Talk:Post-Suharto era in Indonesia

earlier comments
This article does not reference the political and economic events of the 1998-2005 period in a way which is encyclopediac or even acceptable. The results of internal struggles, East Timor, terrorism, the delicate dance of parliamentary government that followed Suharto are all missing.

Needs major expansion.

Stirling Newberry 06:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

What about dissolving this article entirely? I mean, who among people seeking info on Indonesia is going to input "post-suharto era" into the search field? There is already a Reformasi Era section of "History of Indonesia".

The title of this WP page is not referenced on the History of Indonesia page nor the Indonesia page, so what's the point? Info here was stripped from the individual pages of presidents, which were never exceedingly long. Martindo (talk) 08:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Reformasi
The title of this entry seriously needs to be changed. The correct translation of 'Reformasi' is 'reform', not 'reformation' - which has religious connotations. It is a common mistake, but any Indonesian student should know this (unsigned)


 * I agree. "Reform" is the correct translation. Davidelit 03:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with the translation reformasi to reform, but i don't agree the title should be changed from 'reformasi'. The word reformasi has very specific connotations. Reform can be anything - reform of what? Reform of the Indonesian primary school department? Reform of the taxation system? Just too general and is thus meaningless. Whereas 'reformasi' in the specific context of post-May 1998 is a well-known term amongst any English speaker with a mild interest in Indonesia. --Merbabu 05:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That makes a lot of sense. The use of the French word 'detente', or even the Hebrew word 'Shoah' instead of 'holocaust' are precedents. By the way reform of the primary school and taxation systems would be welcome :-) Davidelit 06:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Google Translate, as well as sources listed on the page (such as here ) cite "Reformasi" as translating to "Reformation". Wikitam331 (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Title of article
Must be changed - it is inappropriate as an article title SatuSuro 12:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Can I suggest Reform era? This is the term long used by English language version of the Indonesian news weekly Tempo and The Jakarta Post newspaper. It is also used by Theodore Friend in Indonesian Destinies (2003, ISBN 0-674-01137-6). Arrogantly ignoring the commonly used term is confusing for people who want to seek information about the reform era in Indonesia. Why not just change the entire template sections after 1945 to "post-colonial Indonesia" and have done with it? Davidelit (talk) 03:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Another thought is Indonesia since 1998.
 * I’m not sure what’s wrong with the “Independent Indonesia” title in the template. This is a seperate issue, right? can you explain, please? Cheers--Merbabu (talk) 03:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I would support whatever is commonly used by contemporary Indonesians - they have never used 'Indonesian Civil War' for the 1965/1966 era - Reform era I support if it is commonly used - a good suggestion SatuSuro 03:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Transition to Democracy"? This captures sense that Indonesia hasn't really known democracy, per se, and still has only a limited quantity of it.  Then again, democracy is such a loaded and often fraudulent term. Perhaps then "Democratic Transitions"? Something more "democratic" than before is certainly afoot. Smilo Don (talk) 05:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Whatever it is, it our own judgements on the period are problematic. That is why the common name, even if one disagrees with it, is preferable (reformasi?). If not, something boring like Indonesia since 1998. That rules out the use of "democracy". We are thus left either a time based name, or the common usage. --Merbabu (talk) 07:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I see. In that case, one might have to look to recent sources.  Davidelit's references to Tempo and the Jakarta Post are probably the best ones of all, being both Indonesian and English. Here's a book coming out in December: Democratization in Post-Suharto Indonesia (Routledge Contemporary Southeast Asia Series) by Marco Bunte. And another forthcoming: Party Politics and Democratization in Indonesia: Golkar in the Post-Suharto Era (Routledge Contemporary Southeast Asia Series) by Dirk Tomsa. More: Chinese Identity in Post-Suharto Indonesia: Culture, Media, Religion and Language Chinese Identity in Post-Suharto Indonesia: Culture, Media, Religion and Language, Chang-yau Hoon (Hardcover - Aug 2008)... Ironically, there is also Reformasi: The Struggle for Power in Post-Soeharto Indonesia 2003, by Kevin O'Rourke, and there are more.
 * I suppose "post-suharto era" meets the "accepted" widely criteria, the objectivity criteria, and so forth, but it still blows. Reformasi Era is also clearly in widespread use.  Maybe people can rustle up some more commonly used monickers. 07:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

TO keep this discussion in one place, I've moved the stuff below from project notice board...
 * Moved from project notice board.

Can I suggest Reform era. This has been used for several years in Indonesian publications such as the English language version of Tempo magazine and The Jakarta Post newspaper as well as Theodore Friend's Indonesian Destinies (2003, ISBN 0-674-01137-6). To be fair, John Roosa in Pretext for mass Murder (2006, ISBN 978-0-299-22034-1) refers to the "post-Suharto era", but he is specifically referring to the 30 September Movement and the way it is viewed nowadays. 203.153.24.22 (talk) 13:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The preceding comment was me - I'd timed out Davidelit (talk) 13:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Blood on my keyboard, regarding the awful title. As I mentioned way up above, I don't like the title at all, but have to question the "Reform era" tag.  Friend was writing in 2003, if memory serves.  Reform era is perhaps overly optimistic, given the persistence of oligarchy.  Yet again, many new freedoms abound, so we don't want to dismiss the real reforms effected to date.  Still, there's got to be something better than "reform era" or "post suharto."  "Democratic awakening"?  Just kidding. I too would like to see a title change in the near future. Smilo Don (talk) 05:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So, no-one supports the new name? Yet, there is more support for the old name. Time to have an admin revert the move until consensus can be reached. --Merbabu (talk) 09:07, 27 June 2008


 * 1) if anyone is gonna keep using the phrase oligarchy we are going to have either stop using the phrase now or start a well referenced article - the average wikipedia reader wouldnt have the faintest what we are writing about
 * 2) reform era and new freedoms - both need to be spelled out somewhere  - likewise an outside wouldnt have the faintest unless it spelled out somewhere - the word reform is now meaningless in australian usage for instance - if ti was used in indonesia in the era following the downfall of surhato - what that means needs to be very specifically laid out what it actually meant at that time SatuSuro 08:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Disagree (above comment by merbabu - interchanging paras can confused things a bit )

- there is at certain points simply ideas being floated and due to the way the info from other editors has been stated - there is indeed some potential for some misunderstanding from the above comments - if each editor returns to this space - they need to move on from the waffling or thinking aloud, and actually state a preference as to whether the current title is changed or not - I'd say start again- with a specific convention to abide by - please state here: -


 * 1) Support for title to stay same
 * 2) Support for Reform era
 * 3) Support for other titles

Then at least we dont have to glean from comments mixed up with other stuff. SatuSuro 09:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Support for Reform era. To quote Roosevelt (albeit in 1941), "These men and their hypnotized followers call this a new order. It is not new. It is not order. " However we still call the Suharto-Army authoritarian period the New Order on WP. By extension, we may or may not agree there have been reforms, but it is what most people call it. Davidelit (talk) 11:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Reform era" could work, but unlike "Reformasi" it does become an interpretation, and not the original common name. That aside, it would still require some kind of disambiguation - ie, "Indonesian reform era"? I take your point on the New Order though - perhaps we need to re-name it "Post Old Order"? --Merbabu (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * PS, this came up in the section above. per that explanation, I still prefer the Indonesian term. --Merbabu (talk) 14:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * With respect, "Reform era" is a translation of Era reformasi, rather than an interpretation. Refomasi is "reform", not "reformation" in the same way isu is "rumour" not "issue" (usually!). Davidelit (talk) 14:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Indonesian reform era? --Merbabu (talk) 14:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Nearly a year and no change yet?!?! Look at the History of Indonesia article -- the present segment of time is called Reformasi Era. Look at the History of Philippines page -- there is a Marcos Era, but no "post Marcos era". Why? Because labeling the present that way ties it to the past, giving the dictator more enduring influence than he had.

Yes, Support for Reform Era. If nobody else has time to make this change, I'll do it later this month. Also copy and edit text from here to replenish the depleted pages on Megawati, Yudhoyono, etc. which have little on their presidencies.

Martindo (talk) 08:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * But Indonesian politics since 1998 has been extremely different - 1998 is a point of departure that one cannot get around. And yes, the start of this period is directly linked to Suharto as is the contrast in the situation since then (altnougb of course there will be much debate on the degree of change - but change there is). An alternative title could be "Indonesian history post-1998" or "Indonesian politics post 1998" - but I prefer the former wider scope of those two. I don't really like the "reform" or "reformasi" name as they are a POV (a logical and defendable POV, but still a POV). --Merbabu (talk) 08:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

See my more recent comment in the top section of Talk. Permit me to tweak your alternative title to "1998 to present" which fits the similar situation of Philippines post-dictator (see its WP page).

I propose copying of the segments to the individual page of each president and then all of us hashing out edits, hopefully BEFORE the election.

Again, I really don't see the value of this page because it overlaps so much with History of Indonesia and has no links to it other than the president pages. Martindo (talk) 08:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The page needs work, but certainly doens't need to be gutted (and then re-directed?). It was previously arranged by themes and then unilaterally re-arranged into presidencies. Not everyone was happy with the changes, but no-one has the time. I would like to work further on it. I don't like the by-president structure. --Merbabu (talk) 08:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to help but IMO the only purpose in making this page distinct from History of Indonesia would be re-titling as something like "Indonesian Presidency: 1998 to present". To avoid over-focus on individual history, the revised title/article could include a history of changes such as: direct election, whimsical rules by KPU (e.g., a nearly blind person who already had been president is ineligible), and succession of VP (an issue which arose when Habibie took over). Martindo (talk) 09:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Another reason for "neutralizing" the reference to Suharto is that post-1998 politics also differed from Sukarno. The Reformasi was (or quickly became, with direct elections, etc.) a major change from all previous systems in Indonesia, both the New Order of Suharto and the Guided Democracy of Sukarno.

So what does it take to change the title? It's been exactly a year since SatuSuro posed the issue. Martindo (talk) 02:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

New proposal
Restarting the proposal. I recommend moving the article to Reform period in Indonesia to conform with the recently moved Liberal democracy period in Indonesia. I'd avoid using "era" as it is usually used for a very lengthy period of time. Arsonal (talk) 07:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have my concerns. It's loaded with POV, and at least one can't argue with the neutrality and factual accuracy of "Post-Suharto era". A bigger problem for me is the by-president coverage that is largely limited to politics/governance. I'd like to see a broader summary of the history since then. --Merbabu (talk) 07:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the title would be POV, as it describes the fundamental changes made to Indonesia's governing and economic structures. I believe it would better anticipate the rewriting of this article from the structure it is in currently. For example, the article could be broken down into:
 * Political (or Democratic?) reform
 * Some sort of focus on the Corruption Eradication Commission
 * Changes to the Constitution
 * Experiments with Islamic law
 * Military exit from politics
 * Economic reform (do we have good sources for this?)
 * G-20 major economies
 * G20 developing nations
 * Next Eleven
 * Security
 * Aceh
 * Terrorism (with link to Terrorism in Indonesia)
 * Arsonal (talk) 08:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Habibie ommission?
I could have misread it, but the article seems to imply that the Post Suharto era began with Gus Dur’s election to president. While of course Habibie was as close to Suharto as they come, arguably he’s been the most reforming Indonesian president since 1998 (with the possible exception of Gus Dur). The changes since May 1998 are one of the main, if not the main political/governance point in this period, and hence the article. Unleashing of the media (for those of us there at the time, this was incredible to see), the lead up to the significantly open elections and the countless political parties, the shooting of students in Nov. 1998, the separation of East Timor, etc, etc. – the list goes on. To leave out all this stuff is a major omission from the article.

Last night I tinkered a bit with this – I put in a “stub section” for Habibie, and reinstated the removed mention of East Timor. But, it still needs a lot of work. --Merbabu (talk) 22:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Wahid presidency
There are many gossipy parts of this section, particularly the sketchy and unproven allegations about missing funds.

The Regional Unrest section could more properly (and more neutrally) be re-titled as something like "overtures to regional identity" because Wahid was thinking outside the box and trying to accommodate self-determination w/o secession.

Other significant actions of his (e.g, overtures to Israel) that were bold are omitted, while trivia (e.g., last overseas visit) are included.

The term "memorandum" in reference to his impeachment is overly literal -- if it was "peringatan" in Bahasa, then "warning" or "warning letter" would be more accurate in context. Martindo (talk) 09:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Following my above comment and Merbabu's tweak and suggestion, I renamed the Regional Unrest subsection, which enabled a relatively smooth merge with the brief info on Marxism-Leninism being tolerated.

Also noticed that SBY was the only president on this page who did not have a link to his own page. Inserted one. Martindo (talk) 23:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Reformasi = "Reform" or "Reformation"? (again)
In my experience, Reformasi is generally rendered as "Reform" in English, especially regarding this period ("Reformation" has Christian religious overtones). Only in the names of some political groups is Reformasi rendered "Reformation." I therefore suggest restoring the lede to "has been called the period of Reform (Indonesian: "Reformasi")." See also the extensive discussion and consensus on this issue above. The source cited by Wikitam331 uses "reformation" but not as a name for this period. -- 202.124.72.5 (talk) 00:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We should stick to the term Reformasi (with an English translation brackets). While it's originally an Indonesian word that does translate to either reform or reformation, it is a common enough term now in English to refer to these events. Anyway, quit treating the term (however u want ro write it) like its central to the article, and that it's a prerequisite to improving it. It's neither.
 * and you two editors should stop your revert war and quit calling each other vandals. If you don't, I'm more than happy to request an admin lock the page until agreement is reached. Thanks. --Merbabu (talk) 02:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed that "Reformasi" can be translated as both "Reformation" and "Reform". Wikitam331 (talk) 04:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that was not my point. My suggestion is to leave it as "Reformasi" as this is recognised in English as reformation/reform/change/etc in a specific Indonesian context. And indeed, I'd argue that in this context it is a more common term in English (and we can always put the English translation in brackets).
 * And your latest revert of the other editor suggests you are ignoring my suggestion to work within clear wikipedia policy to not edit war. Niether of you will win any friends if you get the page locked.--Merbabu (talk) 05:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the proper English grammar is "Reform" if you add the word "era" after it. Mhatopzz (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Post-PC era which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Post-Suharto era. 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/20060818164956/http://www.kompas.com/kompas-cetak/0004/14/NASIONAL/dari07.htm to http://www.kompas.com/kompas-cetak/0004/14/NASIONAL/dari07.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070328215642/http://www.insideindonesia.org/edit78/p13-14_hoon.html to http://www.insideindonesia.org/edit78/p13-14_hoon.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080611080700/http://situbondo.go.id/pemda/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=472&Itemid=162 to http://situbondo.go.id/pemda/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=472&Itemid=162
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080619234728/http://www.elshinta.com/v2003a/readnews.htm?id=37062 to http://www.elshinta.com/v2003a/readnews.htm?id=37062

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Post-Suharto era in Indonesia
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Post-Suharto era in Indonesia's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "2020census": From Jayapura:  From Indonesia:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)