Talk:Suharto

1. REDIRECT Template:Archives

Name and lastname on title

This article should be titled with name and last name. "Suharto" means nothing. People want to see the name and last name of the dictator. 86.17.83.128 (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

His full name was Suharto, as covered in the article. CMD (talk) 03:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Summary balance

IMO summary/lede needs to be more balanced, because currently highlights mostly his negative legacies. There's some back & forth about this in the editing history.

Based on my quick analysis: 500 words total, 226 words lean negative, 123 words lean positive, the rest neutral.

Here's some articles & sources that can be used to help make the summary/lede more balanced: https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/lee-kuan-yew-and-suharto-friends-till-the-end https://indocropcircles.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/soeharto-the-life-and-legacy-of-indonesias-second-president.pdf

RossyAmbarsari (talk) 23:54, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Agreed that current lead leans more towards negative. I think one of the issues with how it is at the moment is that several points keep on being repeated (& not in chronological order), and that it can follow a more natural structure. Based on other articles, I suggest doing: who he is (i.e. President of Indonesia), selected highlights of bio/policies in chronological order, and finish with legacy/historical analysis. TutyCollyer (talk) 06:17, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

The articles for Peter Sutcliffe and Ted Kaczynski also "lean towards negative" - for similar reasons. Trying to find sources to make them sound better is putting the cart before the horse. The sources should lead to content, not the other way around. Just my thoughts.. Davidelit (Talk) 07:06, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

That's not a fair comparison at all. Many of the "negative" items for Suharto are from alleged crimes, as opposed to convicted crimes (per the examples you provided). From going through the edit history, many editors have tried to create more balance by referencing sources without a Western bias (however they've been "reverted" by other editors with sometimes no explanation)

In addition, I'm specifically talking about the lede. The rest of the article for Suharto are filled with content that lean more positive, compared to just the lede. RossyAmbarsari (talk) 10:53, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

There seems to be a double standard when it comes to articles/summaries about controversial leaders from the West (or may I say, leaders who are white), vs those who are not. Articles for George W. Bush, Margaret Thatcher or even Dick Cheney, show a neutrality in voice with mostly positive policy highlights.

To equate this discussion and bring up article examples that's not even worth a comparison to is not conducive, and may just show how much the "Western supremacy" mindset is prevalent with some editors. BernadetteGunawan (talk) 11:06, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with what's been discussed, that summary leans very negative. This stems from items that are being brought up multiple times.

My suggestion is to remove the Transparency sentence from the summary (and summary only), because:

- Alleged corruption has already been discussed multiple times in the summary (three times)

- It's from a 2004 report (20+ years ago)

- The report has been discussed multiple times in the body (and in multiple sections)

In addition, there's instances where historical events are also being stated multiple times, for example the "nationwide unrest", etc. I think this stems from a lack of structure in the summary. I agree with what was suggested before of consolidating into: who he is (i.e. President of Indonesia), selected highlights of bio/policies in chronological order, and finish with legacy/historical analysis. BernadetteGunawan (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, doing away with the Transparency International blurb from the summary is justified. Also, I've received push back on adding quotes from a single person or entity in there. We should remain consistent across; Another reason why I agree on this.

The proposed structure for the summary also looks good. PhilliaWibowo (talk) 04:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Re: Structure, I think we're in agreement on this. I'll do a first round on the proposed changes.

Re: Transparency International sentence, yes, IMO it should be removed from the lede. However, for balance, it should still be included as a reference when talking about alleged corruption. RossyAmbarsari (talk) 11:19, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Also, there's a "Sina Times" reference used in the lede. I couldn't find any digital footprint (outside of its own website), nor could I find a Google result when I search for "what is Sina Times". Since it might be a dubious source, I'm proposing to delete/replace this reference. RossyAmbarsari (talk) 11:27, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

What is interesting is that the four red linked accounts, obvious WP:SPAs, advocating for adding “balance” to the article all joined Wikipedia in the last month or two. Weird.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Can you provide a reason why the Transparency sentence should be included, in lieu of throwing accusations at other editors?

Just to remind you, Wikipedia policy:must assume good faith concerning the user account, act fairly and civilly, and not bite newcomers RossyAmbarsari (talk) 02:15, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

It is long standing, reliably sourced material. And the arguments for deletion provided by all the newcomers, who coincidentally just happened to arrive here at about the same time, are not convincing. And I'm hardly casting aspersions here - it's pretty obvious what is going on. See WP:GAME and WP:DUCK.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Just because the material is sourced and long standing, doesn't mean it can be scrutinized for inclusion in the lede. The only reasoning that you've put forward so far for the sentence to be kept is that it is "sourced and long standing".

Do you have other reasonings why?

Also, just a reminder, I've only suggested to delete the sentence, not the source itself. RossyAmbarsari (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

A well-structured Wikipedia lede should provide a balanced and chronological summary of a person's career. A good example is Mahathir Mohamad's article, which first establishes his identity as Malaysia’s longest-serving prime minister, then highlights his key contributions, and finally outlines his later political activities. This structure ensures that the reader gets a comprehensive overview of his leadership without overemphasizing any single aspect.

In contrast, Suharto's lede currently focuses heavily on negative aspects, with certain key points being repeated multiple times. This not only disrupts readability but also creates an imbalance in how his tenure is represented. A better approach would be to restructure the lede into “who he was – key policies – historical legacy”, ensuring clarity and neutrality.

Regarding Transparency International's statement, the issue is not about disputing the source but its placement and redundancy. The same point is already covered multiple times in both the lede and the main body. To ensure neutrality, a more balanced approach would be to consolidate this information in the main body while refining the lede to provide a broader perspective on his leadership. 2001:D08:E6:D35B:34E5:3D5:44C3:B167 (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Wanted to chime in.. Completely agree on what has been discussed on the lede's neutrality. However, where it currently stands, @RossyAmbarsari have made great edits towards neutrality.

Regarding the Transparency statement, I also support the removal of the sentence from the lede. I don't think it should be placed as a "note" either, since it can also be found in other sections of the article.

For the sentence that was tagged with 'needing clarification' in the lede, I agree that this sentence is very confusing and not very readable. It reads as if this sentence was just copied directly from the source(?), and likely because it is plumped into the lede and out of context (from what was written in source), it requires additional explanation. I'm sure someone can find a better sentence to be used (without jeopardizing the lede's neutrality) Ruthie Ann Miles (talk) 04:01, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Structure of "New Order" section

Hi all, wanted to get your input on structure for the presidency section.

There are 2 options that we can potentially choose to pursue:

• 1) Sub-sections based on Presidential term/time period, and organizing info into each time period (Harry S. Truman article is an example of this)
• 2) Sub-sections based on topics, and organizing info (from 1967-1998) into each topic (Ronald Reagan article is an example of this.)

The New Order section currently does a hybrid of the two options, where it starts based on topics but then there's a time based sub-section at the end. RossyAmbarsari (talk) 11:31, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I prefer the second option. Since Suharto's presidency lasted for 30+ years (and more than 5 terms), the typical reader might have a better experience when information/policies are grouped. Ruthie Ann Miles (talk) 10:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Stating that he is a dictator is still neutral

Alright who keeps deleting the fact that he is a dictator, 32 years tenure, and how he fell from power in the premise paragraph? How can Augusto Pinochet, Ferdinand Marcos, and many others can still have in their article named as dictator? Eventhough he is the longest serving president, it is also an undeniable objective fact and finding that in addition to that, he is still a dictator. Him being a dictator is not a politically biased statement, because he is one. SymphonyWizard72 (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2025 (UTC)