Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Horhey420 (talk | contribs) at 08:00, 19 July 2012 (→Discussion of recent edits). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Indonesian mass killings of 1965–66 received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Indonesia B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IndonesiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate:WikiProject IndonesiaIndonesia B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Socialism B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Death B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Indonesian mass killings of 1965–66 appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 20 June 2008, and was viewed approximately 650 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that the anti-communist Indonesian killings of 1965–66 resulted in more deaths than any other event in Indonesian history? A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2008/June.

New article

I put this article up last night (15 June 2008) after having worked on it in my user space. Before the criticisms on apparent omissions, writing style, and god-forbid POV accusations fly, let me say that while I thought it “good enough” to post in main space, I’m not pretending it is “complete”. It’s a sensitive and contentious topic, and I still intent to work on additional info, additional sources, prose (still awkward in parts), and general formatting. Any assistance and constructive rather than accusatory feedback would be most appreciated. Would love to have some photos or other graphics, but I doubt there is much around – great effort was made at the time to ensure that there wasn’t in the way of images.

I also intend linking the article from numerous other articles, and also trimming down the coverage of the killings in other articles not that the detail is here. The main but summarised punch lines will of course stay in related articles such as Suharto and History of Indonesia – just not all the details. Regards --Merbabu (talk) 01:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

hello, Merbabu. can you add the reference for "McDonald (1980)" in the References section, please? thanks. kmc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.137.65 (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ooops - I forgot. It's in there now. thanks for the heads up. --Merbabu (talk) 00:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

U.S., Australian and British involvement

Some info is repeating info already in the earlier parts of the article and other articles that could be linked SatuSuro 04:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

yeah, some is repeated, but it's not too bad. A little bit of tweaking will help. --Merbabu (talk) 04:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

PS, this section is also probably a bit too long/detailed and over does the quotations, but again, it's not too bad and there's no great rush to tweak. regards --Merbabu (talk) 05:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

What happened to this section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.105.206 (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree this is important and should be included, but this particular writing (it seems) reasonably removed, as noted in History, "(rm this whole section as it is plagiarised from the source )"--see http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Indonesian_killings_of_1965%E2%80%9366&diff=222145392&oldid=221863322 Doprendek (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Current article...

--Merbabu (talk) 13:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ie, that's a link to a recent newspaper article about the events in this article. Could be useful. --Merbabu (talk) 09:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Removal of referenced content

User:TheTimesAreAChanging is currently going through dozens of articles and removing reliably sourced information which he believes reflects negatively on the United States. He removed a large amount of content from the U.S. involvement section, with no valid information for why it was being removed. I have restored it, and request that TheTimesAreAChanging stop removing reliably sourced content here and elsewhere. I think the content should be integrated throughout the article, rather than in it's own section, because really the U.S. was playing a role in the affair from its beginning to its end. What should not be done is removing content that is backed by reliable sources, just because we don't like what it says. Misplaced Pages is not censored, and we need to adhere to WP:NPOV which means including ALL perspectives in reliable sources -- not just those that paint our favored nation in a positive light. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It's disturbing that you would seek to go through all my edits and revert them just because we disagreed on a different article. Apparently, that's how you came here. For the record, two other editors agreed with the changes; none objected.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It is irrelevant how many editors agreed with you here. You cannot remove content that is backed by reliable sources without an explanation. You need to, for each statement/source you remove, explain why the source does not satisfy WP:RS or why the content does not belong in the article. Are you refusing to provide such an explanation? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Now, Jrtayloriv, if you are interested in being serious: Drop the vendetta. Don't monitor everything I do and revert it without thinking. I'm not "currently" going through "dozens" of articles and deleting "reliably sourced material". If you notice, I was very careful to include all the main accusations against the US in this section. I merely trimmed the ludicrously excessive, copied-and-pasted masses of text from Horhey420 and added other countries. The New York Times piece is basically a rebuttal of Kadane, so I was surprised to see it used out of context to support her. The section should not be larger than all of the rest of the article. The sourcing and one-sidedness was not even a primary concern; it was hardly readable. If there is another allegation you wish to add, then tell us. What other sources or claims should we add? It does matter that all of the editors familar with this topic formed a consensus that trimming was obviously needed.

TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

A few things...

• The previous version of that section was by far the longest section in the article. Indeed, it was longer than some of the other sections combined. This suggests that so-called "US involvement" was the most signficant issue of the whole subject when it was a peripheral issue. Yes, I tagged the section as too long and disppoportionate a long time ago. It was often removed without my knowledge. On at least one occassion it was removed at the same time new content was added.
• The previous version selectively cherry-picked through the sources to include only info that painted the US in a bad light.
• Of the info it included, it actually misrepresented the sources.
• The previous version did not include the very important (more important?) fact that most of the arms used were of Chinese or Soviet origin.
• Much of the sources used are actually disputed.
• Accuracy of content aside, it was stuipidly detailed mentioning specific cables, etc, etc. It read like a court document. The rest of the articles is not in such detail.

Personally, I don't even want to see a separate section. If the info is relevant and reliable then it can be in the article, but interspersed at the appropriate point. Currently, it sticks out like a dumping spot complete with red flag for anyone with an axe to grind. But that's my opinion, I appreciate others may disagree (particualy those who like inserting "US Involvement" sections in these types of articles), and as such I have not (yet) decided whether this is a battle I want to pick.

Whatever issue Jrtayloriv may have with TheTimesAreAChanging's edits in other articles are irrelevant to this article. TheTimesAreAChanging's edits here are a vast improvement. It certainly is lot more accurate and neutral than it was. To reinstate it would be to make the article both biased and inaccurate. regards --Merbabu (talk) 03:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Merbabu. All I will say is that if Jrtayloriv wants to restore some text, I would much prefer that he explain why here. The whole section had to be redone. Most of the sources were misrepresented or distorted in appalling ways by Horhey420, and so much of it was either copied and pasted or excessively detailed that it is absurd to suggest that I need to justify in detail why I removed each sentence. Even if I did, he could still take issue with my interpretation of what key sentences should be kept and which trimmed.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so you remove ALL OF IT instead of IMPROVING on it or ADDING to it? Please prove your assertion that "Much of the sources used are actually disputed", "inaccurate" or "misrepresented or distorted in appalling ways"? How so? US GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS are disputed? Information from the Director of the Indonesian documentation project at the National Security Archives is disputed? Thats all I used. That's it. Only those sources. Please prove me wrong. Show me. Debunk my information and I will go away. You're using information from some authors book and Im using US government documents.--Horhey420 (talk) 09:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

(after edit conflict). "ALL OF IT" was not removed. You clearly have a problem writing accurately. What part of "it's too long" and "undue weight" don't you understand? One does not have to go to excessive detail to assert a point. It can be said in a few sentences if required with no loss of impact (as are the rest of the points in the article). Why is "ADDING" to it such an imperative? An please cut out the "shame on you" moralising and try and be objective. --Merbabu (talk) 09:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You dont understand. Im not really talking to you. User:TheTimesAreAChanging erased over a months work of information I added to another page. ALL of it. Gone. No reason. Just cause he didnt like it. Said it wasnt pretty enough. Anyways. It wasnt all that excessive because at the end Washington confirms that they were deeply involved in helping to facilitate the killings. I was just giving as many details as possible.--Horhey420 (talk) 09:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

If your issue is with another editor and/or other articles, then this talk page is not the place. Don't take your personal battles (no matter how noble) across wikipedia. If you continue to fight other battles on this page, I will ask for administrator assistance/advice.

It is excessive to be longer and so much more detailed than all other sections, including longer than a few section combined. Why does that section need soooo much detail, and so much more compared to the others? Yet every other section is summarised in form. I really fail to see how this point is so hard to understand. You don't need "to give as many details as possible". In fact, it's more than counterproductive. Just state the main points clearly and concisely. --Merbabu (talk) 09:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me give you an example. How do you remove this?

"DCM made clear that Embassy and USG generally sympathetic with and admiring of what army doing." http://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/johnsonlb/xxvi/4446.htm

That's a key point.

Also this one..

The State Department urged the Embassy to make this known to Suharto's army: "The next few days, weeks or months may offer unprecedented opportunities for us to begin to influence people and events ... Small arms and equipment may be needed to deal with the PKI ... As events develop, the army may find itself in major military campaigns against PKI, and we must be ready for that contingency." http://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/johnsonlb/xxvi/4445.htm

And finnally..

Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara informed President Johnson: "I believe that our Military Assistance Program to Indonesia during the past few years contributed significantly to the Army's pro-US orientation and encouraged it to move against the PKI when the opportunity was presented." http://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/johnsonlb/xxvi/4435.htm

How you leave all this out and then say US involvement is still an "open question?"--Horhey420 (talk) 10:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

If you're not going to address my points (which I made first), then I don't see a need to answer yours (again). How come you didn't mention Sukarno's USSR and China relations? Or that most of the arms used were from these countries? Why not provide an equal amount of excessively loooooooong and detailed info on this? Or maybe you could just write a few clear sentences forming a paragraph on each? Or you'd rather just make a long list of biased condemnations against the US only? --Merbabu (talk) 10:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I knew it. Politics.. That's what this is about. You cant answer my question because there is no justification. Cling to your "communist conspiracy" theme. I'll turn it on its head and show things you'll want to forget.--Horhey420 (talk) 10:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you are not making sense. If you think I belong to the communist conspiracy brigade then you are gravely mistaken. The article (mostly my words) don't suggest that, and none of the changes I support to your "US is evil" section detract from that. Indeed, I am very proud of the fact that this article has been translated in full into INdonesian wikipedia and is a feature article there. I'm very proud that this is receiving the WP coverage in Indonesia (because being so knowledgeable on the topic, you already know that the 1/2million deaths is still not discussed or taught in Indonesia).

Unless you become a bit more objective and stop with all the hyperbole and emotion, then this discussion cannot continue.--Merbabu (talk) 10:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You should already know that when I did my edits the section was called "US Involvement". Not "US/Soviet/Chinese Involvement" or "Foreign Involvement" as it is now. That is why I suspect you.--Horhey420 (talk) 10:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Btw. I will be happy to show you why the "communist conspiracy" theme is without merit, this case particularly.--Horhey420 (talk) 10:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so now it's time to answer my question. How you leave all that out and then say US involvement is still an open question?--Horhey420 (talk) 11:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say it was an open question. I just said one doesn't need 1/2 the article to make a point. Why should US involvement be many times longer than any other section? YOu still cannot answer that. --Merbabu (talk) 11:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Nah, you have it as an open question right now. That's not by accident. Goodbye.--Horhey420 (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I dont understand what you mean ("open question"?) so I cannot respond. Or that you "suspect" me. Niether make any sense. Ciao. --Merbabu (talk) 21:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

User:TheTimesAreAChanging you...You know what you're doing wrong. I dont have to tell you.--Horhey420 (talk) 09:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Horhey420, I've warned you about these outbursts. You need to stop posting rambling, hyperbolic, overly emotional personal attacks on talk pages. The Chinese and Soviets were involved, and that's not a "communist conspiracy" theory. You went through the New York Times article and selectively took "facts" and "quotes", often from people who later disavowed them, and deliberately removed all the claims that didn't make the US look bad. You're a propagandist. You combined irrelevant documents to add to the synthesis. For example, you added a CIA report from decades later that called the killings one of the worst massacres of the twentieth century. What are we to learn from that? That the CIA only knows this because they were involved? That the CIA takes pride in Nazi-like tactics? And you inserted this claim, with the rest of your copy and paste garbage, in a totally random place in the middle of the article where it interrupted the flow. Misplaced Pages doesn't exist to publish your original thought. When sources are disputed, Misplaced Pages has to explain the dispute. If there are "questions", Misplaced Pages cannot provide answers. If you fail to see why Kadane's report is considered "disputed", then you failed to read the current revision or are otherwise profoundly self-delusional. The US embassy documents requesting arms are mentioned here, along with the reply that "there was to be no implication of providing" them. You just said that we can't dispute the official records--but you deliberately ignored those that didn't suit your agenda. It's no accident that all of your ommissions support your POV. Even now, the article is still weighted against the US. It still puts stronger emphasis on the US than any other country. If you hadn't made the article so unbelievably long and incoherent, I probably would have left it alone due to my intense dislike of working with you; you start edit wars and use personal attacks to get your way, and your tantrums usually succeed. But this had to be one of the most blatant NPOV violations I've ever seen on Misplaced Pages. Why not include a brief response to Kadane, even if you support her? Are you afraid that other people might come to different conclusions unless you weight the argument? Do you always have to get your way, to such an extreme of bias and distortion? The only legitimate point you have raised, in this entire discussion, is the quote about US aid increasing the army's pro-Western orientation. I sincerely considered including that quote, but the three paragraphs provided are more than lengthy enough, and the quote was talking about US actions years prior to the crisis.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• "Btw. I will be happy to show you why the "communist conspiracy" theme is without merit, this case particularly" Talk pages are not here so we can "talk". They're here to discuss improvements to the article. You're the only one who has made this political. And you were talking to the guy who made an entire page on the killing of 500,000 suspected "communists".TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I get heated because I know what is motivating you. It's so obvious. Im tired of you erasing my contributions. Your ommissions are POV in themselves. This "too much information" argument is not credible. When I look for information Im looking for as many details as possible about a certain issue. Not just bits and pieces especially when key points are left out. Your interpritation of the info is slanted. You're a censor. That is what you are. Im being honest and straight forward. That is it.--Horhey420 (talk) 01:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Horhey, you are fundamentally wrong when you say there is should be as many details as possible on a topic. That is not how wikipedia works. In fact, it is impossible to have no limits on page details.

This discussion is not progressing for the following reasons:

• You have failed to show that you understand fundamental editing principals such as limiting word count. As I mentioned above, you are fundamentally wrong if you think there should be no limit to the detail in an article.
• You have failed to address, let alone resolve, the question of why this section in particular must be sooooo much longer than any other section, indeed, why it must be longer than several other sections combined. I raised this question several years ago. No-one, including you, has answered this. This has made discussion fruitless.
• Your language is unclear. You told said to me “I suspect you.”. That doesn’t make sense. You suspect me of what? While there is no rule about contributing if your first language is not English, your inability to communicate effectively makes the discussion fruitless.
• You provide red herrings, straw man arguments, and completely irrelevant responses to questions/issues. For example, when I mentioned the fact that the majority of the army’s military hardware in 1965 was Chinese or Soviet, you responded by saying that you can disprove the “communist conspiracy theories”. Firstly, I never alleged a communist conspiracy, and secondly any alleged conspiracy (or your ability to disprove it) is completely irrelevant to the fact that Indonesian military hardware was largely Chinese and Soviet. This is but one example of your completely irrelevant responses which make this discussion impossible.
• By your own admission, you get “heated” in your discussion. That’s not acceptable on wikipedia. While we all see things we don’t like, in our communications and editing on wikipedia, we must all remain calm, civil, and rational at all times.
• Accusing people of being censors and of being biased are border line personal attacks. They are certainly not civil show that you do not assume good faith. See WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:AGF. These are fundamental to positive collaboration and your style here breaches all of them. By directly and openly accusing other editors of bad motivations, you are breaking WP:AGF. Again, making discussion fruitless. (The irony which you apparently fail to see is that there is a good case here to accuse you of bad faith and bias, yet that has not yet been done).

In the light of the above points, it is apparent to me that the issue is no longer the content, but the way you engage with other editors on Misplaced Pages. As such, I will probably not engage in further discussion if you continue with this style. Instead, I will advice of administrators. Regards --Merbabu (talk) 02:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

If you do that they're just going to see censorship by TheTimesAreAChanging and probably tell me to keep it civil. That's fine. I just dont like my work being erased for really no good reason in my view. I put a lot of time into all this so when it all disappears of course Im going to get upset.

• Horhey420 subsequently goes completely off on a tangent by trying to promote awareness of US support for the invasion of East Timor, an unrelated issue, by copying and pasting news articles. Only read if you are interested. Otherwise, ignore. Do not respond. This page should not be used for any further discussion of East Timor.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It's relevant because it has to do with the communist conspiracy pretext for US policy in Indonesia. And you did promote that pretext in our discussion above. I said "no it's not true and here is why." No, this is not about "promoting awareness" as you say.--Horhey420 (talk) 04:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• I don't even know what you are talking about anymore. This discussion has run its course.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, Horhey's off-topic rant below proves my bullet points above. He is unable to engage in relevant and on-topic discussion. I agree that this discussion has run its course. --Merbabu (talk) 04:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You really think the administrators arent going to see this as censorship? We will see. Reagan Foreign Policy page and all.--Horhey420 (talk) 04:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of recent edits

Horhey420 recently added text to the article. Fine. That is far better than reinstating the old version. Although my version already gave undue weight to the US role, let's allow his edits further consideration, solely for the purpose of compromise. Here are two quotes I removed:

• Secretary of State Dean Rusk advised the US Embassy in Jakarta: "The next few days, weeks or months may offer unprecedented opportunities for us to begin to influence people and events ... Small arms and equipment may be needed to deal with the PKI ... As events develop, the army may find itself in major military campaigns against PKI, and we must be ready for that contingency."

• This quote is irrelevant because the article already mentions the requests that were eventually made to provide arms. There is nothing here not in the article already.

• During the assault on the PKI, U.S. Ambassedor Greene informed the State Department that "DCM made clear that Embassy and USG generally sympathetic with and admiring of what army doing."

• This is not a court case. We don't need these quotes. We already know that the US was in favor of much of what the Indonesians were doing. We're not here to comment as to the sympathies of the actors involved. A brief summary of US actions will suffice.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I notice he being derailed and biased on some edit. I tried to rollback but it failed because he make new edit entry, then i decide until he done with his edit. Ald™ ¬_¬™ 07:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, now that I understand the protocol here..

• You didn't understand it before? Then how could you justify your personal attacks on Merbabu and I? For all you knew, you were totally in the wrong.

My reaction was wrong. Yes.

• Dean Rusk's request is relevant because the request you noted was by Suharto's army, not Washington as you wrote it (although I think the request was really by the Embassy if I remember correctly). This shows Washington's intention to provide material support for the army.

• You've just manufactured an imaginary problem: The article currently states that "U.S. Embassy staff reported Indonesia’s request" for arms. Yes, Indonesia made the request, but the Embassy passed it along. The article is perfectly accurate in that regard. Rusk's request demonstrates nothing except that Rusk personally thought and suggested that the US should have a contingency plan to provide arms if neccessary. Since the Embassy later openly asked for arms, there is no need to establish that other US officials also felt the same way.

Ok, I agree. That's fine.

• Ambassedor Greene's cable to the State Department is relevant because it shows that Washington was "generally sympathetic with and admiring of what army doing." It speaks for itself. The average reader would not know that Washington was in favor "of what the army is doing."--Horhey420 (talk) 07:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• How would they not know? The article says that the US downplayed the killings, considered sending arms, and encouraged the army's anti-communist orientation. It doesn't even matter what the US was "in favor" of. All that matters is US actions during the crisis. No analysis of motives based on primary sources is relevant.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You're fighting pretty hard to keep such an insignificant quote out. The message to the army was "we support and admire your massacres." Very rarely are such explicit declarations revealed in declassified papers which is why it is significant. I know. Ive read many of them.--Horhey420 (talk) 08:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Old requests for peer review
• B-Class Indonesia articles
• High-importance Indonesia articles
• WikiProject Indonesia articles
• B-Class socialism articles
• High-importance socialism articles
• WikiProject Socialism articles
• B-Class Death articles
• Mid-importance Death articles
• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles