Talk:Tommy Suharto

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 20:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tommy Suharto. 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/20080902000844/http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iVeIurfDTySdMXyl8qWxIaG2YSgg to http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iVeIurfDTySdMXyl8qWxIaG2YSgg
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071007054533/http://www.kabar-irian.info/pipermail/kabar-indonesia/2006-November/012559.html to http://www.kabar-irian.info/pipermail/kabar-indonesia/2006-November/012559.html

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) 04:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Criticism of president deleted
A section of disputed content is: Criticism of Jokowi
 * In February 2018, Tommy criticized the government of President Joko "Jokowi" Widodo for allowing state debt to rise to $340 billion. He said that by comparison, when Suharto was president, state debt was $54 billion. He criticized Jokowi's infrastructure development policy, saying it had caused foreign debt to rise. He said infrastructure development should be coupled with a reduction in commodity transport costs, rather than just focusing on projects.(with reference)

This was deleted on the grounds that it is "completely irrelevant". Perhaps it could be reworded along the lines of: "Tommy has been critical of President Joko Widodo's infrastructure development policy, saying it caused Indonesia's foreign debt to rise to $340 billion, compared to $54 billion when Suharto was president. He said infrastructure development should be coupled with a reduction in commodity transport costs, rather than just focusing on projects."

Is such content completely irrelevant? Should Wikipedia pages about politicians not include their views on political rivals and their efforts to appeal to nostalgia? I feel the content is important because it shows the subject's political views toward the Indonesian government. I also feel it is relevant because the subject is a politician with presidential aspirations and is critical of the incumbent. Also, the subject is the son of a former president and is making the argument that things were better when his father was in power, which is part of his party's campaign strategy; that is, an appeal to nostalgia that things used to be better.

I apologize if I am not following correct etiquette on a Talk Page. SiberianCat (talk) 07:39, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * There are many people who have criticised Jokowi, but Tommy Suharto is a minor politician who happens to be the son of a president who resigned 24 years ago, and I don't see how a comment he made four years ago merits a paragraph, as per WP:UNDUE. Davidelit (Talk) 11:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ. I'm not sure why "made four years ago" and "resigned 24 years ago" are pertinent points. Everything happened in the past. This is an encyclopedia, not a news service that must avoid old quotes. Yes indeed, many politicians have criticized the president. But not all of those critics are the politically ambitious, powerful progeny of the country's longest-serving president. This is precisely why I feel it is relevant. How would you feel if the content of the disputed paragraph were to be cut into a single sentence - and incorporated into an existing section - merely mentioning the attempt to appeal to nostalgia by criticizing the president, claiming the country was in better economic shape (less foreign debt) when his father was in power? I do appreciate your prompt response above. SiberianCat (talk) 11:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, I take your point about everything happening in the past, but the reason why "four years ago" is pertinent is that 2018 was the year before President Jokowi's reelection, following an election campaign in which Tommy played no part whatsoever. And the most powerful thing that Tommy has done in the last decade or so is to have the team producing the Garuda Indonesia inflight magazine fired after he was referred to as a convicted murderer in its pages. Davidelit (Talk) 12:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi. Again, with due respect, I don't quite follow your argument. Tommy did play a part in the campaigns ahead of the 2019 elections. Or do you mean he "played no part whatsoever" in Jokowi's campaign? (well obviously you don't mean that, as he was not on team Jokowi). Or do you mean that his campaigning (especially his criticism of Jokowi) had no impact on the final election results because his party failed to meet the threshold for the DPR (and therefore couldn’t nominate him for the presidency)? As for suing Indo Multi Media (and Garuda) for screwing up the 2009 advertorial in the Garuda mag, I think the perception of 'most powerful' is relative and subjective. Since then, he has dealt with numerous legal and business cases involving substantial sums. Also, he did not get all of the production team fired. IMM did eventually fold due to financial problems following the lawsuit, but not all staff working on the mag were directly fired at his behest. I really hope you won't think I'm being antagonistically obstreperous here, as I'm all for collaboration through constructive criticism, accuracy and whatever is required to achieve consensus that can improve articles. I could point to numerous Indonesia-related pages that have multiple problems (well beyond a subjective assertion of a "completely irrelevant" couple of sentences), but I don't want to go off topic here (too late?). My sole issue here is that I feel the subject's criticism of the president's performance, as part of a strategy to appeal to nostalgia (whether it succeeded or not), is not "completely irrelevant" and I therefore propose revising the contentious section into a simpler, single sentence, placed in the extant content. SiberianCat (talk) 13:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Further to David's comments, the article is not made better by providing snippets of commentary from its subject. Further, there is no context. And to provide our own interpretation of context - as Siberaian Cat seems to be proposing ("appeal to nostalgia") - smells a bit of original research and commentary. --Merbabu (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The appeal to nostalgia is not original research. It has been well documented in various credible media articles. Regarding my proposal to reword the content, I would include a reference to at least one such article. Such as this one. You claim there is no context. How is the following not context? Father was longest-serving president, son has political ambitions, is unable to become Golkar chairman, forms new party, runs for office, criticizes incumbent president in effort to appeal to nostalgia. For example, he criticizes infrastructure policy for raising state debt to a much higher level than when his father was in power. I feel that using the term "snippets of commentary from its subject" does not prove your original assertion that the content is "completely irrelevant". Many Wikipedia articles contain "snippets of commentary" from their subjects. SiberianCat (talk) 00:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have since revised and restored the deleted content, as I do not feel the assertion that it is "completely irrelevant" has been proved by any of the arguments put forward here. I also refute the accusations that "there is no context" and that it "smells a bit of original research". SiberianCat (talk) 14:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Reuters is not neutral or reliable?
Following my revision of a piece of disputed content (above section), user has deleted part of the following text: "Tommy sought to appeal to nostalgia for his father's presidency,(ref redcated here) criticizing President Joko Widodo's infrastructure development policy, saying it had caused Indonesia's foreign debt to rise to $340 billion, compared to $54 billion when Suharto was president.(ref redacted here)" The deleted text is: "sought to appeal to nostalgia for his father's presidency" and the accompanying explanation is: "removed opinion/commentary piece. not reliable source. NPOV issue." The source for that information is a news article written by two Reuters journalists and edited by a third. It is not an opinion piece. Does this edit explanation mean that Reuters news agency is not neutral (NPOV issues)? Does it mean that Reuters is not a reliable source for Wikipedia articles? The effort to appeal to nostalgia for the Suharto presidency is also stated in news articles from sources such Al-Jazeera, Rappler, The Jakarta Post, and others. Should these additional sources be added to show the information comes from reliable sources? Following Merbabu's deletion of that part of the text, the entire sentence was then deleted by user, who in a message on their Talk Page explained that: "Saying that he tried to use nostalgia of good old times of his father rule to win an election would suffice. There is no need of explaining his personal views on infrastructure as he is a disgraced murdered and has not much influence." I responded by stating that I had given an example of the subject's effort to appeal to nostalgia, namely by criticizing the incumbent's spending (and debt level) on infrastructure. Merely stating that "he attempted to appeal to nostalgia" without providing any evidence or an example - diminishes the credibility of the information. I also disagree that a politician's status as having been convicted of murder by proxy should render information about their political platform irrelevant. I also disagree that the subject "has not much influence". It takes considerable influence to have a jail term substantially reduced. There are also much more recent legal cases that indicate strong influence. SiberianCat (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

It’s commentary. It may be reasonable commentary from reliable sources. But being commentary it has no place in Wikipedia. —Merbabu (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Can you please prove or explain how the news article by Reuters is commentary? Reuters used to publish commentary pieces, but the news article I cited is not a commentary piece. There are other verifiable and reputable news reports also noting the subject's appeal to nostalgia for his father's rule. Do you feel that all such news articles should also be regarded as "commentary"? In my view (and looking at Wikipedia's definition), a commentary can be: an editorial, a periodical column, an op-ed, an opinion piece by an author unaffiliated with the publication, or letters/comments from readers of a publication. The Reuters news article does not match that definition. When I initially proposed amending the content by including the aspect of the appeal to nostalgia, you claimed it "smells a bit of original research". When the content was revised with a reputable and neutral source added, you claimed it is "not reliable source. NPOV issue". Any explanation on how a non-editorial, non-commentary news article from a reliable source can be deemed "commentary" would be appreciated. Do you feel the content should be prefaced by something along the lines of: "Media reports noted the subject's efforts to appeal to nostalgia for his father's rule ..."? Thank you for your time on this. SiberianCat (talk) 01:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * - I'm reluctant to continue reading your full talk page posts. A scan of this page shows them to very long. Your argument would be stronger if you could articulate your points more succinctly.
 * It's a journalist's opinion that Tommy is trying to stir up "nostalgia" for the past. You can call it "a non-editorial, non-commentary news article" as much as you want, but the comment itself is, well, commentary and an opinion, but you're presenting it as fact. That's not how wikipedia works. --Merbabu (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your response. I feel your own arguments would be stronger if you could back them up. The news article, and others like it, quotes party officials as stating the attempt to appeal for a return to the Suharto era: "still yearned for the stability and the robust economic growth and development ... of the Suharto era" and "we want to develop and continue are the good things that were carried out by the New Order”. This is not commentary, it is a fact. Your labeling of it as a journalist's opinion (actually two journalists wrote that news article) does not make it opinion. Also, looking at your recent edit explanations, I don't feel that terms such as "crappy writing" and "wishy washy rubbish" are within the spirit of the fourth pillar of Wikipedia "that editors should treat each other with respect and civility". I think it's important to maintain a level of civility to foster a spirit of constructive collaboration. Thanks. SiberianCat (talk) 09:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Providing quotes from party officials sounds more promising than copying journalists' commentary. Any reason you didn't do that in the first place? (and, I don't see any difference if it was one or two journalists credited).
 * Actually, I said "crappy wikipedia writing". I looked at the rest of the article tonight, and those two edits were among a string of edits I made this evening, and perhaps those particular edit summaries were influenced by more than just those two edits. Since you brought up civility, maybe you could make more effort to thank me for the improvements rather than comment on edit summaries. Calling out civility is a tricky game. --Merbabu (talk) 10:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi again, . First, thanks for your edits. I disagree with several of them and will contest them here as time permits. Second, to answer your question (why didn't I include the quotes in the first place?) Wikipedia encourages paraphrasing and advises against overusing quotations. Do you feel that when information is sourced from news articles, only direct quotations should be deemed factual? And that any surrounding content by journalists is merely "opinion" from a "non-neutral" source? Third, I don't think that "calling out civility [or incivility] is a tricky game." A person is either polite or impolite. I do feel concerned that placing snide invective (especially terms like "crappy" and "rubbish") in edit summaries is not conducive to the spirit of friendly collaboration - and there's a risk that such action could discourage people from contributing to Wikipedia. Anyway, big thanks again, and please feel free to message me on my Talk Page, should you wish. It's interesting to see how much this page has changed since your last series of numerous consecutive edits back in 2007. SiberianCat (talk) 11:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * My point is, why not say (whether that's quoting or "paraphrasing") what an party official says rather than a journalist's opinion? Ie, participant in the story rather than a commentator.
 * Another thing that you may wish to consider that discourages people from contributing is to simply assert yourself correct and others wrong an unilaterally instate your edit. In this case, your preferred changes are benefiting from the apparent lack of Wikipedia bandwidth of the other three editors. Hence my suggestion to take care when calling out incivility. --Merbabu (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Golkar was not a party in 1992 + 'regime'
User Merbabu recently changed this text: "Golkar, the dominant political entity of the Suharto regime, and in 1992 ..." to "Golkar, Suharto's political party, and in 1992..." Merbabu explained the edit thus: "remove "regime" for nov". Historians and academics have noted that Golkar was not a party pre-1999. It is a well-referenced fact that Golkar was the dominant political entity of the Suharto regime. A regime is a governing authority, though it does connote an authoritarian government. Wikipedia's article on Suharto repeatedly refers to his "regime" and also calls it an "authoritarian regime". Should all references to Suharto's "regime" be deleted from Wikipedia, based on Merbabu's assertion that such terminology is not neutral? While I laud Merbabu for their efforts to improve the page, I am concerned that in their eagerness to disparage my content as "crappy" and "rubbish", some errors have been introduced, some context has been lost and some text has been deleted to the detriment of the article's quality. SiberianCat (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * So, my turn to get wordy...he he. And in bullet points. Sorry.
 * Firstly, I was not aware that it was your content that I may have edited. In which case I would have been more careful if I'd known it was the work of someone I was currently and directly engaging with. Sorry to make it most awkward. However, "eagerness to disparage" and use of "laud" seems - to me at least - a little over the top and uncivil in itself.
 * Apart from "Golkar" and "dominant" which i address below, are there other "errors" have been introduced?
 * While it is required for clarity and to appreciate the topic, the notion of "context" can be a slippery slope. It is often a vehicle to weave in opinion and commentary, and a useful way to paint a picture to the editor's liking. Cherry-picking commentary that suit our own POV is not neutral either. (Not to disparage Adam Schwarz - back in 1994, A Nation in Waiting was the second book I ever read on Indonesia and remains one of my favourites). Better is to show, not tell. The below example (of many in this article) is asserting someone's opinion as fact. Much better would be to just use the facts. The last (factual) sentence I kept, although I'd like to know what "soon" means, and a citation would help.
 * ""As one of Suharto's children, Tommy was entitled to nepotistic privileges that allowed him to amass great wealth. In 1984, at age 22, he founded his Humpuss Group, which achieved success not through talent or professionalism but because of patronage. Within 10 weeks of its founding, the group had 20 subsidiaries, which soon grew to 60."
 * However, rather than philosophical general discussions, I'd rather discuss the merits of individual edits.
 * Sure, technically Golkar was not a party pre-1999. However, for the benefit of the unfamiliar, calling it "party" conveys the meaning better than "political entity". The latter is awkward and unclear. Having said that, it's a relatively minor thing and I'm not going to die in a ditch over it, and I would be grateful if you can improve on it.
 * I've no issue with the use of the word "dominant". It was indeed the dominant entity/party for decades. That, or even better words, are fine.
 * "Regime" - there are indeed two meanings, or usages, as I understand you are alluding to. The dry technical meaning is neutral and would be OK if that's how people read it. Wikipedia doesn't use this first usage to refer to the "Australian or UK regime", although that would fit. However, as you note, the second and arguably far more common usage conjures up that of an authoritarian and possibly illegitimate government. Personally, i do consider Suharto's to be authoritarian and illegitimate, and if I was in the pub, I may even call it the regime. I would not judge others - including journalists and academics - using the term in their work. But, for Wikipedia, this emotive even provocative usage that is problematic and not NPOV. Why not call it the "Suharto administration", "Suharto presidency". Both are accurate AND neutral.
 * Further to the above point, yes, ideally the phrase "Suharto regime" should not be used in Wikipedia. Just because problems exists elsewhere (maybe it was never challenged), doesn't mean we can't improve things here. Also, an improvement can be made in isolation without having to make it across Wikipedia. I recall avoiding using the phrase across the Indonesia project. A crude "crtl + F" exercise finds that the Suharto article has 5 instances of "regime", 4 of "administration" and 18 of "presidency" and 50-odd of "government". Would you suggest replacing the latter 3 with "regime"? Would you suggest "Sukarno regime"? My view is that we replace "regime" with "presidency" or "government", but i would need to look at each instance.
 * regards, --Merbabu (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Tommy Suharto.webp