Jump to content

Talk:New Order (Indonesia)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thank you, User:65.71.169.191

[edit]

I'd just like to thank the person behind this IP address for creation of this page. I apologize if it seems that I steamrolled your original article, but I had intended to create this page primarily for the purpose of transplanting text from Suharto (which is suffering from bloat).

I am looking forward to adding links to what you have written into this page, especially Discriminatory law against Indonesian Chinese and others.

By the way, by all means I encourage you to register so that you get full privileges as an editor of Wikipedia! --Daniel 08:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CIA involvement

[edit]

Why does this article not mention CIA involvement in the coup that put the New Order into power? See the documentary "Shadow Play" by PBS for more info.

I agree, as most wiki admins would be able to tell from my latest postings / contributions. This is a crucial issue, in the whole debate on the background and what actually happened before,during and after "the New Order" had come into place. I don't know how short a discussion on this should be to comply with wiki admins sense of how a serious historical debate should be conducted. I only feel that I've been posting enough serious sources,with background, referencing, historians, documentaries, investigations,south-east asian human rights organisations etc. etc. to warrant a discussion and some serious debate.
For those individuals at all seriously and actually interested in a real investigation into the history of Indonesia and the contentious issues, links can be found in the archives of talk/discussion pages of History of Indonesia, in the bottom footnotes /links on the main Indonesia page, as well as in the links on the history of Indonesia.
I'm not yet well enough versed in the wiki HTML-style notation, so I was hoping more people would join in after they had verified or refuted my sources and claims. Thanks again for coming forward with your request. Sincerely, John Smith (nom de guerre) 10:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
John. you should try adding this stuff yourself. It doesn't have to be 100% perfect straight away, (or even 50%!!!). Just add a bit here, and a bit there. If you get formatting wrong, it will be picked up. Remember though, although of course you can express point of views, express them as a POV and not as fact. yes, of course, many eds don't follow this - as is probably the case in this article already - but we should all do our bit. ALTERNATIVELY, if you are not quite bold enough, why not try adding a section in your sandbox - it's easy. And then you can request others review and advise.--Merbabu 11:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rise of Islamism

[edit]

Just a suggestion, but you might want to fix the Rise of Islamism part. I don't think there was no chance of Indonesia being Islamist under Suharto until the early 90's with the formation of ICMI. Apart from that, Muslims are supressed. Eg. 1984 Tanjung Priok incident.

Jakman 08:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Former dictatorships category

[edit]

I removed this categorization as besides being a violation of NWikipedia:Neutral point of view, it doesn't even agree with the definition in the Dictatorship article, namely "an autocratic form of absolute rule by leadership unrestricted by law, constitutions, or other social and political factors within the state". Arguably the New Order was an autocracy: "a form of government in which the political power is held by a single self-appointed ruler". Davidelit (talk) 05:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely put. Certainly a WP:NPOV issue. Categories can be very in this manner. Don't cater for any nuance or anythign but the most simplistic (yes or no) cases. --Merbabu (talk) 06:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV/OR tag...

[edit]

An OR tag and two cite requests were added here at the same time. I've addressed the cite requests [1]. There is no further explanation, thus I will remove the OR tag. In future, I hope editors are able to provide more actionable feedback than a section or article tag - I suggest using talk page, or adding specific cite requests. regards --Merbabu (talk) 11:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Barry Soetoro

[edit]

He was in Indonesia from 1967 to 1971 as a kid (otherwise he was a Hawaiian). I wonder how the New Order affected his childhood, if it did in any way. — Rickyrab | Talk 07:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err. He would have been 6 when he arrived and 10 when he left. Presumably his engagement in the opposition to the military government was fairly limited. Or was this a serious question? :-) Davidelit (talk) 08:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the term

[edit]

Has anyone read anything about the origin of the term "Orde Baru"? When was it first used? I feel like that would be a valuable addition. Arsonal (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about this article. Not exactly a good precedent... Davidelit (Talk)
Clearly (he peacocked) it was used to distinguish the Suharto regime from the Old Order of Sukarno, possibly with an eye on the western media - hence the use of the faux Indonesian "orde". Perhaps it was analogous to the use of the contrived acronym "Gestapu" for the 30 September Movement to sound like Gestapo. If so, it looks like a misjudgment. If Suharto and his cronies had done their research, they would have found this quote from Franklin Roosevelt: "They (who) seek to establish systems of government based on the regimentation of all human beings by a handful of individual rulers. . . call this a new order. It is not new and it is not order." Davidelit (Talk) 17:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually wondering if Suharto himself proclaimed Orde Baru (and perhaps simultaneously called Sukarno's presidency Orde Lama) in some speech, as opposed to the historical origins of the term. Arsonal (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The best I have been able to find is in Friend, T. (2003). Indonesian Destinies. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-01137-6. On page 122, he says that at an Army-sponsored seminar in August 1966 known as the Second Army Seminar, to decide on plans for economic stability, "For working clarity, the seminar adopted the terms [sic] "Old Order" for pre-G30S. A "New Order" was the goal of those who wanted a political and economic democracy based on the constitution of 1945 and expressed in Pancasila..." Sundhaussen (1982) says the seminar occurred, but does not mention that it gave rise to "New Order". I can't find any mention of the seminar in Crouch's The Army and Politics... or 30 Tahun Indonesia Merdeka. I'll see if I can dig anything else up. Davidelit (Talk) 06:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on New Order (Indonesia). 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 10:18, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RM

[edit]

Talk:New_Order_(band)#Requested_move_14_April_2016 In ictu oculi (talk) 08:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on New Order (Indonesia). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on New Order (Indonesia). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why the infobox was removed?

[edit]

The Pinochet dictatorship and History of the Philippines (1965–1986) pages both cover regimes and not countries; and both of them have country infoboxes. Why should the infobox on this page be removed? Gibranalnn (talk) 01:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious as well. I'm not even a big fan of infoboxes but I'm not sure I understand the rationale here.--Dan Carkner (talk) 02:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since the person who made the edit has not engaged with discussion about it nor did they explain themselves clearly, I have restored it for now. Open to a clear explanation of why it should be removed.--Dan Carkner (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What's the problem with the edit summary Removing inappropriate Former country infobox. The New Order was a regime, not a country - is there something in that that is not self evident? JarrahTree 03:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since you seem to get it, care to explain?Dan Carkner (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delayed reply - I have been busy with other things. I removed the "Former country" inbox because it is not appropriate here. The New Order refers to the period of time when Indonesia was run by an authoritarian government. It was not a different country - it was the same country as existed before and that still exists today. Regards Davidelit (Talk) 08:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see the box was just a country infobox and gave information about names and dates in Indonesian politics. I don't get what the problem is having this on an article about a subtopic of Indonesian politics. It could give context to an uninformed reader.Dan Carkner (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I take your point, but many of the parameters in it make no sense in this context. What was the area of the New Order? Also, it did not subsequently become a part of Indonesia. Once the less logical parameters have been removed - including the ISO 3166 code, which is only useful for those wanting to telephone the New Order - then it seems pointless having it, especially since the "History of Indonesia" infobox is also in the article, while anyone seeking other information can click to the Indonesia article et al. Regards Davidelit (Talk) 07:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I object this. Again, the History of the Philippines (1965–1986) article has an infobox, the Military dictatorship of Chile (1973–1990) artlcle has an infobox, and both articles are about regimes and not about nations. If you said that the infobox in this article is useless, then they should be removed too from those two articles. Until we reach a consensus, I'm restoring the infobox. Gibranalnn (talk) 11:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed.Dan Carkner (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I kinda agreed now, the Infobox (country) should not be removed, but replaced instead with infobox administration

Military dictatorship

[edit]

I know if Indonesia was ruled by the military dictatorship, but it was actually ended in 1971 (after the establishment of dominant-party sytem). Golkar as a majority political party was not a military political party in that era. Many civilians can joined the party (including former vice presidents) under the New Order era such as Adam Malik and B. J. Habibie

recent edits: re NPOV

[edit]

Hello Merbabu, I will not revert your recent edits which you made in a stated attempt to make the article more neutral. But I will suggest to consider the terminology a bit closer. While the terms "administration" and "presidency" do sound more neutral than "regime" and so on, they do not mean quite the same thing. The New Order was an entire apparatus of state down to the village level, not just the office at the top of the state. I'm not actually positive what the appropriate more neutral term would be but I just wanted to put that out there. --Dan Carkner (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this discussion in the distant past and now more recently. Indeed the terms Regime, "administration", "presidency" and "government" have different meanings, and I suggest the latter three are more appropriate in most (maybe all?) contexts in this article. In every context, they are more neutral.
Regime seems to have two meanings...
  1. The first is as Wikipedia itself defines it: "In politics, a regime is the form of government or the set of rules, cultural or social norms, etc. that regulate the operation of a government or institution and its interactions with society." In this instance it is a bland and neutral term. In this case, we could also refer to the Australian regime or the UK regime, however, I note we don't as it's likely to get confused by editors and readers with the second...
  2. The second, more common usage is less neutral. It provides a negative connotation, suggesting an authoritarian government or dictatorship. It's this usage that seems to be applied here in Suharto article. It seems to carry a value judgement (hence not neutral) as opposed to, say, "president".
A few more things to consider - even before my changes, the word "government" was used a lot more in the article than "regime". Again, more neutral than the loaded "regime".
  • Perhaps ostensibly "regime" might have more uses in this article than at Suharto, however, in reality both these articles have so much common texts that it's less clear.
  • Why don't people use the term "Sukarno regime"? Certainly in the latter part of his, um, presidency it was authoritarian and illegitimate? Or perhaps people's nostalgia for Bung Karno lets him off the "regime" hook?
--Merbabu (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, thank you for your response. It's strange how seemingly neutral terms get a certain tone based on usage; therefore simply putting the word "regime" does indeed have a more negative connotation. I read through the whole article again and I guess I can't really object to any of the changes you made. Dan Carkner (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Order_(Indonesia)&oldid=1213310219"