Talk:The Year of Living Dangerously
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
The Year of Living Dangerously is part of WikiProject Indonesia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. Please do not substitute this template.
|
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. |
|
|
|
 |
The Year of Living Dangerously is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
This article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
|||
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | ||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
Contents |
[edit] Edward G. Nilges(Spinoza1111 14:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)) contibutes plot and analysis, hopefully unbiased
Viewers need to know that the slaughter at the airport occured, and the USA tolerated it if it didn't encourage the Moslem generals to unleash the bloodbath; Noam Chomsky has documented US involvement in the 1965 coup along with its support for Indonesia's brutalization of East Timor.
OK, so I nearly threw up when at the end of Crocodile Dundee, Paul Hogan walks towards Linda Kozlowsky on the heads of the little people. The guy's a matey Fascist of the first water. So do let me know if my bias is in the article and be bold.
It wasn't an Indonesian civil war. It was a US sponsored coup similar to the overthrow of Whitlam and, perhaps, the 1987 Fiji coup which made sure that the Indo-Fijians wouldn't get all socialist, and returned Fiji to the control of the more conservative Ratus. But an encyclopedia article is no place for anti-US diatribes. My country will be convicted of continual meddling in other people's affairs not by movies but by the facts.
[edit] TYOLD
Ok it isnt a war movie, then why is a wiki editor qualified to call 65/66 'The Indonesian Civil War',?? My wife, (who had done an honours thesis on an aspect of 65/66) had never heard of the phrase being used - I never have. I am mystified why wiki procedures allow something like that! SatuSuro 15:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC) dengan hormat!
- Satu, I chose "Indonesian Civil War" as a specifically NPOV title for the period. "G30S" is a specifically Suhartoist take on it, and given that even if the G30S plot were true there's still the question of whether the onus should be on them, or whether it should be on the Council of Generals they accused of treason. "Indonesian Coup of 1965/66" was another option on the table, but who committed a coup against whom--Daniel 16:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC) is arguable.
- At any rate: why not call a military conflict, which took hundreds of thousands of lives, and ended up in regime change a civil war?--Daniel 15:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Well the main reason why I wouldn't call it a war movie is the fact that no armed conflicts are depicted in the movie. Furthermore an armed conflict is not necessarily a war. Yes in the 1965 - 1966 era there was some kind of civil unrest in Indonesia with mass killings. But still it wasn't a war. In a war there are clear combattants and there must be at least two hostile parties. In this event there weren't even any combat. There were only killings. There were killings of presumed communists. So I myself would call it some kind of genocide but not war. Meursault2004 16:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Well, there was a hot war going on in the background of TYOLD (the Konfrontasi) - the whole "Living Dangerously" line was based around Sukarno's words ushering in of hot conflict against Malaysia, UK, etc. But on the point of Indonesian Civil War - at least at the beginning of '65, there was indeed some combat between the "G30S" forces and those loyal to Suharto. I'm of the opinion that the period of combat was brief, and that after Jakarta was seized by Nasution-Suharto loyalists the casualties were very lopsided - hence, why the PKI's Central Committee-in exile called it just a "White Terror."
- But of course, however, the same group criticized Aidit for not adhering to Mao's "People's War" doctrine - so one could imagine that there were those sectors of the PKI that were spoiling for a conflict. Hence, I titled it Indonesian Civil War rather than Indonesian White Terror or Indonesian Coup - it keeps things NPOV and open to different scholarly interpretations.
- By, I should point out that I have an interesting hard copy "self critical" document the PKI Central Committee published from China detailing what they perceived as their mistakes in '65 and attempts to re-establish the Party. Unfortunately, it is without copyright information printed (this was likely due to attempts to get around import restrictions during the U.S. Cold War). I am looking forward to contributing some choice quotes to round out Indonesian Civil War. At any rate, toodles. --Daniel 16:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- I am fairly certain the line "TYOLD" is from Sukarno's August 1964 National Day speech (not 1965), ie it was the title of the speech. I will check this and correct if necessary. On another point (not related to the article but the above comments) I don't think that you can refer to "G30S" forces even being in existence prior to the Gestapu (September 30, 1965). Suharto, btw, was a minor figure prior to the subseqent counter-offensive. If there was some fighting between the PKI's "fifth armed force" and forces loyal to the rightist Generals in early 1965 (I am not at all sure to what you are referring though) then this can hardly be called a war. 192.43.227.18 09:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Whitlam a Liberal?
Why is Gough referred to as a liberal in this article? His policies and his current political leanings are clearly social democratic, not liberal. Because of the distribution of english-speakers in the world, Wikipedia is mainly written by United States of Americans, who equate liberal with left because of a hostility to social democratic policies in US domestic politics remnant from the Cold War. If Gough is to have a political label at all, it must be social democrat or even socialist. If you can't tell the difference between a liberal and a social democrat, then don't use the label. Just refer to their political background (ALP, LPA, Democrat, Republican, Shooters' party etc). Unsigned message
-
- complete and utter crap label of liberal - agreed - he was a labour (sic) prime minister.143.238.221.62 12:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Political Context
If I was really Indonesian, I would say "artikel ini ada nafas "plagiarised", some of the phrases read like from something I've read somewhere else. Please be careful with edits that you are not copying copyright material! - also sign properly and put in order!!! 143.238.221.62 12:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Rama..'s removal of spurious political commentary as OR is incorrect, its more like something plagiarised as editor above suggests - looks like we need adjudication on this one folks!
Maybe we need to have some - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Negotiation, or maybe SatuSuro 03:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
