the military coup".

The US did not assist the coup directly; it was so unprepared for the crisis that it initially misidentified the anti-communist leader, Suharto. Like the Soviet Union and China, the US used aid as a means to influence Indonesia politically, including by cultivating military figures. However, the quote does not establish the importance of US actions. That is for historians to judge, not primary sources. And the quote doesn't actually contribute anything to our understanding of US motives. All it tells us is "what, in effect" the program indirectly helped encourage--not that the "purpose" of giving aid was to "overthrow" Sukarno. There is no comparable analysis of the Chinese or Soviet role, and another source is used to say the same thing. Horhey cannot be trusted to paraphrase responsibly.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 13:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

This is Orwell 101 folks. Im not even going to entertain this. You're just making it worse.--Horhey420 (talk) 13:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Next:

• In "Aid to Indonesia", the New York Times urged Washington to provide a "large international loan" to the Suharto regime-- "perhaps as much as a half-billion dollars. It is vital that the United States play a positive role in building an international aid consortium."

This was after the killings. It's relevance here is dubious. Suggesting the provision of aid to the new regime isn't an endorsement of mass murder. Actual or alleged US aid, before and during the relevant crisis, is mentioned in detail already.

• In a cover story, "Indonesia: Vengeance with a Smile," Time Magazine said "The West's best news for years in Asia".: "Amid a boiling bloodbath that almost unnoticed took 400,000 lives, Indonesia, the sprawling giant of Southeast Asia, has done a complete about-face. A new regime has risen, backed by the army but scrupulously constitutional and commanding vociferous popular support. "Indonesia is a state based on law not on mere power," says its new leader [Suharto]."

The quote from Suharto is totally unrelated to foreign involvement and reaction and should be removed. The statement that the new regime had popular support is factual and not an example of foreign involvement and reaction. The phrase "boiling bloodbath that....took 400,000 lives" is not very positive publicity.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 13:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I think I just comprehended this one part so let me respond. First of all, it's absurd to say that Suharto enjoyed popular support and that his coming to power was "scrupulously constitutional" and that's the point. Pointing out dishonest reporting by Time Magazine. How could you not understand that? Or did you believe all those things about Suharto?--Horhey420 (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you ok? This is not rational discussion.--Horhey420 (talk) 13:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks have gotten you nowhere and will get you nowhere.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 13:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You're acting bizarre. I cant respond to your critique because I am incapable of comprehending it. --Horhey420 (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

As an additional general point, it is unwise to rely on a combination of primary sources and government documents to construct a narrative, as doing so often leads to original research and synthesis problems. Journalist reports and history books are superior.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 14:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Your comment isn't particularly helpful. For starters, I don't see anything bizzare about the way TheTimesAreAChanging is acting, in any case it's a useless comment since even if they are acting bizzare, what purpose does telling them on this talk page serve. More importantly perhaps, what parts are you having trouble understanding? Their comments seemed resonably clear cut to me. We can't help you unless you explain what's confusing you which would be greatly preferred to going in to long rants about the evils of the US. Nil Einne (talk) 14:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If you can explain it to me Im open to it. Im very tired by the way.--Horhey420 (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Ive been in 99999999999 debates in forums and Ive never seen anything like this before.--Horhey420 (talk) 14:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems like the vets are teaming up against the new guy who doesnt know anybody.--Horhey420 (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I have an idea. Im going to review TheTimesAreAChanging (talk)'s contributions and show everyone what I can do. I will be fair. I will not remove properly sourced information as he does. I will however ADD information to offset his and we'll see what happens.--Horhey420 (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Horhey, adding to the already excessive word count of this section is exactly the issue. Do you not understand this? Right from the start it's been asked many times why you feel this section is the most important and must be so much longer than the rest. You have failed to answer that. --Merbabu (talk) 23:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging edit history is now hidden.--Horhey420 (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. His edit history from his contributions page. --Merbabu (talk) 23:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

This is where I was looking. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:TheTimesAreAChanging&action=history--Horhey420 (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Contributions are found wherever there is a link saying contribs or contributions or my contributions, etc. Like at the top of your page now, or against each editor's edits in history page. --Merbabu (talk) 00:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• I've trimmed the section majorly. Horhey should see this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Ommitting key points of this for the sake of keeping the section to minimum is dubious. The confirmation of the purpose of the US military assistance program has been ommited from the narrative here. Now certain types of people can say "well it does not clarify what that military aid was for" as TheTimesAreAChanging has already argued here which is of course the point of ommitting it. It cannot be percieved. Much too dangerous. Dishonest news reporting and an media support for Suharto is also significant but it too has also been sanitized from this history. Wouldnt want to challange the belief in the elite liberal media.--Horhey420 (talk) 00:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Consensus

We now have had six editors challenge Horhey throughout the discussion. This is a clear consensus. If Horhey attempts further edit warring, then I would suggest not responding and consulting an admin.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed. If we need to clarify a bit, okay (my reduction was done rather quickly), but there is no need for a huge subsection, and we definitely shouldn't practice synthesis. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. --Merbabu (talk) 01:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Yes,Agreed. Ald™ ¬_¬™ 17:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Ive been reading about the massive right wing movement here taking over which began with the urging of the Washington Times. Began in 2008.--Horhey420 (talk) 01:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, but what? Remember to AGF. Even a conservative Canadian is more liberal than most Democrats (and I'm not conservative). The consensus is (and rightfully, in my opinion) that original research and synthesis that runs longer than the description of the killings themselves is not desirable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Leftists dont use the term "anti-American." You ever heard of the term "anti-Canadian?"--Horhey420 (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

This is original research and synthesis?

[Connecticut Senator John] Monagan: Speaking of military assistance programs, I think of one that is in Indonesia, where at least in the latter days the purpose for which it was maintained was not to support an existing regime. In fact, we were opposed, eventually and increasingly, to the then existing regime. It was to preserve a liaison of sorts with the military of the country which in effect turned out to be one of the conclusive elements in the overthrow of that regime.

Warnke: That is correct, sir.

Non paraphrased version. Ommitting this is censorship. Period. I will make it known to whoever will listen. They do exist.--Horhey420 (talk) 09:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Horhey, there's a much stronger case to accuse you of left-wing bias than to accuse anyone here of right-wing bias. The majority of Wikipedia editors tend to be leftist, but not all leftists feel the need to propagandize. It's highly unlikely that all six of us are right-wing fanatics, comparable to "reactionaries that openly advocate wiping out the entire Arab race" (to borrow your earlier phrase). It's more likely that you still do not understand the rules of Wikipedia. However, if Wikipedia is truly as far gone as you claim, then perhaps you shouldn't waste anymore time trying to convert our simple minds.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You're one of the most dishonest people Ive ever come accross. No shame.--Horhey420 (talk) 17:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it's time everyone had a break. Things may be seen differently in a few days. For now, it seems a certain consensus of sorts is in place. --Merbabu (talk) 03:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Add it, and anything else you feel like adding. Go ahead. Make my day.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I cant. It's not allowed in the record. Neither is anything about the media. If all Wiki pages were like this, this place would die out. It would be a dud..--Horhey420 (talk) 09:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Horhey420

I've just blocked Horhey420 (talk · contribs) for large scale copyright violations, as well as POV pushing. Any material currently in this article which was added by this editor should be checked to see if it's a copyright violation. If in doubt, please remove it. Nick-D (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Soviet arms

I've removed the paragraph "Most of the foreign arms used in the killings were supplied by the Soviet Union and China during Sukarno's presidency." I think it is misleading to put it under the section "Foreign involvement and reaction", since it implies that the Soviet Union and China supported the purge of the communists; they did not, and the arms were given to the Sukarno regime prior to 1965. In fact, "After 1965... Soviet–Indonesian relations drastically dimished."[3] InverseHypercube (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Would the word 'genocide' be worth using in this article?

Firstly - I freely admit I know very little about Indonesian history, so I'll refrain from editing it myself. But I was reading about the recent film The Act of Killing, which apparently unambiguously refers to these events as 'genocide'. I note that while the term is not used in this article, it is used in Karo people (Indonesia) in this context.

As I say, I don't know what the historical debate is over these events, but I am aware that the description of something as genocide is a highly controversial one. I'm not proposing we directly describe them as such ourselves. However, could someone better informed than me answer the question: is the view that these killings amounted to genocide widely held enough to be worth mentioning in this article, even as a minority view? Or is it a fringe position that's not worth mentioning? Robofish (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Its certainly not a minority view - a lot of English-language mainstream media, books and NGOs use the g-word; even before The Act of Killing publicity. However the word does lead to a boring semantic debate. Haminoon (talk) 00:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Any modern source admits that the West has largely whitewashed it because it was useful. It's not at all surprising that we would be biased against an anti-communist genocide in the midst of the Cold War. The article definitely needs to address this. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 12:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Genocide is term that is widely used as a synonym for mass death, contra the UN definition. It is used to describe many of the crimes of communist regimes on Wikipedia, regardless of whether they fit the UN definition. However this does not make it right. A political purge is emphatically NOT genocide. In the case of Indonesia 65-66,there were incidents of killing on ethnic grounds, but these are footnotes as far as the overall history is concerned.Guccisamsclub (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

IP edit

99.181.141.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is the sock of a blocked editor. I used to check each of its edits to see whether they were constructive, but decided just revert all of them, per WP:DENY. That one seems acceptable, although I'm sure a better link can be found. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, Ok. wasn't aware of socking issues. I'm also one for blanket reverts for socks. On the other hand, i think this particular edit was not without fault. I'm not wedded to it and perhaps better wording might be helpful. --Merbabu (talk) 01:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

This section

Like a rather usual tendency on wp en these days - some eds remove text and leave interesting comments as their edit summary. What ever happened to discussion....

In a 2008 program on the killings presented by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Bradley Simpson states: “ These documents have enabled to gain a much clearer understanding of the precise role of the United States, Britain, Australia and other western governments in both attempting to provoke an armed takeover of Indonesia in 1965 and in supporting the mass killings by the army and civilian groups which followed the September 30 movement. Prior to the last few years scholars have largely speculated on the role of the American Central Intelligence Agency and other western intelligence agencies in pursuing covert operations aimed at provoking an armed conflict between the Indonesian army and the Indonesian communist party or the PKI. But these declassified documents lay out a picture of active engagement with one of the great atrocities of the 20th century, and make the United States and other western governments de facto accomplices in this campaign of mass murder that stretched through the end of 1965 and into 1966.[76]

For any watchers - the question raised in the edit summary 'this opinion is it needed'?

Interesting to see if anyone supports the removal, or retention. satusuro 15:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a long quote, and the previous section covers his position adequately. Precise clarification of what "these document" are would be more useful than the long quote. Looking at one of the previous references, the Jakarta Globe quotes Simpson as saying the "US and British governments did everything in their power to ensure that the Indonesian army would carry out the mass killings." and yet also that the "US government also decided to provide limited amounts of communications equipment, medicine and a range of other items, including shoes and uniforms" - which would suggest that this was a more nuanced form of support, certainly the suggestion that the CIA provided "small arms" from Thailand, if properly referenced, is more useful than the statement about speculation on the role of the CIA in academia. For those seeking source material http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB52/ would seem a good place to start - being aware, of course of the risks of primary sources. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC).

religious make up of the Indonesian Communist party

Many Abangans supported the Communists while the Santri were opposed

http://books.google.com/books?id=zSHwdmBQ9o0C&pg=PA12#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=V2Gnn0r63RwC&pg=PT101#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=Oj21I-zWWgIC&pg=PA93#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=x4GaAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA108#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=nr3DuQKDfRYC&pg=PT83#v=onepage&q&f=false

Religious conversion enforced due to the killings

http://books.google.com/books?id=gzycUFzE9MsC&pg=PA145#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=PbFiAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA196#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=meGrAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT182&dq=bali+abangan+massacre&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pil1VZS_D8eRyASO1oKgCg&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=bali%20abangan%20massacre&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=SawyrExg75cC&pg=PA176&dq=bali+abangan+massacre&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pil1VZS_D8eRyASO1oKgCg&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=bali%20abangan%20massacre&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=qReBAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA198&dq=bali+abangan+massacre&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pil1VZS_D8eRyASO1oKgCg&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=bali%20abangan%20massacre&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 05:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Borneo massacres in the 1960s at the start of the New Order

Dayak massacres against Chinese.

http://books.google.com/books?id=gzycUFzE9MsC&pg=PA146#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=EUDii8kvQYAC&pg=PA63#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=OrdM8X7CBTAC&pg=PA294#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=37VaZmxM4gAC&pg=PA130#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=I2RZAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT243#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=wpJGooepEMYC&pg=PA47#v=onepage&q&f=false

22:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?id=4WK2s2ogHEAC&pg=PA248#v=onepage&q&f=false

American involvement

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB52/

http://www.insideindonesia.org/feature-editions/accomplices-in-atrocity

http://www.indonesia-digest.net/3255genocide.htm

http://www.indonesia-digest.net/3200genocide.htm

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/ppiindia/conversations/messages/99976

http://www.insideindonesia.org/content/view/1274/47/

https://web.archive.org/web/20100309050012/http://insideindonesia.org/content/view/1274/47/

http://wanibesak.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/pretext-for-mass-murder-by-john-roosa.pdf

http://humanbeingsfirst.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/cacheof-cia-on-campus.pdf

http://books.google.com/books?id=SawyrExg75cC&pg=PA264#v=onepage&q&f=false

Gerwani

This seems like a significant omission from the article to me. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC).

Genocide

An editor has recently replaced the word "killing" with "genocide" without explaining why or providing a source. I reverted the edit, but s/he reinstated it, so I'm posting this to avoid falling foul of 3RR. Does anyone have any thoughts? Davidelit (Talk) 05:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

To me, "killing" seems more NPOV. It should not be changed unless there are enough reliable sources available to justify it.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Further sources about foreign involvement in the killings

Two additional sources that could be incorporated into the "Foreign involvement" section:

• Thaler, Kai (2 December 2015). "50 years ago today, American diplomats endorsed mass killings in Indonesia. Here's what that means for today". The Washington Post. The Washington Post. Retrieved 3 December 2015.
• Millott, Marlene (2 October 2015). "Australia's Role in the 1965-66 Communist Massacres in Indonesia". Australian Institute of International Affairs. Australian Institute of International Affairs. Retrieved 3 December 2015.

LionFosset (talk) 14:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Indonesian killings of 1965–66. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120503125632/http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/news/historian-claims-west-backed-post-coup-mass-killings-in-65/312844 to http://thejakartaglobe.com/news/historian-claims-west-backed-post-coup-mass-killings-in-65/312844

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Great sources

Several major documents related to the massacre were released by the Office of the Historian.

FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, 1964–1968, VOLUME XXVI, INDONESIA; MALAYSIA-SINGAPORE; PHILIPPINES - Coup and Counter Reaction: October 1965–March 1966

They were also described here

Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

These are great primary sources, but wikipedia policy states that they must be used with caution. I have included them in the article from time to time to confirm what secondary sources claim, but I never cite them by themselves. I always rely on secondary sources for interpretation, which is why these documents from the Office of the Historian are always grouped with secondary sources throughout the article. Some of your additions included copy and paste from these sources, which goes against wikipedia policy. For this reason I removed them.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. WP:PSTS states: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." I find that these sources are vital to the subject and can be used responsibly. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 08:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Oops, seems I misread your comment. Yes, you're right actually. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 08:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Deaths and imprisonment

After 1998 Indonesian reformation, there are no media control anymore by government. One by one of eyewitnesses initial to speak up and even write a book(s) and make press conference when launching the book. One of them is Indonesia Ambassador for Cuba who knows about Gestapu Victims Researcher Commission and found that the victims is more than one million persons and reported to President Soekarno, and Soekarno surprised about it. In Asia Africa and Latin America Conference, in Cuba which done in January 1966 (several day after reported to Soekarno), the Indonesia Ambassador for Cuba stated 78,000 death victims. I think some of this section should be updated. I propose the update as below:

On January 1, 1966 two persons of Komisi Peneliti Korban Gestapu (Gestapu Victims Researcher Commission) Mayor Jenderal Sumarno and State Minister Oei Tjoe Tat reported that the victims are more than 1 million death people across Indonesia in three months, and President Soekarno surprised about it, then in Asia Africa and Latin America Conference, in Cuba which done in January 1966 (several day after reported to Soekarno), the Indonesia Ambassador for Cuba stated 78,000 death victims. Formerly soldiers directly executed the victims, sometimes in victims own premises, but finally soldiers trained the militias to kill the victims with immunity guarantee and are provided by guns and vehicles. In 1971, Soeharto stated that the killing are done by people itself sporadically. The killing is ease before 1971 General Election and after it strict control about the killing news is done, but after the 1998 reformation, many direct persons involved initialized to disclose the facts, such as Cuba Indonesian Ambassador and others in their books.Gsarwa (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Religion

Islam in Java was divided between Abangan, who mixed Islam with other religions like Hinduism and native religious practices, and the Santri, who followed standard orthodox Islam. Many Abangans were supporters of the Communist Party.

Abangan Muslims were forced by the Indonesian government to convert to Hinduism and Christianity in the aftermath of the slaughter, to dissociate them from Communism.

The Abangan felt pressured into choosing either Hinduism or Christianity in the aftermath of the killings to avoid being classified as atheist communists.

Rajmaan (talk) 03:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Poorly sourced and written sections restored after deletion

I removed two recently added sub-sections which I considered poorly written, formatted and sourced, but they were restored by another editor. One section (titled "Representation of the nature of the killings") is basically a massive redundancy of the following sub-sections. I believe these sections reduce the quality of the article and should be deleted. --C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I merely formatted them, but the cultural depictions of the event do seem important and relevant to the subject. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Indonesian mass killings of 1965–1966. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://thejakartaglobe.com/news/historian-claims-west-backed-post-coup-mass-killings-in-65/312844
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727112102/http://people.uncw.edu/tanp/InsideIndonesiaTextbooks.html to http://people.uncw.edu/tanp/InsideIndonesiaTextbooks.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203100616/https://www1.wsws.org/exhibits/1965coup/coup-1.htm to https://www1.wsws.org/exhibits/1965coup/coup-1.htm

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) 13:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Renaming????

In my opinion, the title of this article should be changed to "Indonesian Genocide". This mass slaughter of the PKI perfectly fits the definition of genocide. Even Yale University a. Changing the title would fit the article better, I believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SonOfAlbi (talk • contribs) 03:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The reason why most sources don't use that name is because the "genocide" part refers to the killing of ethnic Chinese, not the more sizeable killings of alleged left-wing Indonesians and PKI members. So while it's occasionally used for the whole undertaking, it shouldn't be the name of the article. Prinsgezinde (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity. Would you consider dekulakization to also qualify as a genocide? 96.233.134.156 (talk) 23:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC) A

Title not correct

The title of the page should be Indonesian mass killings of 1965–1966, not Indonesia mass killings of 1965–1966. Could someone fix this?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

"facilitated and encouraged by the United States and other Western governments[5]"

The right hand side bar says this: "facilitated and encouraged by the United States and other Western governments[5]" In the main text it is clear that the "facilitated and encouraged" bit is the opinion of certain people not favourably disposed to the western powers, but putting it in this box gives it the appearance of established fact.

The source quoted : "Melvin, Jess (20 October 2017). "Telegrams confirm scale of US complicity in 1965 genocide". Indonesia at Melbourne. University of Melbourne. Retrieved 21 October 2017." is clearly polemical and not of academic standard, and the bits quoted from telegrams show only that the US officials knew that killings were taking place. This is not facilitating and encouraging. Supplying of arms at an earlier date is also not facilitating and encouraging unless they were expressly supplied for the killings. I think this passage should be removed from the side bar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Backep1 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

It's not merely an opinion, but an emerging consensus in contemporary scholarship on the massacre. All three sources are top scholars on the Indonesian massacres, and published by academic institutions no less, so your accusation that they "are not of academic standard" is absolutely groundless. In fact, almost no serious scholar on the subject denies that the US, and to a lesser extent it allies Britain and Australia, did indeed encourage and facilitate the killings. Robinson's 2018 book corroborates what Melvin, Simpson, Roosa, et al have been putting forth in their research, and adds that without Western backing, the killings would not have happened. And it was much more than just supplying arms, they spread black propaganda to demonize the PKI and encourage the killings, provided kill lists to those carrying out the killings (this was revealed way back in 1990), gave money to the death squads carrying out the killing on behalf of the military, and provided the Indonesian military with assurances prior to the killings that if they forcefully acted against the Indonesian left, the US and its allies would have their back (and support for the military increased as the killing escalated). The evidence of Western complicity is so overwhelming that the passage should remain in the sidebar.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 23:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

quotation in section "Foreign involvement"

It seems weird to use the word "proof" here. Could it be that R.J.Martens said "truth" instead? The words do sound somewhat similar after all.--Kafka Is An Ok Writer (talk) 06:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 30 April 2019

'

Indonesian mass killings of 1965–66 → 1965–66 Massacres in Indonesia

---

"mass killings" isn't even really a name for the events as much as a description and this article is included in the List of events named massacres article anyway, also "Massacres in Indonesia" rather than "Indonesian massacre" clarifies that it's a massacre IN Indonesia rather than some massacre of Indonesians like Indonesian genocide so it alludes to the particularized nature of the massacre toward certain groups without being specific about it. Capitalizing of "Massacre" is purely an aesthetic suggestion since it's the first word after the date and have it be lower case would look off.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

repeated moves back and forth

There is really a need for this article to be left alone - the amount of changing terminology to suit various arguments needs to really stop. It seems new editors come in every 6 months or so and without discussion - move it and re-name it without any consultation with other editors.

'Suggestion: That this article be protected totally from moves by anyone other than admins after a consensus decision/request. JarrahTree 09:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Death toll

I have reverted attempts to add estimates to the infobox which fall outside the most widely accepted range of 500,000 to 1 million in contemporary scholarship. If we include those estimates which are not widely accepted, it will look something like 78,000 to 3 million. My position is that such a range is not really useful given such numbers are not the consensus among scholars of the massacre. Bringing it here to avoid edit conflicts.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

If the infobox is for the most accepted then i agree it should be 500,000-1,000,000. But some people believe 480,000 are the number of deaths. Just putting this here. EvoSwatch (talk) 05:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

With proper sourcing perhaps it can be integrated into the Deaths and imprisonment section, where various estimates are discussed.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the lead and info box restricts itself to stating 500K to 1 million as the most widely accepted infoboxes? And that the more extreme range (ie, 78K and 3 million) stays in the section that discusses the death toll? I'd be happy with that...seems like a good middle ground approach. Thank you.

I find that sometimes these articles are targets for righteous types to make it has high as possible in an attempt, in this case to paint Suharto/New Order and his "western cronies" in the worst light possible. East Timor and Papua related pages are similar. For me, the events are no less shocking if the toll was 78K or 3 million. Really...3 m is 38 times larger than 78 K, but they are equally as shocking - not 38 times more. So let's just present the facts as they are known, and stop the righteousness. That's what we do as true Wikipedians. Thanks for your efforts towards this. --Merbabu (talk) 08:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Yep, this is exactly what I am suggesting. The 78,000 estimate is already included in this section, with proper context (it is an older estimate from the Indonesian military, apparently put forward before the killings had even ended). User:EvoSwatch wants the estimate of 480,000 added, which I don't have any issue with so long as this estimate is found in a reliable source.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Removing outlier estimates from the range in the infobox seems to me to be a generally sound policy: there are too many "are they fringe or aren't they" scholars around. There's has been a lot of effort been put into finding sources for much higher estimates of the death toll in the Bombing of Dresden article, because the higher the figure, the happier some right populists in Germany are in arguing "no need to apologise for Hitler". A criterion for being an outlier is that the estimate is cited by historians, and the context of citations indicates that relatively few historians find the estimate incredible. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The number 480,000 i gave is a compromise, an average, or a median i guess you can call it (though i can't find citation for it, if i found it again i will sure to add it). Between the lowest estimates 78,000 and the highest at the time believed could be up to ten times higher than 78,000 which is 780,000. There are those who also calculate the deaths are at 430,000. 430,590 to be exact, an average between 78K and 2Million. But the actual number is hard to find, i would personally think 500,000 is reasonable but 2 or 3 million or more is hard to believe or absurd number. EvoSwatch (talk) 02:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Computing point statistics is fraught with methodological issues (is the mean or median more appropriate? should later scholarship be weighted more than earlier?, etc.) and should count as original research: each figure we give should be backed up by a reliable source. I'm arguing that the statistics that make it to the infobox should be a subset of those mentioned in the article, the subset that historians continue to find credible. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Plus some of the estimates in the calculation are highly problematic outside of context, such as the low estimate of 78,000 provided by the Indonesian military before the cessation of the killings, as they were actively attempting to downplay the numbers killed and their own role in the massacres. If we are going to include the estimates historians consider most credible, I believe the range should stay at 500,000 to 1 million.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Involvement of the United Kingdom

Hello,

The Guardian just published 2 articles about the UK's involvement (through black propaganda efforts) in these mass killings.

The 2 articles :

• https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/17/slaughter-in-indonesia-britains-secret-propaganda-war
• https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/17/revealed-how-uk-spies-incited-mass-of-indonesias-communists

If someone ever feels it has the knowledge, time and skills to do it, I think it would be a great addition to this already very detailed article.

Vanecx (talk) 11:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

There's also

• https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/24/survivors-of-1965-indonesia-massacres-urge-uk-to-apologise

The fact (revealed in th 24 Oct article) of the existence of the Indonesian Institute for the Study of the 1965/66 Massacre (YPKP65) research institute is also very important. There doesn't yet seem to be Indonesian Institute for the Study of the 1965/66 Massacre in the id.Wikipedia. Official website: https://ypkp1965.org . Boud (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)