Talk:Suharto/Archives/2013/June

Please see link at reference section
I've toned down the terrible typos and poor paragraph structure left by one of the editors, who really need to learn more about proper editing. 202.43.188.6 (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Recent additions and article length (1 & 2 January)...
The article is getting too long. There is too much detail, particularly with the edits of the last few days (1 & 2 Jan). Much of this is contextual detail that is not required - ie, we don't need a full description of the events of 30 Sept 1965 when there is already a linked article. Also, I'm not sure that every move Suharto made as a young boy, or even change in position during his military career, is required or adds value. Perhaps some of this info can moved to a new "Early life of Suharto" article - I note there is a similar article for Barak Obama.

I'd like to hear the opinion of other editors, particularly the anonymous editor that has made the changes. regards --Merbabu (talk)
 * I'd probably keep a bit of it, but most of the contextual stuff is not relevant. If it's interesting but not really pertinent, it can be trimmed or shoved into a footnote. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The question is whether a single biography should be utilised to be so un-encyclopediac. Added detail and contextual padding are not wanted in an encyclopedic article.  Where necessary linked articles, links to other items are useful.  The idea for an early life of suharto should not be an excuse to add the unnecessary detail that has been added to the current article SatuSuro 10:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It can, however, be used to go into more detail. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Regading the new additions, I believe the old article is too short, simplistic, and often misleading on the many events in Suharto's career. Such complicated career does require greater elaboration and details to add context. Additionally, this article is not long compared with many other Wikipedia articles I've seen, such as the long articles on the various US presidents who have shorter careers than Suharto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.160.18.39 (talk) 12:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Fair enough - but at least two other experienced editors think otherwise, so this is where you might find your edits are edited - and in the interest of WP:AGF and the idea of added context is in fact disputed - it is the task of all involved - and sometimes this works really well on wikipedia - the discussion here needs to establish where the additions and the edits work or need further discussion. As a new editor - you would be well advised to read up on the rules of the place - edit warring is not a good road to go down...  SatuSuro 12:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Having a bit of context is okay, but (random example, not necessarily in the article now) having the names of the six generals killed in the G30S coup is not pertinent to Suharto as a person; simply saying "six generals" were killed is enough for this article, with a link to the G30S article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "often misleading on the many events in Suharto's career. Such complicated career does require greater elaboration and details to add context" - on re-reading the article, I beg to differ and suggest the opposite, there are good reasons as to why good articles are closely read and re-read and edited to a standard of direct relevance to the subject.
 * It is my personal observation that the article prior to recent additions is not misleading - and that the recent additions are in fact doing exactly that, creating unverified misleading perceptions in the text. SatuSuro 04:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It’s disappointing to see that the new editor is ignoring the advice of 3 experienced editors and continues to add highly detailed and often tangential info to the article. A full description of the Malari incident is just not required. This is not how wikipedia articles are written. It’s a lot of work to go and trim back the article bit by bit. I would not like to do a hard revert of the new additions, but that looks like that may be needed. --Merbabu (talk) 04:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree. We have an article on the incident, the article here does not need such extraneous information. This is an encyclopedia article, not a dissertation. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree. Detailed extraneous information is best kept out of an article of this kind. If the detail is seen as important, then perhaps creating a separate page would be appropriate.  That way, the main page can be kept to an efficient and readable length and, at the same time, the extra information can be added elsewhere with a link from the main page. Pmccawley (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, what's to be done???
After a few quiet days, the editor has added more info, and at the same time reinstated extraneous info that they had added but I had removed. The prose excluding lead now stands at around 11,300 words. It was previously at 6,000 words so it has almost double in size. And, considering the editor has been systematically adding through the article from the top down, and has only just reached the Economy section, I suspect we are going to see still more slabs of text added.

The fact that the info is being re-added without comment suggests that communication from the anon is unlikely to forthcoming.

I propose that the article be cut write back down in size to something closer the original length. While the article was far from perfect, it was at least readable and navigable as an introductory source on the subject (as a wikipedia article should be). Either we do a hard revert (easy) or we laboriously go through and try to work out how to cut almost 50% from the article.

As an "optional extra" we could consider cutting and pasting much of the existing new info into new articles. That way we still have a concise readable introductory article with sub topic articles that the anon IP can add to to his heart's content for the benefit of those who want a month by month account of Suharto's long and eventful career. Perhaps all or some (or more likely a combination) of the following:
 * Childhood
 * Early career
 * War II and Japanese occupation
 * Indonesian National Revolution
 * Post-Independence military career
 * 1965-68 events
 * Presidency (although we already have the Orde Baru article.

My strong preference is to create the new articles (with the comment that they are pasted from an excessively long Suharto article), and for the hard revert. I simply do not have the time to wade through and cut the existing behemoth sentence by sentence or, worse, word by word. I'm fairly sure I want to start the new articles ASAP, but I'd be happy to wait a few days for the anon editor, and others, to comment on this.

And of course, as has been discussed, the pre-existing article is far from perfect too, but that has not been fixed by adding large slabs of new text. --Merbabu (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Not to "challenge" the 3 experienced editors, if we refer to article of Franklin D Roosevelt (12 years of presidency), that article contains 15,000 words. Article on George Washington contains 11,000 words. Abraham Lincoln article contains 15,000 words. If these articles are OK, why Suharto cannot have similar-length article (considering his 31-year presidency)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.160.18.39 (talk) 09:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure that comparing with United States presidents is a particularly good analogy - the origins of this encyclopedia are basically in the united states, and a well built in bias on wikipedia editing is inherently towards US history and subjects, such that when considering bios of presdients of non western countries - perhaps other countries might be a better way of looking. Also the essence of WP:GA editing is not actually adding text but removing it - so that unnecessary detail can be re-directed to sub articles - and in the case of Suharto - there is a category that has articles related to the president and his 31 years - there are good reasons for sub articles rather than expansion of the main article - specially if it has had status of a good article.SatuSuro 09:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not only for American-linked articles. Just take a look at the lenghty article on Hugo Chavez.118.96.0.57 (talk) 12:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is so big that one can always find examples that support their position - whatever that position is. Comparisons are really missing the point. --Merbabu (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Early life and career of Suharto
I created this sub-article a few days ago based on discussions above. The new article can delve into more detail, and maybe more contextual info, than this summary Suharto article. The Suharto article can be trimmed down towards a more manageable WP:SUMMARY article. regards Much of the new info can remain - it's quite valuable. On the other hand, a lot of it is relatively trivial and would be placed in sub-articles. And, as mentioned before, the writing style is too padded for an encyclopaedia. --Merbabu (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Please do not remove very relevant info, otherwise the narrative will be messed-up with missing bits and parts causing confusion.118.96.0.57 (talk) 08:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It would appear you understand nothing that's been said to you here or on your talk page. --Merbabu (talk) 08:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Stop acting like some kind of dictator and receive criticism of your editing with open mind. Your edits are making some sentences not relevant and the narrative unconnected.118.96.0.57 (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Someone (who is not registered) needs to read WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:EW very closely. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems that the anon editor does not understand the issues raised regarding their recent additions, so let me have one last go. This page is not a standalone book – we don’t need to transcribe every detail surrounding events into the article. Wikipedia is not a flat structure like a book, rather we have other link articles.

Note the following articles that are there to provide more detail: We do no need long descriptions of these events in the Suharto article when they each have their own. The Suharto article can never contain all the little details.
 * Early life and career of Suharto – which I created to take the excess from Suharto
 * Orde Baru
 * Transition to the New Order
 * Berkeley Mafia
 * 3 July Affair – which I created to take the excess from Suharto
 * Indonesian National Revolution
 * Renville Agreement
 * 30 September Movement
 * Supersemar
 * …and many more that I haven’t listed here.

The section on the Transition to the New Order is particularly long and will need serious trimming. Indeed, it was probably too long even before your additions. We don’t’ need to say that Sukarno and Hatta declared Indonesian independence – that event has several articles covering it, and people can click on the link to Proclamation of Indonesian Independence. Whoever declared it is not relevant to Suharto.

With regards to your “dictator” comments, you have increased the article from 72kb to 120kb and it is now 115kb. So, the vast majority of your additions remain. No-one has hard-reverted any of your changes yet four separate editors have expressed their concern over your additions and you have reverted each attempt to consolidate the extra padding. It’s been discussed at length by these editors both here and on your talk page. I suggest a lot of patience has been shown. Who exactly is the “dictator” here?

Note that I have been careful to include your changes where I thought they were relevant (even if I trimmed the padding), and this process took CONSIDERABLE TIME. It would have been much easier to simply hard revert your changes. Note that this option was previously discussed, and has not yet been discounted.

Significant time and effort has now been spent on talk pages regarding this issue by a number of editors – your efforts to discuss have been minimal and have not addressed the issues raised. I think people have been more than patient enough.

And, let me repeat the links already provided: WP:SUMMARY, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:EW, WP:BRD. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * One last attempt to clarify: I’m actually an inclusionist. I believe all the additional info added has a place on wikipedia. It is not wasted work, and is a benefit to wikipedia. However, it just doesn’t have to be all on this page. In fact, it cannot all be on this page. Much needs to be distributed to other linked articles. And, I have created 2 new articles to take this info, and shifted some info to other existing articles. I trust that the anon editor can see this. --Merbabu (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You totally misunderstood my concern. I am saying many of your edits make the article sort of disorganized with some paragraphs/sentences unconnected with each other. I make this clearer in my edits now so your sensitivity would be appeased. BTW, I have job and social life, so cannot be online here 24 hours.118.96.0.57 (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

June 2013 update
I have had another go at trimming down this overly long and dense article. This is in line with the general consensus above that the article is too long and detailed. As far as I can tell, all of the words I removed are available in other linked “child articles”. In fact, in some cases I added the info to the child articles before trimming it out of Suharto.

I have provided quite a drastic summary to the (two or three?) pre-Presidency career sections. It was so dense and detailed that this was the most logical and effective way to do so. Perhaps there are some details that could go back in, however, the current reduced length is much closer to the ideal than the pre-cut version.

It would be helpful if the anonymous editor seeks consensus before adding new material. However, explanations based on “restoring narrative” or similar, are not convincing. It is *not* a narrative and it is not and exhaustive account such as might be found in a biography (book). It is a summary article of a very long and significant career. --Merbabu (talk) 03:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So my edits have been reverted, the issues have not been addressed, and personal attacks have been thrown. I will restore my reasoned and apparently supported edits once more. If they are reverted again, I will seek dispute resolution. --Merbabu (talk) 05:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Unilateral deletion
To Merbabu, do not edit well-referenced data unilaterally, your edits confuses the facts and contains many false statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.43.188.6 (talk) 02:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The discussion is above. --Merbabu (talk) 04:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

202.43.188.6 (talk) 08:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC) I think it is clear that you are unilaterally seeking to forcibly implement a poor, unclear, false, and confusing article. Wikipedia demands a thorough point-by-point explanation, hence I demand you to justify every single sentence that you edited.
 * The discussion is above. --Merbabu (talk) 08:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

202.43.188.6 (talk) 08:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC) Are you kidding? This is the supposed 'discussion' you talk about? So you can undo my work with impunity while I cannot input correct and factual data?
 * Yes, the discussion above where four editors expressed their shared concern over your edits - and where you were on you own. We must have different ideas on the meaning of the word "unilateral". --Merbabu (talk) 09:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * PS - you put your signature at the end of your comment. --Merbabu (talk) 09:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

To be repetitive, as it's been discussed to death above (with minimal engagement by you), as is generally agreed above (you alone don't), the article dwells on too much detail and excessive contextual/tangential narrative - and yes, largely because of your additions. The proposed were to shift info to related articles where the details were more relevant. eg Downfall of Suharto and Early life and military career. It is just not necessary, for example, to provide a detailed narrative on the background to the Economic crisis. That bit can go into other articles. What is relevant is that it happened (it's irrelevant to this article that, for example, it started in Thailand, etc, etc), and Suharto's response to it and his perceived inability to manage it and how it caused the country to turn on him. The rest is immaterial. This reasoning has been amply explained in edit summaries and on the talk page. Stop pretending it hasn't, and start actually addressing the issues raised rather than call people names.

We are NOT writing a blow-by-blow narrative book on pages. If you cannot understand this, or start working more collaborative then you are going to continue to have a difficult time on wikipedia. It would appear that you are acting "unilaterally" - who is supporting your position??? --Merbabu (talk) 05:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

202.43.188.6 (talk) 09:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC) LOL, your entire editing of this article is full of immaterial details and completely missed the point. If you continue to behave in a unilateral and 'dictatorial' manner like this, then you are going to have a very difficult time in Wikipedia.

I totally object imposition of your entire narrative, your write-up is entirely misleading, confusing, and poorly structured. If you want to be a successful 'editor', you need to be open to criticism and accept your weakness in article-writing.

WRT to length, obviously this article is not more than article of JFK or George Washington, so your claim on 'excessive' length is quite baseless and of very poor reasoning.


 * 203, as Merbabu said, "We are NOT writing a blow-by-blow narrative book on pages.". The Proclamation, for instance, has an article on it and Suharto was not a central figure in its creation; thus, we don't need to give so much background detail on it. The important bits (a: that Indonesia had declared its independence and b: that Sukarno and Hatta were pres and vice pres) is already here. The article is at 56kb already, at the upper limits of a comfortable reading experience. Please work with other editors, not against them. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Purnomor (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)How can I appeal against the unfair and unilateral blocking of this article? One of the editor here is always vandalizing the good article already made through research and effort, and then try to frame the other editor as the 'vandalizer'. Obviously this editor want to discourage other writers from making valuable and better contribution to this article.
 * Or perhaps you (and whatever screen name you use) could try working towards a consensus that may incorporate some of the contextual information you want to add? Or would that be too much to ask of you? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth (and for the umpteenth time), I have not removed any of Purnomor's information from wikipedia. I have shifted and/or ensured it already existing in other articles, or indeed left it in this article. In fact, I even reinstated some info this morning regarding the 1950s. There’s probably some more I could put back in. --Merbabu (talk) 06:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)