Talk:Hasan Tiro
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hasan Tiro article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Suharto "renounced" Acehnese autonomy
editThe statement that Suharto "renounced" Acehnese autonomy in 1968 is simply false. At this time, Daud Bereueh was busy supporting Suharto by killing 10,000 Acehnese he suspected to be communists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.72.213.22 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- As per wikipedia rules I don't do original research but all the sources confirm that Suharto "renounced" Acehnese autonomy in 1968. Plus as I've shown with the sources Daud Bereueh did support Suharto and refused to support Di Tiro. -- Esemono (talk) 12:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- LOL, there is no such thing as Suharto "renouncing" Acehnese autonomy in 1968. You cannot fabricate your own stories and pass it as fact here in Wikipedia. Fact is, di Tiro never had any problem with Indonesian rule until the tender defeat which is too much for his oversized ego to take —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.160.196.145 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Your Source: - Marianne Heiberg, Brendan O'Leary, and John Tirman, Editors. Terror, Insurgency, and State: Ending Protracted Conflicts, when, 512. ISBN 9780812220292 - States the following on Pg 85:
- When indonesia's old order under Sukaron was superseded by President Suharto's New Order, Jakarta embarked upon political and economic centralization ... The impact of Suharto's centralization policy on Aceh cannot be overstated. In all but name, it REVERSED the special autonomy status.
- -- Esemono (talk) 15:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Your Source: - Marianne Heiberg, Brendan O'Leary, and John Tirman, Editors. Terror, Insurgency, and State: Ending Protracted Conflicts, when, 512. ISBN 9780812220292 - States the following on Pg 85:
- LOL, there is no such thing as Suharto "renouncing" Acehnese autonomy in 1968. You cannot fabricate your own stories and pass it as fact here in Wikipedia. Fact is, di Tiro never had any problem with Indonesian rule until the tender defeat which is too much for his oversized ego to take —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.160.196.145 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Under Suharto's rule, Aceh maintained high degree of autonomy as "Special Territory of Aceh" (Daerah Istimewa Aceh). All the autonomy powers given to the provincial government in 1963 peace deal was maintained, which was mostly related with religion and the power of sharia. In fact, Aceh has the largest autonomy power compared with other provinces under Suharto's rule. And as is shown, di Tiro had no problem with Indonesia's rule until he lost the tender with Mobil Oil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.160.196.145 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Then why does YOUR SOURCE state that Suharto renounced Acehnese autonomy? -- Esemono (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- LOL, my source never said Suharto "renounced Acehnese autonomy". That sentence you quoted said it clearly: "IN ALL BUT NAME" which means Suharto NEVER renounced Acehnese special autonomy in the form of Special Territory of Aceh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.160.196.145 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- But when I use the, "All but name" quote you erase it. Why? Again here are my sources:-- Esemono (talk) 21:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- -When indonesia's old order under Sukaron was superseded by President Suharto's New Order, Jakarta embarked upon political and economic centralization ... The impact of Suharto's centralization policy on Aceh cannot be overstated. In all but name, it REVERSED the special autonomy status. Pg 85 - Terror, Insurgency, and State: Ending Protracted Conflicts
- -But in 1968 shortly after Suharto cam to power, the Acehnese government's special autonomy was effectively revoked. Pg 39 Resources and Rebellion in Aceh , Indonesia
- -[the peace agreement gave] the province autonomy in matters of religion, customary law (adat), and education. The second insurgency, started in 1976 with the establishment of the [GAM] Like the Darul Islam rebellion, it was triggered by unhappy center/periphery relations—namely the removal of special status in all but name. - The Free Aceh Movement (GAM): Anatomy of a Separatist Organization - Kirsten E. Schulze
- -Under Suharto the government became increasingly centralized in Jakarta. The years of autonomy in name only, during which foreign companies and Javanese settlers were awarded contracts to harvest Aceh’s substantial natural resources at the expense of the indigenous population, along with a repressive military presence, served to embitter many in Aceh. - Indonesia’s Aceh Conflict
- Unfortunately, none of your sources mentioned which 1968 action by Suharto "reverse" special autonomy for Aceh as agreed in the 1962 peace deal. Prove what law or what government regulation was passed by Suharto to "reverse" the agreed-autonomy! Di Tiro certainly had no such issues with autonomy under Jakarta in 1974 when he applied for the Mobil Oil pipeline contract!
- All the sources imply that Suharto, "In all but name, it REVERSED the special autonomy status." of Aceh. Which is what it says in the article and what you keep erasing. -- Esemono (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, none of your sources mentioned which 1968 action by Suharto "reverse" special autonomy for Aceh as agreed in the 1962 peace deal. Prove what law or what government regulation was passed by Suharto to "reverse" the agreed-autonomy! Di Tiro certainly had no such issues with autonomy under Jakarta in 1974 when he applied for the Mobil Oil pipeline contract!
- But when I use the, "All but name" quote you erase it. Why? Again here are my sources:-- Esemono (talk) 21:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- LOL, my source never said Suharto "renounced Acehnese autonomy". That sentence you quoted said it clearly: "IN ALL BUT NAME" which means Suharto NEVER renounced Acehnese special autonomy in the form of Special Territory of Aceh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.160.196.145 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Then why does YOUR SOURCE state that Suharto renounced Acehnese autonomy? -- Esemono (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Under Suharto's rule, Aceh maintained high degree of autonomy as "Special Territory of Aceh" (Daerah Istimewa Aceh). All the autonomy powers given to the provincial government in 1963 peace deal was maintained, which was mostly related with religion and the power of sharia. In fact, Aceh has the largest autonomy power compared with other provinces under Suharto's rule. And as is shown, di Tiro had no problem with Indonesia's rule until he lost the tender with Mobil Oil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.160.196.145 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Again, let me clarify what the sources say, maybe your comprehension of English is not that good: "IN ALL BUT NAME,...", meaning in reality there was NEVER any official reversion of autonomy in 1968, aka this statement is an unsubstantianed subjective rumuor, probably originating from separatist propaganda. There is no place for unsubstantiated rumours in Wikipedia. As I said, there was never a single law or govt regulation passed by Suharto in 1968 that "reversed" Acehnese autonomy. Throughout the New Order, Aceh was always known as "Special Territory of Aceh" with all the autonomy powers conferred to it in 1962.
- Indeed Wikipedia is not a place for unsubstantiated subjective rumor which is why I've relied on three different sources that confirm that Suharto, "In all but name, it REVERSED the special autonomy status." of Aceh. Which is exactly what I try and put in the article. I'm not sure what the problem is? There was indeed a region that was called, "Special Territory of Aceh" or something similar but after 1968 it was in name only. After Suharto came to power he had reversed all the special rights the region received in 1962 but Suharto didn't change the name. Thus leaving the only the name. -- Esemono (talk) 04:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Again, PROVE your statement. What law or govt regulation was passed by Suharto in 1968 to "reverse" Acehnese autonomy? If you cannot answer my question, then the false statement of Suharto "reversing" Acehnese autonomy are classified as unsubstantiated rumuors and therefore cannot be placed in Wikipedia.
- I already have proved my statement. Above are listed three sources that state, "In all but name, it REVERSED the special autonomy status." It is up to you to provide sources that disprove this statement. Something you refuse to do. -- Esemono (talk) 06:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- LOL, so you failed to find any law or regulation passed by Suharto govt that supposedly "reverse Acehnese autonomy"? As such, it is clear Suharto NEVER reverse Aceh's autonomy as agreed in 1962.
- I already have proved my statement. Above are listed three sources that state, "In all but name, it REVERSED the special autonomy status." It is up to you to provide sources that disprove this statement. Something you refuse to do. -- Esemono (talk) 06:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Again, PROVE your statement. What law or govt regulation was passed by Suharto in 1968 to "reverse" Acehnese autonomy? If you cannot answer my question, then the false statement of Suharto "reversing" Acehnese autonomy are classified as unsubstantiated rumuors and therefore cannot be placed in Wikipedia.
- Indeed Wikipedia is not a place for unsubstantiated subjective rumor which is why I've relied on three different sources that confirm that Suharto, "In all but name, it REVERSED the special autonomy status." of Aceh. Which is exactly what I try and put in the article. I'm not sure what the problem is? There was indeed a region that was called, "Special Territory of Aceh" or something similar but after 1968 it was in name only. After Suharto came to power he had reversed all the special rights the region received in 1962 but Suharto didn't change the name. Thus leaving the only the name. -- Esemono (talk) 04:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Again, let me clarify what the sources say, maybe your comprehension of English is not that good: "IN ALL BUT NAME,...", meaning in reality there was NEVER any official reversion of autonomy in 1968, aka this statement is an unsubstantianed subjective rumuor, probably originating from separatist propaganda. There is no place for unsubstantiated rumours in Wikipedia. As I said, there was never a single law or govt regulation passed by Suharto in 1968 that "reversed" Acehnese autonomy. Throughout the New Order, Aceh was always known as "Special Territory of Aceh" with all the autonomy powers conferred to it in 1962.
Great-Grandson or Grandson
editNot sure your motivation for changing this but the sources seem to indicate that he was the Grandson of Tengku Cik di Tiro not great-grandson -- Esemono (talk) 12:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- -Its Founding father was Hasan di Tiro, grandson of Teungku Chik di Tiro Pg 86 - Terror, Insurgency, and State: Ending Protracted Conflicts
- -he was the grandson of Teungku Chik di Tiro Pg 39 Resources and Rebellion in Aceh , Indonesia
- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esemono (talk • contribs) 21:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- I am responding to a request for a third opinion. If reliable sources say grandson, the Wikipedia article should cite the sources and say the same. — Athaenara ✉ 02:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Read Indonesian Wikipedia: Hasan Tiro's mother is Pocut Fatimah who was the granddaughter of Chik di Tiro. Thus, he is the great-grandson of Chik di Tiro. [1]
- Chik di Tiro was born in the 1836, he was already 50 years old when he died in 1891. His grandsons were already producing children by the 1890s. Hasan di Tiro was born 30 years after Chik di Tiro's death.
- Producing a child at 40-50 isn't that unheard of. Which if he did would make Hasan di Tiro's parents 30+ when gave birth to him. Not impossible. The sources say he is the grandson but if you find another better source, not a wikipedia entry you created, I see no reason not to change. -- Esemono (talk) 23:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- LOL, I did not create the Wikipedia entry. It is clear fact based on clear family tree that Hasan Tiro was just one of the many great-grandchildren of Chik di Tiro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.160.195.54 (talk) 14:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Look if you provide a source other than one in a foreign language wikipediea entry that you created I can quite happily agree to change the article to great-grandson. But for now the sources agree that he is the grandson only. -- Esemono (talk) 04:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Look all the sources say di Tiro is Chik di Tiro's great-grandson. Deal with it.
- Where???? They clearly say grandson-- Esemono (talk) 13:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Look we have a clear name of his mother (Pocut Fatimah), who is the granddaughter of Chik di Tiro. Son of granddaughter = great-grandson. Which part you don't understand?
- No we don't because there are no sources that say his mother is (Pocut Fatimah). And even if we did we don't have any sources that say what her relationship is. I could just as easily say she is Chik di Tiro's daughter but I don't because I don't have the source. Thus the only thing we can rely on are the two sources that say grandson. And no a foreign language wikipedia that you created doesn't count. -- Esemono (talk) 06:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- I've changed "the grandson" to "descendant of Tengku Cik di Tiro on maternal side". and i put a link to it. And deleted "with blood links to former Aceh sultans". you can check all internet resources, only Lucy Williamson wrote he was one, for BBC News. Since i'm an acehnese and know about this fake claiming. , Minopueblo (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- No we don't because there are no sources that say his mother is (Pocut Fatimah). And even if we did we don't have any sources that say what her relationship is. I could just as easily say she is Chik di Tiro's daughter but I don't because I don't have the source. Thus the only thing we can rely on are the two sources that say grandson. And no a foreign language wikipedia that you created doesn't count. -- Esemono (talk) 06:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Look we have a clear name of his mother (Pocut Fatimah), who is the granddaughter of Chik di Tiro. Son of granddaughter = great-grandson. Which part you don't understand?
- Where???? They clearly say grandson-- Esemono (talk) 13:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Look all the sources say di Tiro is Chik di Tiro's great-grandson. Deal with it.
- Look if you provide a source other than one in a foreign language wikipediea entry that you created I can quite happily agree to change the article to great-grandson. But for now the sources agree that he is the grandson only. -- Esemono (talk) 04:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- LOL, I did not create the Wikipedia entry. It is clear fact based on clear family tree that Hasan Tiro was just one of the many great-grandchildren of Chik di Tiro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.160.195.54 (talk) 14:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Producing a child at 40-50 isn't that unheard of. Which if he did would make Hasan di Tiro's parents 30+ when gave birth to him. Not impossible. The sources say he is the grandson but if you find another better source, not a wikipedia entry you created, I see no reason not to change. -- Esemono (talk) 23:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- I am responding to a request for a third opinion. If reliable sources say grandson, the Wikipedia article should cite the sources and say the same. — Athaenara ✉ 02:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Third opinion (Acehnese autonomy)
editThere are three disputes listed at Third Opinion. I am happy to deal with all three - though I will take one at a time. I'll look at Acehnese autonomy first, and if someone comes along to deal with one or other of the other two in the meantime, that's fine as well.
This dispute concerns the actual wording in the Background section. While I do find that sources indicate that Suharto reversed Aceh's autonomy, a better question might be how important that fact is in this article on Hasan di Tiro. I can see its importance to Free Aceh Movement and Insurgency in Aceh. I can also see that an article on the founder of the Free Aceh Movement should make reference to the events leading up to the creation of the movement. However, just how detailed should reference to the events be? Some background is important, however shouldn't we be giving a quick sketch and linking to the relevant articles when finer and deeper details are needed? It is noted that in the Winston Churchill article, we are not given the background and reasons for the Second World War, rather, we are given Churchill's direct and immediate involvement and importance to events. It might be more helpful to the common reader to give some details of what Hasan di Tiro was doing in the early years of Suharto's rule, rather than what Suharto was doing.
So this outside opinion is that while the Acehnese autonomy reversal statement can be sourced as true, I question its place in this particular article. I'll be happy to discuss this further, or if that observation and advise is acceptable, move on to the next point of dispute. SilkTork *YES! 22:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- I see what you're saying but the reason that the information about Suharto reversing the autonomy was that was one of the reasons that di Tiro started the GAM rebel group. Di Tiro never felt he could stop short of total independence because the Indonesian government had broken its autonomy pledges before. This information was erased during the edit war. -- Esemono (talk) 07:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- We have to be careful when constructing articles to avoid interpreting facts for people. Do you have a source that gives Di Tiro's motives for forming the GAM rebel group? SilkTork *YES! 23:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Here is the source:
- [he chose] independence as a goal for a second reason: the Daud Beureuch rebellion - which the young di Tiro passionately supported -ended in 1962 when the central government agreed to grant Aceh a special level of autonomy within the Indonesian state. Jakarta never fulfilled its promise, and Aceh remained a "special area" in name only. any future pledges of autonomy would have little credibility in di Tiro's mind, and were pointless to pursue.[2]
- I would like to add it in as the logic behind di Trio choosing to strive toward a separate state and not an autonomous part of Indonesia -- Esemono (talk) 06:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Here is the source:
- We have to be careful when constructing articles to avoid interpreting facts for people. Do you have a source that gives Di Tiro's motives for forming the GAM rebel group? SilkTork *YES! 23:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Good source. Agreed - with that source used in the article, it would be appropriate to put it in. SilkTork *YES! 07:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- The logic of Hasan Tiro's separatist demands are not any "revocation of autonomy". Read his so-called "declaration of independence". Never in this "declaration" he ever mentioned anything about "revocation" of autonomy. Instead all he talked is about how great and superior the Acehnese people are, and his hatred for the "Hinduistic" Javanese people and the "fraudulent state" of Indonesia. It is clear his separatist motives are based on ethnic-chauvinism similar to Hitler and Milosevic.
- You obviously have a vested interest here. Maybe you should take a step back and think logically and with a clear/cool head. The sources quite clearly show that Di Tiro based the GAM movement on Independence of an Aceh state because Suharto revoked the special autonomy granted after the the Daud Beureuch rebellion. -- Esemono (talk) 23:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- You obviously has not been reading my comments. Di Tiro, the separatist ideologue himself, in his "declaration of independence" NEVER MADE ANY STATEMENTS ABOUT ANY "REVERSION OF AUTONOMY". He simply said Acehnese people are "great and superior" people who should never be under the rule of any other ethnic-group, particularly the Javanese people that he hated. Hence, there is simply no evidence for your false and fabricated statement above.
- And the sources state otherwise. So the question is:
- should we believe your originial research, which is against wikipedia policy
- or follow wikipedia rules and rely on sources that say di Tiro based his choice of Independence for Aceh on Suharto reversal of Aceh autonomy.
- I believe we should follow the wikiepedia guidelines and leave out all personal feelings, and orginial research and only use the large number of sources provided to write this article. -- Esemono (talk) 04:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- And the sources state otherwise. So the question is:
- You obviously has not been reading my comments. Di Tiro, the separatist ideologue himself, in his "declaration of independence" NEVER MADE ANY STATEMENTS ABOUT ANY "REVERSION OF AUTONOMY". He simply said Acehnese people are "great and superior" people who should never be under the rule of any other ethnic-group, particularly the Javanese people that he hated. Hence, there is simply no evidence for your false and fabricated statement above.
- You obviously have a vested interest here. Maybe you should take a step back and think logically and with a clear/cool head. The sources quite clearly show that Di Tiro based the GAM movement on Independence of an Aceh state because Suharto revoked the special autonomy granted after the the Daud Beureuch rebellion. -- Esemono (talk) 23:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- The logic of Hasan Tiro's separatist demands are not any "revocation of autonomy". Read his so-called "declaration of independence". Never in this "declaration" he ever mentioned anything about "revocation" of autonomy. Instead all he talked is about how great and superior the Acehnese people are, and his hatred for the "Hinduistic" Javanese people and the "fraudulent state" of Indonesia. It is clear his separatist motives are based on ethnic-chauvinism similar to Hitler and Milosevic.
- Hasan di Tiro himself in his "declaration of independence" (link provided) clearly mentioned that his separatism came from his belief that Acehnese as a "great and superior" ethnic-group should not be under the rule of another ethnic-group (as in Javanese). Hence, it is clear his ideology is derived from ethnic-chauvinism, NOT on any non-existant "reversion of autonomy". This is historical fact and not negotiable.
- I'm not trying to argue that GAM and Di Tiro attacked non-Acehense. But the sources say that Hasan choose independence because Suharto took away Aceh's autonomy. Hasan also didn't include Islam in his "declaration of independence" even though he fought for a more Islamic state in the 60s. He believed Islam should play a bigger role but didn't include it because he didn't want to alienate foreign donors. My point is that not all his reasoning was added in the declaration and its not the be all and end all of the reasoning behind his choices. The source that I used for the addition in the article clearly states that Di Tiro chose independence because of the reversal of autonomy in everything but name. -- Esemono (talk) 13:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Funny, since Hasan Tiro himself NEVER MENTIONED any "reversion of autonomy" in his "declaration of independence". All he talked about was how great the Acehnese was (in fighting the Dutch) and how he does not think the great Acehnese ethnic-group should have anything to do with other ethnic-groups such as Javanese, hence his demands for independence.
- I'm not trying to argue that GAM and Di Tiro attacked non-Acehense. But the sources say that Hasan choose independence because Suharto took away Aceh's autonomy. Hasan also didn't include Islam in his "declaration of independence" even though he fought for a more Islamic state in the 60s. He believed Islam should play a bigger role but didn't include it because he didn't want to alienate foreign donors. My point is that not all his reasoning was added in the declaration and its not the be all and end all of the reasoning behind his choices. The source that I used for the addition in the article clearly states that Di Tiro chose independence because of the reversal of autonomy in everything but name. -- Esemono (talk) 13:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hasan di Tiro himself in his "declaration of independence" (link provided) clearly mentioned that his separatism came from his belief that Acehnese as a "great and superior" ethnic-group should not be under the rule of another ethnic-group (as in Javanese). Hence, it is clear his ideology is derived from ethnic-chauvinism, NOT on any non-existant "reversion of autonomy". This is historical fact and not negotiable.
- In short, Acehnese separatism was based on ethnic exclusivism/chauvinism. This is fact based on di Tiro's own statement, not a negotiable/modifiable story like your "reversion of autonomy" fairytale which is not backed by any historical evidence.
- All historical sources back up di Tiro didn't want to be a slave to the Javanese or the Dutch AND that Indonesia reversed the autonomy of Aceh -- MrIndoJava (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- LOL, please name by which law/presidential decision was the autonomy given to Aceh in 1963 "reversed"? If you fail to find this supposed "decision", then it is clear that there is no "historical" sources to back-up the fictitious claim of "autonomy reversal".
- All historical sources back up di Tiro didn't want to be a slave to the Javanese or the Dutch AND that Indonesia reversed the autonomy of Aceh -- MrIndoJava (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- In short, Acehnese separatism was based on ethnic exclusivism/chauvinism. This is fact based on di Tiro's own statement, not a negotiable/modifiable story like your "reversion of autonomy" fairytale which is not backed by any historical evidence.
Daud Beureuch's, offical endorsement
editWhy do you keep erasing this:
- He tried but failed to get the former revolutionary, Daud Beureuch's, offical endorsement and instead issued a, "Declartion of Independence of Acheh-Sumatra". However, Ken Conboy in his book, Kopassus, alleges that di Tiro received secret support from Beureueh.
You are the one who insists that Daud Beureuch secretly gave di Tiro support why are you trying to erase your own points? -- Esemono (talk) 13:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
ethnic exclusivism/chauvinism is the sole reason
editJust trying to clear things up here so started a new section. Your arguement seems to be that In Di Tiro's Declaration of Independence of Acheh he declared that:
- Di Tiro thought the Achenese where equal to the Dutch and Javanese
- thus shouldn't be ruled by either
- this is the only reason he choose independence.
That basically sums up your arguement right?
Well my argument or rather what the historical sources say is that Di Tiro didn't include all his reasoning behind his choice striving for the independence of Aceh. And I have a number of supporting points to prove this reasoning. Many things Di Tiro strongly believed in weren't included in the Declaration of Independence of Acheh
- like Islam:
- [di Tiro] decided not to make appeals based on Islam, for fear it would alienate potential foreign backers.Pg40
- Also not included was another reason for he did include a demand for greater autonomy that
- di Tiro believed that foreign governments would not support a movement that called for Aceh's autonomy within an Indonesian ferderation...Pg40
Thus we can conclude that not all of Di Tiro's reasonsing were included in the Di Tiro's Declaration of Independence of Acheh. Following this reasoning we can look at another quote from a reliable source:
- [di Tiro chose] independence as a goal for a second reason: the Daud Beureuch rebellion - which the young di Tiro passionately supported -ended in 1962 when the central government agreed to grant Aceh a special level of autonomy within the Indonesian state. Jakarta never fulfilled its promise, and Aceh remained a "special area" in name only. any future pledges of autonomy would have little credibility in di Tiro's mind, and were pointless to pursue.Pg40
Remember its not me stating the reason why Di Tiro chose independence. It's the historical sources that are stating this. I hope this clears things up and we can see eye to eye. -- Esemono (talk) 08:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- As I said, there was NEVER any "reversion of autonomy", that is why Hasan di Tiro never mention this fairy tale. He made himself clear: he wanted Acehnese independence only because Acehnese are superior ethnicity which should not be ruled by any other ethnic group: ETHNIC CHAUVINISM. Remember it is not me who is saying this, my source is di Tiro himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.160.211.43 (talk) 13:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with you! Well not that he used the words, ETHNIC CHAUVINISM, but that yes he didn't want Aceh to be ruled by any colonial power. But as my sources clearly state that was one of MANY reasons NOT the only reason he chose independence as GAMs goals. And again I have sources that say, In all but name, it REVERSED the special autonomy status.:
- -When indonesia's old order under Sukaron was superseded by President Suharto's New Order, Jakarta embarked upon political and economic centralization ... The impact of Suharto's centralization policy on Aceh cannot be overstated. In all but name, it REVERSED the special autonomy status. Pg 85 - Terror, Insurgency, and State: Ending Protracted Conflicts
- -But in 1968 shortly after Suharto cam to power, the Acehnese government's special autonomy was effectively revoked. Pg 39 Resources and Rebellion in Aceh , Indonesia
- -the peace agreement gave] the province autonomy in matters of religion, customary law (adat), and education. The second insurgency, started in 1976 with the establishment of the [GAM] Like the Darul Islam rebellion, it was triggered by unhappy center/periphery relations—namely the removal of special status in all but name. - The Free Aceh Movement (GAM): Anatomy of a Separatist Organization - Kirsten E. Schulze
- -Under Suharto the government became increasingly centralized in Jakarta. The years of autonomy in name only, during which foreign companies and Javanese settlers were awarded contracts to harvest Aceh’s substantial natural resources at the expense of the indigenous population, along with a repressive military presence, served to embitter many in Aceh. - Indonesia’s Aceh Conflict
- I'd have to agree with Esemono. If the source says then it is true. Remember in Wikipedia the rule is, Verifiability, not truth -- MrIndoJava (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'd have to disagree with Esemono. The source (Hasan di Tiro) never mention any "reversal of autonomy" in his "Declaration of Independence". If the source does not says so, then it cannot be put into Wikipedia. Remember the rule of "verifiability, not truth".
- You just don't get it do you. your quote isn't the be all and end all. Sure it doesn't say mention any "reversal of autonomy" in the declaration but it does NOT say that he thought that Aceh had special status! In fact if anything it supports my claim, the claim of many on this talk page in AND all known sources that have been found. And that claim is di Tiro chose independence because Suharto reversed the special autonomy status of Aceh. And you can stop repeating what people say, it's childish, immature and annoying. I mean I can understand that you hide behind multiple IP sock puppets so that you can get away with your vandalism but please you don't have to act like a six year old. Think on your own, look at the facts! -- Esemono (talk) 04:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- LOL, calm down esemono. As I've said, there was not any single decision or law that revoked the 1963 autonomy given to Aceh (mostly on religious affairs as the gas reserve had not been discovered). In fact, during the Suharto years Aceh had all the autonomy granted to this province in 1963(as Special Territory of Aceh), whereby Islam became the "provincial religion" so to speak, as this is what was demanded by the Darul Islam rebels.
- You just don't get it do you. your quote isn't the be all and end all. Sure it doesn't say mention any "reversal of autonomy" in the declaration but it does NOT say that he thought that Aceh had special status! In fact if anything it supports my claim, the claim of many on this talk page in AND all known sources that have been found. And that claim is di Tiro chose independence because Suharto reversed the special autonomy status of Aceh. And you can stop repeating what people say, it's childish, immature and annoying. I mean I can understand that you hide behind multiple IP sock puppets so that you can get away with your vandalism but please you don't have to act like a six year old. Think on your own, look at the facts! -- Esemono (talk) 04:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'd have to disagree with Esemono. The source (Hasan di Tiro) never mention any "reversal of autonomy" in his "Declaration of Independence". If the source does not says so, then it cannot be put into Wikipedia. Remember the rule of "verifiability, not truth".
- I'd have to agree with Esemono. If the source says then it is true. Remember in Wikipedia the rule is, Verifiability, not truth -- MrIndoJava (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with you! Well not that he used the words, ETHNIC CHAUVINISM, but that yes he didn't want Aceh to be ruled by any colonial power. But as my sources clearly state that was one of MANY reasons NOT the only reason he chose independence as GAMs goals. And again I have sources that say, In all but name, it REVERSED the special autonomy status.:
- As I said, there was NEVER any "reversion of autonomy", that is why Hasan di Tiro never mention this fairy tale. He made himself clear: he wanted Acehnese independence only because Acehnese are superior ethnicity which should not be ruled by any other ethnic group: ETHNIC CHAUVINISM. Remember it is not me who is saying this, my source is di Tiro himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.160.211.43 (talk) 13:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Even Hasan di Tiro himself NEVER mentioned any "autonomy reversal" in any of his propaganda. Not only because there were never such a "reversal", since he was NEVER interested in any autonomy within Indonesia. He is an extremist whose non-negotiable goal was for complete independence from Indonesia, driven by his ethnic-chauvinism.
Hence, it is clear there was NEVER any "reversal of autonomy", and the creation of GAM was driven by ethnic-chauvinism.
Have a good day. I hope you get my point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.160.211.143 (talk) 10:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Protected
editSince a slow-moving edit war has continued for several weeks, I have placed the article under full protection. Editors who want their views to be taken seriously are advised to clearly explain them on Talk. I see that there has already been a Wikipedia:Third opinion that was provided. What do the editors here think about the third opinion? Does it resolve the outstanding issues, or is there more to be decided? EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- As you can see above a third opinion was given and respected by everyone but the IP who uses various IP sock puppets to reverse the consensus. -- Esemono (talk) 23:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Third opinion
editAfter some research and going over the sources. It seems that all evidence and sources points to:
A - Suhurto revoked all special automony for Aceh BUT didn't change the name, the special automous zone of Aceh.
B - In addition to Di Tiro not wanting to be a slave to dutch he didn't want the Aceh people to be slaves to the Javanese.
C - Di Tiro chose Independence because of how Indonesia revesered the autonomy granted after the Daud Beureuch uprising. -- MrIndoJava (talk) 03:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Edit war - enough
editI'm slowly taking an interest in seeing this lamest of edit wars stop. I am an outsider to the debate and don't know it's details. However, I note there are two protagonists and suggest it stops immediately. If not I will request the page be locked for editing. Please note that this might result in the the wrong version. It's ridiculous, and a case could easily be made for a block of both participants. (less importantly, but helpful, would be for the anon user to register - not that the registered participant should feel they are in some sort of moral higher ground because they are registered).
I will watch. Stop being lame. --Merbabu (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
To the Anon editor
editI don't know the details of this subject or the details of this dispute (i don't really want to!), but edits such as these suggest to me that the anon user needs reminding that the criteria for inclusion is not "truth" but verifiability. If there are reliable sources saying something, then that is enough. THe first part of that edit shows you removing reliably sourced info. The next thing to is, if there are in fact two conflicting sources representing two conflicting view points as the "Creating GAM" section suggests, the editors need to work out how to include both viewpoints - if they are both notable and verifiable.
Also, if you want to be taken seriously, get a username. The way I express that is not quite policy, but it's the reality. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 08:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- I just reverted the anon. Despite suggesting the opposite, he does not have consensus for his views. This is evident on the talk page, the third opinions, and the other contributors listed in the article history. In fact, in disputes such as this, the "truth" or the "correct version" take a second place to consensus. No matter how correct you think you are, consensus ultimately rules on wikipedia. The anon may want to argue that because he disagrees, then there is no consensus for the other view either. Perhaps that is technically true. But, it appears that the anon has no intent on reaching a compromise that consensus would require - then we are left with brute force of numbers. While he may point out that many overriding one is not consensus, it is better than one overriding many. --Merbabu (talk) 09:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- LOL, I think you are waaay off-topic with your hostile and war-like talk of numerical superiority etc. Obviously that kind of unproductive talk would lead us nowhere so I won't comment on that. Just stick to this topic, i.e. everyone has failed to show me by which law or regulation does the supposed "revocation of autonomy" of 1962 Aceh autonomy took place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.160.196.127 (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm going to assume good faith, and assume that because you have an dynamic IP you didn't see the warning I placed against further edit warring at User talk:125.160.199.95. Please cease your edit warring and discuss your concerns here. Given that you have a dynamic IP address and appear keen on this topic you really should register an account so that editors can contact you (again, this is not compulsory, but it is important if you want to be taken seriously). If you continue your disruptive editing your accounts may be blocked. Nick-D (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Further to Nick's comments, may I suggest you show good faith by registering and not reverting til you get people to agree on this page. As I've suggested, that might mean working on a compromise that acknowledges that there ismore than one "version" of the issue - this is very common in wikipedia, and it's one way to achieve a WP:NPOV. Otherwise, people are just going to assume that you intend to "win" by revert which as you correctly say, will lead nowhere. --Merbabu (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm going to assume good faith, and assume that because you have an dynamic IP you didn't see the warning I placed against further edit warring at User talk:125.160.199.95. Please cease your edit warring and discuss your concerns here. Given that you have a dynamic IP address and appear keen on this topic you really should register an account so that editors can contact you (again, this is not compulsory, but it is important if you want to be taken seriously). If you continue your disruptive editing your accounts may be blocked. Nick-D (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- LOL, I think you are waaay off-topic with your hostile and war-like talk of numerical superiority etc. Obviously that kind of unproductive talk would lead us nowhere so I won't comment on that. Just stick to this topic, i.e. everyone has failed to show me by which law or regulation does the supposed "revocation of autonomy" of 1962 Aceh autonomy took place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.160.196.127 (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
revocation of autonomy
editAs I and anyone who has researched this topic have already stated there are many verifable sources that prove that the Indonesian government, in all but name, REVERSED the special autonomy status of Aceh:
- -When indonesia's old order under Sukaron was superseded by President Suharto's New Order, Jakarta embarked upon political and economic centralization ... The impact of Suharto's centralization policy on Aceh cannot be overstated. In all but name, it REVERSED the special autonomy status. Pg 85 - Terror, Insurgency, and State: Ending Protracted Conflicts
- -But in 1968 shortly after Suharto cam to power, the Acehnese government's special autonomy was effectively revoked. Pg 39 Resources and Rebellion in Aceh , Indonesia
- -[the peace agreement gave] the province autonomy in matters of religion, customary law (adat), and education. The second insurgency, started in 1976 with the establishment of the [GAM] Like the Darul Islam rebellion, it was triggered by unhappy center/periphery relations—namely the removal of special status in all but name. - The Free Aceh Movement (GAM): Anatomy of a Separatist Organization - Kirsten E. Schulze
- -Under Suharto the government became increasingly centralized in Jakarta. The years of autonomy in name only, during which foreign companies and Javanese settlers were awarded contracts to harvest Aceh’s substantial natural resources at the expense of the indigenous population, along with a repressive military presence, served to embitter many in Aceh. - Indonesia’s Aceh Conflict
We don't need to provide the specifec laws or Presidential decresses that were passed as that would involve original research and under Wikipedia policy original research is not allowed. What everyone has provided are sources that show that the Indonesian government under Suharto did reverse the autonomy status.-- Esemono (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- My understanding is that at least officially, the province kept its autonomy status. Is that correct? Further, the statement " the Indonesian government, in all but name, REVERSED the special autonomy status of Aceh" might be more accurate than simply saying something along the lines of "the Indonesian govt maintained the provinces autonomy status." However, User:Esemono's wording, even if it provides more than just the official account, is a paraphrased and proving a little provocative to an editor. It seems your preferred wording is merely carrying on the simplistic phrasing of the sources - ie, it seems to be telling us autonomy was all but officially revoked without actually showing. It seems you are quoting opinion (albeit presumably reliable opinion), rather than facts/events. So, why not provide how it was effectively revoked, rather than just asking the reader to take our word for it? Ie (from my limited understanding of the situation): "While, the Indonesian Government officially maintained Aceh's autonomy [or agreeable words to that effect], however, foreign companies and Javanese settlers were awarded contracts to harvest Aceh’s substantial natural resources at the expense of the indigenous population, along with a repressive military presence, served to embitter many in Aceh. " While I tend to lean towards accepting your "version" of Aceh, it doesn't necessarily mean it's been appropriately handled in the correct wikipedia way - your preferred wording seems very editorialised. WIkipedia is about facts, not opinion. I don't think you have the wrong idea - I lean towards what you are trying to do - but I think the implementation could be improved. Show, don't tell. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 04:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- How exactly can I show it? Do you want me to research how he reversed on my own and then publish the results of my original research on wikipedia? I'm far from an expert which is why I'm relying on people who are aka reliable sources. Far from trying to antagonize the ANON user I'm just trying to tell what the sources say while removing obvious POV, i.e. making up words like ethnic-chauvinism. I mean I thought by using facts and quotes and not changing or altering what the original sources say was the correct way. So I should rewrite what the sources say? -- Esemono (talk) 09:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Semi-protected
editI have just semi-protected the article for two weeks as the IP editor is continuing their edit warring. This will prevent it from being edited by both unregistered and newly-registered editors. This appears to be the best way of tamping down this dispute as there appears to be a consensus on the article's content which is being disrupted by an editor using a dynamic IP (and hence is difficult to block through the usual means). The IP editor will still be able to edit this talk page, and I again encourage them to make use of it. Nick-D (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- I support the actions of Nick-D. I've been watching this page for a long time, with frustration due to the constant reverts. Since one side of the dispute is always this single IP, who declines to register, and shows up with a different address every time, I'm inclined to think he is not editing in good faith. Notice the comment about war-like talk of numerical superiority. I think that's his way of admitting that the consensus is against him. EdJohnston (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- semi-protect still allows the anon to use the talk page, right??? I am glad the edit warring has stopped, but it not be fair to stop the anon having their say here. Thanks. --Merbabu (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- He has an account now, Povo-Maubere. -- Esemono (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yep; the talk page is not protected in any way. Nick-D (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- semi-protect still allows the anon to use the talk page, right??? I am glad the edit warring has stopped, but it not be fair to stop the anon having their say here. Thanks. --Merbabu (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Hassan di Tiro's alliance with Libya and other separatist movements
editHasan di Tiro helped Gaddafi support the Free Papua Movement, the Kanak faction in New Caledonia, the South Maluku Separatists, and the Moro separatists in the Philippines.
Republic of South Maluku Papua conflict Free Papua Movement Moro insurgency in the Philippines Kanak and Socialist National Liberation Front
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Libyan+terrorism:+the+case+against+Gaddafi.-a014151801
the time, the Libyan government was reportedly providing military or other support to the East Timor Liberation Movement, the Kanak Socialist National Liberation Front (New Caledonia), and the Free Papua Movement (Irian Jaya) as well as to Muslim guerrillas in the Philippines.
Page 18
COLONEL GADDAFI'S shadowy international revolutionary organisation Mathaba, established in the Libyan capital of ...Hassan di Tiro himself makes the crucial decisions, and runs a personal network of contacts with the liberation movement leaders Libya supports, among them Jacob Prai of the OPM (Free Papua Movement) of West Papua and Yann Ce- tene Uregei of New Caledonia's Kanak radical faction,
Page 120
In the past year Gaddafi's agents have offered arms and cash to rebels in Papua New Guinea, encouraged an aboriginal separatist movement in Australia, shipped weapons to dissidents in New Caledonia and tried to open an office in the
The insurgency
http://uca.edu/politicalscience/dadm-project/asiapacific-region/indonesiaaceh-1949-present/
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/1999/01/indo-j06.html
http://reliefweb.int/report/indonesia/aceh-rebels-kill-six-indonesian-soldiers-ambush
https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/29297
http://www.solidarity-us.org/site/node/891
http://www.sacw.net/Wmov/RCoomaraswamyOnHonour.html
http://www.reocities.com/CapitolHill/4120/unletter.html
http://home.snafu.de/watchin/Coomaraswamy.htm
Rajmaan (talk) 03:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
More sources
edithttp://www.thefreelibrary.com/Libyan+terrorism:+the+case+against+Gaddafi.-a014151801
the time, the Libyan government was reportedly providing military or other support to the East Timor Liberation Movement, the Kanak Socialist National Liberation Front (New Caledonia), and the Free Papua Movement (Irian Jaya) as well as to Muslim guerrillas in the Philippines.
Title Pacific Islands Monthly, Volume 59 Publisher Pacific Publications., 1988 Original from the University of Michigan Digitized Sep 15, 2008
Page 18
COLONEL GADDAFI'S shadowy international revolutionary organisation Mathaba, established in the Libyan capital of Tripoli and dispensing funds to liberation movements around the world, is run by a most unlikely radical. Tunku Mohammed Hassan di Tiro, a Sumatran prince, fervent Muslim and bitter opponent of Indonesia, is the chairman of Mathaba's political committee.... Hassan di Tiro himself makes the crucial decisions, and runs a personal network of contacts with the liberation movement leaders Libya supports, among them Jacob Prai of the OPM (Free Papua Movement) of West Papua and Yann Ce- tene Uregei of New Caledonia's Kanak radical faction,
In an exclusive interview with Pacific Islands Monthly, at his headquarters in Tripoli, he outlined Mathaba's organisation and aims for the Asia Pacific region. The Mathaba Against Imperialism, Racism, Zionism and Fascism, to give the front its
the various independence movements active across the Indonesian Archipelago, including his own Aceh Sumatra Liberation Front. "We are making advances against Indonesia, both on the ground and diplomatically, with Fretilin (East Timor Liberation Front), the OPM, the Republic of the South Moluccas; we are all one.
Title Pacific Islands Monthly: PIM., Volume 59, Issues 1-10 Publisher Pacific Publications, 1988 Original from the University of Virginia Digitized Apr 8, 2009
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,964515,00.html
Page 120
In the past year Gaddafi's agents have offered arms and cash to rebels in Papua New Guinea, encouraged an aboriginal separatist movement in Australia, shipped weapons to dissidents in New Caledonia and tried to open an office in the
Hasan di Tiro's writings against Indonesia and Javanese
editHassan called Indonesian rule over Aceh and other places like East Timor, West Papua and the Moluccas as Javanese domination.
Tiro engaged in racist rhetoric against Javanese, calling them "barbarians", "stupid", "insolent", relatives of monkeys, and insinuated that they were descended from Pithecanthropus erectus.
http://books.google.com/books?id=ArvtbBOPwGIC&pg=PT126#v=onepage&q&f=false
Hasan put the Javanese on the same level as the Dutch as colonialists
Title The Price of Freedom: The Unfinished Diary, Volume 1 The Price of Freedom: The Unfinished Diary, National Liberation Front Acheh Sumatra. Information Dept Author Hasan Muhammad Tiro Contributor National Liberation Front Acheh Sumatra. Information Dept Publisher Information Department, National Liberation Front Acheh Sumatra
556
330
49
292
28
9
166
http://sakauhendro.wordpress.com/arsip-arsip-sejarah-aceh/
http://acehnet.tripod.com/declare.htm
The drama of acehnese history 1873 1978
http://en.bookfi.org/book/1320922
http://bookre.org/reader?file=1320922
http://www.acehbooks.org/search/detail/4169?language=ind
http://www.acehbooks.org/pdf/00371.pdf
http://www.scribd.com/doc/89450652
THE PRICE OF FREEDOM: The unfinished diary of Tengku Hasan di Tiro
President
NATIONAL LIBERATION FRONT OF ACHEH SUMATRA
https://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/15440234/1577860515/name/thepriceoffreedom.pdf
http://www.slideshare.net/chairul4bdi/the-price-of-freedom-unfinished-diary-by-hasan-di-tiro
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Hasan di Tiro. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081013130010/http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/10/12/hasan-tiro-visits-aceh039s-hero-graves.html to http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/10/12/hasan-tiro-visits-aceh039s-hero-graves.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081030151630/http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/ross/ResourcesRebellion.pdf to http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/ross/ResourcesRebellion.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081015001214/http://www.asnlf.net/asnlf_int/abaut_us/headofthestate/walinangroe.htm to http://www.asnlf.net/asnlf_int/abaut_us/headofthestate/walinangroe.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) 02:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hasan di Tiro. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140429050729/http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/06/04/citizen-hasan-di-tiro-dies-%E2%80%98dignified-end-conflict%E2%80%99.html to http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/06/04/citizen-hasan-di-tiro-dies-%E2%80%98dignified-end-conflict%E2%80%99.html
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) 11:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)