Talk:Suharto/Archives/2008/May

Mao's Intervention

Why are Mao's direct relationship with the PKI not described amongst the people who rush to defend the PKI ill-fated coup? These people weren't victims of genocide. They willingly played the game of politics with the assistance of Mao and got punished accordingly for attempting to spread a historically violent and unstable Maoist doctrine to a country that would never have benefitted from it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.125.28.8 (talk • contribs)

Provide a reliable reference (or preferably two) and then maybe it can be considered. Merbabu 07:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

So it's ok to kill people as long as you're killing communists right? Tell that to the Chinese Indonesians, the East Timorese, and the West Papuans. First of all the coup's cause still lies within conspiracy theories, some says it's an attempted PKI coup, others say it's a Suharto orchastrated coup; secondly of all two wrongs doesn't make a right, the SUPPOSED links of the PKI does not justify the anti-communist massacres, the legislative discrimination of the Chinese, and the subsquent invasion of West Papua and East Timor.--60.242.159.224 (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The Holocaust?

I've noticed a user dispute regarding the comparison between the invasion of East Timor and the Holocaust, in which the user noted the comparison as "offensive". I've reworded the sentence and noted that the comment comes from Noam Chomsky, but I'm not sure if this passage belongs here. While personally I agree with Chomsky's view, I think this violates WP:NPOV--PCPP (talk) 04:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

While I have problems with putting opinionated quotations into encyclopedia articles, your recent chages are a significant improvement. many thanks --Merbabu (talk) 06:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes on funeral procession

This change is not supported by the citation provided - in fact, the info doesn't appear. I've reverted it for now - sorry. --Merbabu (talk) 04:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

PS - OK, so I found the article. It's here. However, while it reports on mixed feelings on the Suharto legacy which are indeed notable, it doesn't mention the funeral procession in any manner. --Merbabu (talk) 04:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Religion

Regarding the "citation needed" for religion — I don't care if it's blindingly obvious to some editors that if he's from Indonesia he was Muslim — if it's not cited, we can request a citation. For individuals, we care more about whether or not they had personal religious beliefs, rather than what "tradition" they were born into, and it's not obvious from the article whether or not he was a practising or observant Muslim. As for the removal of "Sunni", that's a westernized bias that I think we should avoid. It's like calling a person "Christian" without caring if they are Jehovah's Witness or Roman Catholic. While it may be implied and obvious to some readers (most Indonesians are Sunni), this fact won't be obvious for all readers or users, which is the purpose of including it. Specificity can never really hurt in this regard. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh hell another visitor to the suharto article - welcome to the xth recreator of reality here - the issue with Suharto's religious identity is nowhere as simple as what is assumed here - a good in depth understanding of his islamic and javanese religious identity wouldnt even try to put a distinction as being asked. While in principle agreeing with the major point made in the para above - he used his religious identity over thirty years for political reasons - if we get into this sort of stuff we will have the issue of some editors who tried to put muhhamad as part of his name - it is nowhere near the reality - biographical or political - of a wily old javanese ruler - I would never for a whole lot of reasons - agree with specificity here at all - however if you really do wish a longer and more drawn out reasoning - I will book a time next week to leave 25kb reasoning as to why certain details of suharto's life have to be taken with care - specially the vast amount of material now available about his taking over from sukarno - it is becoming a massive corpus as to the events of 65/66 for a start SatuSuro 03:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Bloviating doesn't change WP policies. The fact that something is complicated doesn't negate the need for in-line citations. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Apologies if I have created a misunderstanding - perhaps I was referring to the need to distinguish as to which religious identity he can be remembered by - as for bloviating - please offer a synonym- thanks SatuSuro 03:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes — I'm with you on that one. It's not that important for this article, in my opinion. Someone added a citation for the Islam part, though, so things are good. "Bloviate" -- "to talk at length", i.e., booking time next week, 25 kb reasoning, etc. :) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that - perhaps there is no need for a bloviate (i like it maybe a new user name perhaps) - the problem for the Indonesia project is that we have about 10 or so articles that have attracted editors who think they can re-create the universe with their POV when it comes to some subjects and topics as well as the rulers of the country and they have about 2% understanding of the countries political or social history let alone geography - cheers SatuSuro 03:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the other triple-w: the wonderful world of wikipedia. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec):I’ve provided a source for him being a Muslim (page numbers, etc can be confirmed over the next few days). As for being a Sunni – I accept the need for a tag, that’s fine. However, as with any info in wikipedia, this could also be removed if one is not forthcoming.

Does this work? Also, do we need a citation that he was President of Indonesia?  ;-) kind regards. --Merbabu (talk) 03:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That works for me. I don't want one for him being president but one for him having a carbon-based atom structure would be nice. ... None of this would ever be much of an issue if writers would actually footnote their writings. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Try the Indonesian language Wikiproject for size SatuSuro 03:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the writer of this article - they've moved on long ago, aklthough I tinker and mantain with sections. There's a list of references including some of high quality - but you are dead right: the lack of inline cites is a real drawback. Sometimes I just want to delete it all and re-write with my own cites. Cheers - thanks for your help. regards --Merbabu (talk) 05:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes; and I wasn't attacking you as the suspected author, by the way. I was just making an offhand comment about how "if only" writers had done certain things in the past, we'd be saved from any amount of difficulty. Thanks for your understanding. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Now, I've just had a closer look at the diffs - only 3 weeks ago someone added to "Shia" to "Islam" here. A week or so later it was "corrected" to "Sunni" a few days later - albeit with a rather colourful edit summary. Also, just repeat, the lack of inline cites are a real problem in this article - the listed references seem otherwise very good. However, looking at the list of inline cites, most of them I've added - Ricklefs, Taylor, Vickers, Scwharz, MacDonald, etc. --Merbabu (talk) 10:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)