Talk:Suharto/Archives/2012/December
Latest comment: 11 years ago by SatuSuro in topic support for timor invasion
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Suharto. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
support for timor invasion
Potentially an issue where an editor has reinserted the comment re us english and australian de facto support - there is no WP:RS provided to verify this, even if anecdotal material might suggest this to be possible - I would suggest the claim that there was support needs to have something of substance to substantiate, rather than an assertion that the fact is important SatuSuro 02:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- It's the not the factual accuracy. It's the relevance to the lead of a biography. It's tangential to Suharto. If it must be in the article it can be in the main section. --Merbabu (talk) 03:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think it is silly to question that the West, especially the US, was supporting Suharto with monetary, military, and diplomatic aid. It is also nearly as silly to question the importance of this aid, and no reason has been given as to why the information should be removed. I hope a mention of the active western support for the invasion of East Timor by Suharto is kept in the lead. *Editted, I do not think anyone is being a vandal here - dealing with pro-Israel accounts has made me unfairly untrusting, sorry* Sepsis II (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- For starters, please don't accuse good faith editors of vandalism. Or say that no reason has been given, when a reason (ie, irrelevance to the lead) was provided in edit summaries and above. Neither is polite.
- As has been said, no one is questioning US support, etc. Rather, it's the relevance to the lead of a biographical article of Suharto. It's in the article - there's a section devoted to East Timor. The lead is for the most pertinent facts about Suharto the man. Why is this fact SO critical to an article on Suharto - indeed more critical than almost all the info in this article??? YOu do not have consensus for your change. thank you --Merbabu (talk) 22:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Colleagues -- Since I was one of the ones who seems to have encouraged this exchange (apologies for helping start a fuss), I'd like to buy in briefly at this point. As I understand it, this discussion is about whether the words "which received de facto support from the United States, United Kingdom and Australia at the time" should be inserted at a point where there is reference to the invasion of East Timor. Our colleague Merbabu, who has done an enormous amount of excellent work on the Suharto (although I prefer 'Soeharto') page, thinks that these words would best be excluded. He is not opposed, as I understand it, to the incorporation of this point some somewhere on Wikipedia. Rather, I understand that he is of the view that the point is not relevant to the lead of a biographical article. Within this context, my own vote is for the words to go back into the article. My reason is as follows. It seems to me clear that in the minds of many observers, especially in Western countries, the invasion of East Timor is a very black mark against Suharto. This is one of the things they judge him harshly for. Well -- if this view is indeed widely held, and if it is part of the judgement that is made about Suharto -- then it seems to me important that observers understand (because they may not understand) the context in which Suharto made his decision. In a sense, the decision to invade East Timor was not just Suharto's decision. It was a decision -- an act -- that emerged slowly over a period of time. And it was an act that Western governments came to expect to occur, and which they reluctantly concurred in. Many Western observers may not realise this. It is important that they do because it (the attitude of Western governments ) is an important fact in making judgements about Suharto, the man. Thus I would prefer that the words be left in. But if there are strong feelings about this, then I don't plan to pursue the matter. (I'd note that this whole agonising business of the incorporation of East Timor and the events of 1975 are set out in minute detail in the records published by the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs at Wendy Way (ed.), Documents on Foreign Policy: Australia and the Indonesian Incorporation of Portugese Timor, 1974-1976, Melbourne, Melbourne University Press, 883 pages.) Pmccawley (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Like I said, put it into the article. But why in the lead?? Each comment I've made on this question (including my edit summaries) is about its relevance to the lead. Yet no-one insisting on it being in the lead, has said why it should be in the lead. Is it really that critical that it just must be in the lead? --Merbabu (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- PS - I've added it to the section on East Timor, because it actually wasn't in the main article. I'm so used to see large sections devoted to "Western/US involvement/conspiracy/evil" that I falsely assumed it was there. here --Merbabu (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks to Merbabu. Actually -- although it is not important -- this is not the point I was focusing on myself. However, I'll let my point go now. I just want to say thanks to Merbabu for aiming to accommodate different views. This is a generous approach which I appreciate. Pmccawley (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Until you mentioned it here, I didn't get the intent to show that Suharto was operating in context and to show that it wasn't all him. I still think that readers (myself included) interpret that as an admonishment of west - and, in my opinion, an opportunistic but irrelevant admonishment which is all too common on wikipedia. Further, if we are going to turn some of the, um, blame to western countries, then shouldn't we also mention the Cold War strategic environment. Remember at this time, the Suharto administration was still youngish, not as strong as it was to become, and in recent years Indonesia had lurched far to the left - the West was keen to keep them as a non-communist ally. Maybe in retrospect the West was paranoid (as in Vietnam??) but that was the view at the time. --Merbabu (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand this point (that some readers interpret references to the Western role as an admonishment to the West). Actually, that is not my intention at all (although I understand that some people might see it that way). Rather, I agree entirely that entries on Wikipedia should not be aiming to take up an advocacy line. My main concern is that the final decision to invade East Timor should at least be seen within some (brief) context. Suharto was not the only actor. There were many actors, including numerous Western diplomats and leaders. It is best that people who judge Suharto (for good or for ill) are aware of this. That's really my only point. I have no broader agenda in mind. Pmccawley (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with you... in the article. In the lede, that's a bit much. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Until you mentioned it here, I didn't get the intent to show that Suharto was operating in context and to show that it wasn't all him. I still think that readers (myself included) interpret that as an admonishment of west - and, in my opinion, an opportunistic but irrelevant admonishment which is all too common on wikipedia. Further, if we are going to turn some of the, um, blame to western countries, then shouldn't we also mention the Cold War strategic environment. Remember at this time, the Suharto administration was still youngish, not as strong as it was to become, and in recent years Indonesia had lurched far to the left - the West was keen to keep them as a non-communist ally. Maybe in retrospect the West was paranoid (as in Vietnam??) but that was the view at the time. --Merbabu (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks to Merbabu. Actually -- although it is not important -- this is not the point I was focusing on myself. However, I'll let my point go now. I just want to say thanks to Merbabu for aiming to accommodate different views. This is a generous approach which I appreciate. Pmccawley (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Colleagues -- Since I was one of the ones who seems to have encouraged this exchange (apologies for helping start a fuss), I'd like to buy in briefly at this point. As I understand it, this discussion is about whether the words "which received de facto support from the United States, United Kingdom and Australia at the time" should be inserted at a point where there is reference to the invasion of East Timor. Our colleague Merbabu, who has done an enormous amount of excellent work on the Suharto (although I prefer 'Soeharto') page, thinks that these words would best be excluded. He is not opposed, as I understand it, to the incorporation of this point some somewhere on Wikipedia. Rather, I understand that he is of the view that the point is not relevant to the lead of a biographical article. Within this context, my own vote is for the words to go back into the article. My reason is as follows. It seems to me clear that in the minds of many observers, especially in Western countries, the invasion of East Timor is a very black mark against Suharto. This is one of the things they judge him harshly for. Well -- if this view is indeed widely held, and if it is part of the judgement that is made about Suharto -- then it seems to me important that observers understand (because they may not understand) the context in which Suharto made his decision. In a sense, the decision to invade East Timor was not just Suharto's decision. It was a decision -- an act -- that emerged slowly over a period of time. And it was an act that Western governments came to expect to occur, and which they reluctantly concurred in. Many Western observers may not realise this. It is important that they do because it (the attitude of Western governments ) is an important fact in making judgements about Suharto, the man. Thus I would prefer that the words be left in. But if there are strong feelings about this, then I don't plan to pursue the matter. (I'd note that this whole agonising business of the incorporation of East Timor and the events of 1975 are set out in minute detail in the records published by the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs at Wendy Way (ed.), Documents on Foreign Policy: Australia and the Indonesian Incorporation of Portugese Timor, 1974-1976, Melbourne, Melbourne University Press, 883 pages.) Pmccawley (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think it is silly to question that the West, especially the US, was supporting Suharto with monetary, military, and diplomatic aid. It is also nearly as silly to question the importance of this aid, and no reason has been given as to why the information should be removed. I hope a mention of the active western support for the invasion of East Timor by Suharto is kept in the lead. *Editted, I do not think anyone is being a vandal here - dealing with pro-Israel accounts has made me unfairly untrusting, sorry* Sepsis II (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think it's not needed in the lede, although mentioning it in the article is certainly necessary. We should keep this article focused on the man. A presidency of Suharto (or the existing New Order (Indonesia) article could mention Western and IMF roles in more detail. Sure, he was much more pro-West than Sukarno... but he had a lot more about him that we have to put in the lede. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- From the above comments - I would suggest that the mention in the lead paragraph (the edited item) is simply not appropriate - the credentials of those who have commented here is well above the average editor when it comes to understanding the issues. To re-insert the comment in the lede of a bio of a complex leader in a complex situation is the point of silliness - in view of the above comments - and not the other way around. SatuSuro 12:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)