Talk:Suharto/Archives/2013/March

Potential Neoliberal Bias in the Economy Section

I have added a neutrality dispute to the economy section because some of the wordings appear to show a relatively strong bias towards neoliberal economic policies. The major problem is only in some of the adjectives attached to certain policies discussed in the article, the bulk of the article is fine. For example in the lines:

“Realizing the dearth of domestic capital capable of re-juvenating growth, Suharto reversed Sukarno's economic autarky policies by opening selected economic sectors of the country to much-needed foreign investment under the new Foreign Investment Law of January 1967”

The idea that the capital was "much-needed" would be contested by many non-neoliberal economists, and the removal of that phrase would detract little from the article. Even potentially the use of the words dearth and rejuvenation could be considered to be making a normative judgement on the value of capital growth, but they are less clear and might be fine. More obviously in this line:

“While establishing a formal economy based on rational and sound macroeconomic policies, Suharto continued his past modus operandi of creating vast network of charitable organizations ("yayasan") run by the military and his family members”

The idea that these policies were "rational and sound" is a clear judgement call, many more left wing economists would argue that these policies were not rational or sound at all. I'm new to wiki editing so I wanted to check if anyone else thought these concerns were valid before I actually made changes. Raymondhitchburn (talk) 09:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The quotes are sourced to credible academic sectors, and I think nobody could dispute that capital is needed for growth to occur. It's basic economics.202.43.188.6 (talk) 11:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, welcome to Wikipedia Raymond. If you can improve the article, you should go right ahead – and then see whether other people agree with your change.

I agree with Raymond. This section is problematic. It does indeed read with a congratulatory tone, and while it may be factually correct, it reads more like a judgemental appraisal of economic policy.

I note that the anonymous dissenter above is the editor who wrote this section (and many others) and has strongly resisted other editors’ comments about the changes. To say that the biased language is OK simply because it (apparently) well-sourced is not good enough. We do not repeat the bias of other writers on wikipedia.

I have attempted to tone down the worst of the tone, and also trimmed out some of the excessive amount of detail. --Merbabu (talk) 04:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)