Talk:Suharto/Archives/2012/July

Problems of references for Suharto/Soeharto

There is, it seems to me, a rather important problem (which seems to leads to a worrying bias) in referencing matters relating to Suharto/Soeharto on Wikipedia. The problem is easy enough to state -- it is that English-language sources (which Wikipedia tends to understandably prefer for references) are probably, systematically, more critical of Suharto/Soeharto than are Indonesian-language sources (which Wikipedia understandably discourages relying on for references). On one hand, it's easy enough to appreciate the preference for English-language references on Wikipedia. But on the other hand, what does one do when this preference seems to lead to a systematic bias? The bias arises (if it does indeed arise, and I guess there would be different views about this) because within Indonesia, in the Indonesian-language literature, there is more sympathy for Suharto/Soeharto than in the international literature. Certainly the debate about the role and place of Suharto/Soeharto in Indonesian history within Indonesia has a quite different flavour to the international debate. Recent important books about Suharto/Soeharto published within Indonesia (both 2011) include (a) Wiranto, "7 tahun menggali pemikiran dan tindakan Pak Harto", ISBN 978-602-8112-12-3 and (b) Mahpudi et al, "Pak Harto: the untold stories", ISBN 978-979-22-7131-1. It is true that both books are written by authors who are sympathetic to Suharto/Soeharto. But on the other hand, quite a bit of the international literature is written by authors who are critical of Suharto/Soeharto. And the latter book, by Mahpudi et al provides a remarkable picture of Pak Harto (as they refer to him). I have no easy solution to this problem. The purpose of this current post is simply to note that the bias seems to exist and that there doesn't seem to be an easy solution. Pmccawley (talk) 07:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• I haven't seen if its included in the article, but Retnowati Abdulgani-Knapp has a 300 page biography of Suharto that is decidedly sympathetic to him as well. Have it on my shelf, but I found myself chortling at how much seemed to be swept under the rug when she was writing it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

A disparity between Indonesian and English sources seems feasible. I'm not sure though that I'd go as far as calling it systematic bias.

Personally, I try to use several of the major and more recent history books by established Indonesia historians such as Ricklefs, Schwarz, Vickers, Cribb, and Friend. Being broad in their scope, the books tend to be a bit more conservative in the pronouncements of opinion, etc, and hence less likely to be biased or forward strong positions. On the other hand, where we are likely to see strong anti-Suharto positions from the international field are in shorter opinion pieces and journal articles advocating a position (the fact that they are often found on, or linked from, sites such as International Socialist Review or Green Left Weekly is a good clue). This paragraph, part of which I've removed in that diff, is what I'm talking about. On the other hand, this paragraph sourced from Ricklefs and Schwarz's books is a little more partial (and I probably didn't paraphrase it enough!) --Merbabu (talk) 08:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to both Crisco and Merbabu for your very rapid response. I did not expect this and I appreciate it. My own view (which will be clear from my comment above) is that there is quite a problem. The problem is: How do we present a balanced view of Suharto/Soeharto? I'm not even sure that it's possible, is it? Depending on who you talk to, there are very different views. My own impression (and it is no more than an impression) is that the general view of Suharto/Soeharto is more favourable inside Indonesia than overseas. But what is a "general view"?? Who measures a "general view"?? I'd note (in support of the argument that the general view of Suharto/Soeharto inside Indonesia is different to the international view) that just in the past few weeks in Jakarta there have been political banners showing the picture of Suharto/Soeharto which are intended to muster support for various political candidates. I'd also note that so far as I can see, there is no doubt at all (no doubt at all, so far as I can see) that very significant parts of the Indonesian population hold Suharto/Soeharto in high regard. But one might ask: So what? Many controversial leaders through the 20th Century still attract strong support in various quarters. My own conclusion is that (a) there is still quite a difference between the domestic (Indonesian) and international view of Suharto/Soeharto, and (b) it is quite difficult to reconcile these views. And thanks to Crisco and Merbabu for your generous responses. Pmccawley (talk) 08:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• A domestic views section or something may be worthwhile. I plan on adding a paragraph about international views to Sudirman after it passes GA (on the road to FA) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I would support in any of the articles sections that explain the differing views (domestic views and foreign views). When in Java a long time ago I was able to show a couple of old australian academics photos of the Indonesian members of the 'old order' on display in a Yogya museum the subsequent conversation ran into a differentiation as to how these two felt the about how the members of the old and new order related to them as researchers, or inquirers. Something as simple as the distinction at the inter-personal level of interactions, I believe would have been an indication of how some commentators on the two 'orders' might see their subjects. I would suspect also that domestically the factors are further complicated by the ethnic views of Karno and Harto - I have suspicions as to their legacies being universal across the archipelago... SatuSuro 12:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Valid point, I'd expect ethnic Chinese or Papuans to be much more condemnatory of Suharto than Javanese, for sure. (Heaven knows Setiono blasted the Old Order for something like 300 pages in his Tionghoa dalam Pusaran Politik) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd be reluctant to see a views (both positive and negative) section, or even try to add more views/opinions within the existing article structure. While there is a school of thought on wikipedia (and it's arguably the prevailing one) that neutrality is about presenting all the views and opinions, why not just stick to the facts and not people's opinions about them? Isn't that more straightforward? Why not simply state "Suharto did X" and not have to follow up with A, B, C, D and E's varying opinions of X? Why not just say that "during his Presidency, Y happened" and why do we need to mention what F, G, H, and I have opined about Y? The lead does explicitly state that his legacy is controversial but perhaps that should be the limit to it. Actually, the article currently is not too excessive in listing opinions at the moment. I would not be keen to see us start inserting more. Just saying. :) Of course, this is just an editing principal and the implementation and maintenance is not quite as simple as I imply here, but its a good principle in my view. --Merbabu (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

A valid point - to a certain extent, where an individuals reputation is known to be controversial there is a need to explaib why SatuSuro 23:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Article scope...

Now that there seems to currently be several sets of considered eyes on this talk page, it might be a good time to bring up a little issue I was mulling over yesterday while editing this page, and the New Order (Indonesia) page. What info should go into which page?

I propose the following, and I don't think it's that controversial or illogical, or indeed to far removed from what we have. It would just be good to get some confirmation (or otherwise)...

• This article is about the life of an individual. He had a childhood, an army early career, and then became President and centre of the New Order. He then lived for another decade or so after his Presidency,.
• The New Order article is about a government that was effectively in power from 65/66 to 1998. The article should essentially detail those 32 years of government and include a section on how it came to be established and its "downfall" (noting that there are two separate articles that can detail the establishment and downfall). While Suharto was at its centre it's scope as it relates to the government can be broader and the article can go into more detail than the Suharto article. This article also serves as an important link the so-called "History of Indonesia" - i.e., a chapter between the Guided Democracy and the Post Suharto articles.

The articles should certainly not be a mirror of each other for the 65-98 period. But, there's obviously going to be quite a bit of overlap in the articles. That's not a problem and its inherently going to be so given the centrality of Suharto to the New Order. But the articles' respective coverage of that 32 years can be differently if only subtly focussed. The New Order article will be longer in its discussion of the 65-98 years. And the Suharto article should be attempt to focus more on Suharto the individual in these years.

A good example to emulate, or at least get hints from, would be the John Howard and Howard Government articles. The scope, and respective overlap and differences are defined similarly to as described above,

The only other thing to keep in mind is that the Suharto article averages around 500 views per day whereas the New Order averages less than 80. It would be nice to get the New Order article to have just as many views. Perhaps we could look at how the New Order article is linked through out this article, but more importantly throughout wikipedia in general.

regards --Merbabu (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps, although looking at FAs like Barack Obama looks like consensus is we should generally include information about his government policies. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

But of course. This article should mention all the main points of Suhartos New Order. It's just that the New Order article can be longer and more detailed in its coverage of those years. And I suggest all this as a long term objective. I'm not about to slash and dice immediately. :) --Merbabu (talk) 23:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Indeed. Hmm... I'm thinking key policies and government efforts to include would be the invasion of East Timor, the KB (birth control programme, which really should have its own article as it was one of their biggest successes), his multiple five year development schemes, discriminatory/repressive laws instated, corruption and human rights issues, the Suharto family foundations, and definitely discussion of how he oriented the country to be more cooperative with other countries (rather than just say "to hell with your aid"). That sounds like the most key points. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I support inclusion of all of those points in both articles. In most cases it can be a brief but to the point mention in this article. --Merbabu (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The current article on Suharto seems to me very good (and I note, checking out the statistics on contributors that Merbabu, amongst others, has done a huge amount of the good work). My own views on the points above are (a) the current article on Suharto is now perhaps long enough, so (b) we need, if possible, to find ways of putting in additional information in new (linked, of course) articles, and (c) the distinction between an article about a person, on one hand, and a government, on the other, seems a useful approach. If we created new pages over time on selected subjects of importance (keluarga berencana, rice policies, rural development, international affairs, etc) then we could link them to main articles on both (i) Suharto, and (ii) the Orde Baru government. (A final point I'd make in passing which is not really relevant to the points just made is that it seems rather remarkable that the page for Suharto gets more hits than the page for SBY (15,362 vs 13,668 in the last 30 days, respectively). I don't know what to make of this. It tells us something -- although quite what it tells us isn't at all clear to me.) Pmccawley (talk) 01:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• They should be included in at least summary (a paragraph, perhaps), like at Barack Obama.

Regarding the page hits, it's really weird sometimes. Some obscure nude photographs have more hits than either of the two. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Crisco (thanks). For me the Barack Obama page works well. This would be a good way to go. Pmccawley (talk) 02:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

OK. And like Suharto's and John Howard's coverage, there is also a Presidency of Barack Obama article. :) --Merbabu (talk) 02:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Which in turn means that there is the possibilty offshoot articles regarding suharto's rule and the new order era that can be linked from this article... rather than clutter this one SatuSuro 02:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)