Talk:Suharto/Archives/2009/June

Article whitewashing

I was horrified that all references to his purges of the PKI, anti-Chinese legislations and corruption were shortened or removed to put emphasis on his supposed economic achievements. Compared to other anti-American dictators such as Pol Pot, I feel this is a case of systematic bias.--PCPP (talk) 03:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that his easily verified brutality has been diminished in this article. As a number of post-death (and earlier) articles have pointed out, killings under Suharto are the greatest in number since the Holocaust. Pinkville (talk) 03:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If you referring specifically to my edits to the lead last night, it’s is incorrect to say that “all” references to the PKI purge and corruption was removed. It’s just not true – please re-read my changes. In fact, I provided additional references to the topic and just removed the commentary. As for “supposed economic achievements” they are generally accepted as considerable, although the article indeed lacks quantifiable facts and tends to rely on people’s (unreferenced interpretations). I intend to firm up the article’s reporting of this as soon as I can.

As for the removal of the so-called “anti-chinese” legislation, I honestly don’t think that is so relevant for a lead, and hence I removed it yesterday. But, I’m happy to listen to other reasoned opinion, and as such have not removed it again for now.

I’m not sure what you mean by him being “anti-American” – the New Order’s foreign policy was officially neutral and it was considered a Cold War ally. It may be your opinion that is “biased” (and I may have introduced bias), but how is it *systematic* bias?

If you still have a problem with it (or indeed my edits are what you are talking about), then please provide the diffs for further discussion. I’m happy to keep talking about it and see myself as a firm but reasonable and collaborative editor. So please don’t panic! :-) regards --Merbabu (talk) 05:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello all. A general comment: I agree that there are serious problems with this article (that’s not to put down all the editors who have done so much work over the years – it’s a huge topic).

This is just a quick note to say that I intend to go through the whole article. This will take weeks (months?) to do properly. Last night I started on the lead as that is the bit that most people read. Let’s all stick to verifiable and scrupulously referenced material from reliable sources, and not just stick in our own opinion no matter how much they intuitively make sense.

My fall back strategy (i.e., not always) in these contentious topics is to remove on sight unreferenced material. Also, facts are better than achieving notions of “balance” – in my experience, balance just means one POV over another. We should *show* readers, not *tell* them.

Please keep communication lines open – if you have concerns with edits, it’s best to use talk page and provides diffs. I promise to likewise and will spend more time on this talk page later tonight – in part to explain my thoughts on the lead (which I worked on last night).

Thanks and kind regards --Merbabu (talk) 04:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your approach - the only reasonable one. This is definitely going to take some time to do properly, because mainstream sources on this subject cannot be taken at face value. Much more research will be required to provide factual information in a balanced manner. You've replaced my suggestion albeit for a very small minority with dramatically improving health, education and living standards; but let's look at the article cited... Can we put much stock in a lengthy (5-page) biography of Suharto that includes this:

The invasion and annexation of Portuguese Timor in 1975 was his only foreign adventure*, one that ended ultimately in failure once he left office.

as its sole mention of the invasion of East Timor? Any article with such a description strikes me as fatally flawed. But more to the point, the cited author notes:

Within a few years they had put Indonesia on a path of 7 per cent annual economic growth, sustained for 25 years. The proportion of Indonesians in the "very poor" category fell from 52 per cent in the mid-'60s to 7 per cent by 1990.

But these much-quoted figures are the Indonesian government's own figures and are a fabrication (see this brief account, for example). If Indonesia had experienced 7% growth every year for 25 years it would presumably be among the wealthiest countries on earth (or in the same league as the Asian Tigers, which it is plainly not). The record of the mainstream Western media is at its most abysmal in reporting on Indonesia, almost without exception praising the man and his regime in terms such as "a gleam of light in Asia" (as renowned New York Times columnist James Reston wrote at the time of the 1965-1966 massacres of Communists and peasants), with similar glowing terms up to the present day - regardless of events transpiring in the country or its conquered territories.

I would very much like to collaborate with you on this article, but I think we'll need to be very selective about the sources we add - of course, we may disagree about what makes for a good source, but I hope not too often. To support my line albeit for a very small minority I was about to provide this link. Cheers. Pinkville (talk) 17:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

* Note that West Papua is also foreign territory occupied by Indonesia, though Suharto was merely the commander of military operations for the country at the time of the Indonesian take-over. Of course, from the time he became president he was responsible for policies in the occupied territory. Pinkville (talk)

As noted above, the level of poverty dropped dramatically under Suharto - writing 'albeit for a very small minority' completely misrepresents things. Yes, a small elite plundered and squandered, but the gains weren't solely to the rich. It's going to to take some work to get this article to a good standard (perhaps FA is a worthy goal?). Merbabu, if you indicate which section you're working on at any one time (perhaps here) I'd be happy to help with the rewrite. Cheers. Mostlyharmless (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The gains for the vast majority of the population (and the survivors of various purges, etc.) were pretty negligible - certainly nothing that ought to be called an economic miracle. For the minority elite, of course it truly was an economic miracle. "[L]evel of poverty" is not a neutral term - it has to be problematised, since "poverty" is always gauged in a politically charged context. I have the impression that Merbabu intends to simply start from the top and move down through the article, which seems reasonable. Pinkville (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, I tried to redo the pre-presidency info but got bogged down; in the end I felt it was actually rather good, although probably a bit long winded – I’m loathed to remove the details – maybe it needs a separate article. lol.

For now, I’d like to focus on the Transition (1965-67) and New Order (67-98) periods - I think they are not as well written or structured. It's a slow incremental process, thus the improvements won't be apparent immediately. I will be trimming down a bit of waffle (mainly by transferring info to other related articles – most are linked from this one already), but keeping the main points in. You'll notice I started a proces of shuffling and consolidating within this article - some points were mentioned several times in several places (not including the lead).

Sorry, but comments such as The gains for the vast majority of the population (and the survivors of various purges, etc.) were pretty negligible - certainly nothing that ought to be called an economic miracle. smack of intuitive opinion and personal biases. If reliable and notable references are found for this POV then it could be mentioned as a counter argument in the Economic section. The fundamental problem though with saying gains were “negligible for the majority” is that is counter to economic and social data, and indeed the view of majority of Indonesians – a broad sample of which I am personally familiar with. (Further, I’m not supporting use of the term “economic miracle”). --Merbabu (talk) 22:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It cannot be disputed that Suharto's government was one of the most vicious in history and this article seems to gloss over the well documented mass killing of dissidents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.32.126.16 (talk) 11:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting

• This article digs a bit deeper into the KKN (corruption issue) than the tabloidic $35bn headline reports.
• and, this one, by former Australian prime minister that defends some aspects of Suharto's presidency (and joins the condemnation bandwagon of other aspects).

Hopefully of assistance for background, even sources. --Merbabu (talk) 05:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)