Talk:Sukarno

Newest CIA files on Kennedy show the US considered assassinating Sukarno.

Considering all the attempts on his life and the role the US played in helping Suharto, it's definitely of interest to include this.

--84.210.102.191 (talk) 07:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Where? I want to read them. Neocorelight (Talk) 06:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Should we create a page about Sukarnoism?

I think many people here missed many Sukarno ideas and theories such as Manipol USDEK, Nasakom, Trisakti, and many more, even there's no page about Sukarnoism. I want to know how many people here would agree if we create a page about Sukarnoism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhatopzz (talk • contribs) 18:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Still lacking citations

The tag about the article lacking verifying citations has now been up for 11-12 months now - just to let everyone know. I didn't add the tag myself. I am not knowledgeable about Indonesian information sources at all and so will not be making any changes myself, but I don't know if there's any way to advertise or seek help for Wikipedians who can add verifying citations? He was President of Indonesia for well over 20 years and so it'd be a shame if the tag needed to remain up for a lot longer, given that obviously the article receives very many views from people accessing Wikipedia. Jw93d59 (talk) 05:43, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Regarding involvement of PKI leadership in 30 September Movement

A minor edit that I made was reverted by Special:Contributions/~2026-62327-2 with the following comment:

There remain competing theories as to who was responsible for the G30S and the CIA is about is simply not an impartial, or frankly reliable, source on information about the actions of foreign communist parties that it was contemporaneously working tosuppress and murder (Vincent Bevins - “The Jakarta Method” pages 113-135).

My perspective here is that the consensus viewpoint is that individuals who in senior leadership positions in the PKI were involved in the 30 September Movement, and that debate amongst academic historians is both the degree to which specific individuals were involved and the degree to which the PKI as an institution was involved.

Harold Crouch, an expert on Indonesian politics, describes the three leading hypotheses in this paper and argues that the evidence is overwhelming that PKI leadership was directly involved in the planning but that the level of involvement is inconclusive.

John Roosa, a historian at UBC who is skeptical of deep PKI involvement argues in Pretext for Mass Murder that a cell within the PKI was likely involved in the planning, and that the organization broadly had no knowledge of the coup.

Taomo Zhou, a scholar at the National University of Singapore, uses declassified documents from Beijing's archives to argue that Aidit (who served as the General Secretary at the time of the coup) was an active participant of the coup in this article.

Declassified CIA documents (the ones mentioned in the revert comment) argue a similar line.

While competing hypotheses exist, the most notable one being the one outlined in the Cornell Paper, I think that most experts regard the view that the PKI was uninvolved or that the coup was an internal matter in the army as implausible.

If the user who reverted my edit disagrees I am happy to discuss and I will leave his or her edit as is for now, but I will revert it in several days if I don't hear back. Ostip (talk) 14:04, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

This doesn't change the fact that these are still allegations. You agree that competing hypotheses exist, so we shouldn't assume there's a settled academic consensus here. I'm not going to revert your edit, but adding "allegedly" is necessary for balance. Aleain (talk) 09:57, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, but I do wonder at what point we are giving undue weight to the opposing view.

The Cornell Paper was published 60 years ago and while a valuable contribution at the time, scholarship has moved away from this interpretation. I can't find a single academic source that holds the view that the PKI (and Aidit) were uninvolved that has been published in the last 20 years.

The skeptic position comes in two flavors: 1) Aidit (and several other senior members of the PKI) organized the coup without broader organizational knowledge or support, which is the view endorsed by Crouch, and 2) diplomats active in the region at the time from several different countries (Australia, USSR, USA) did not believe that the PKI instigated the coup but became involved in the planning, documentation for which is provided by Karim Najjarine's 2004 dissertation.

Bevins is not an expert, and I'm not sure that he is even arguing PKI non-involvement. If I understand correctly, he is only arguing that the internal CIA documents (the ones declassified by FOIA requests) are unreliable because of political bias and their later material support to perpetrators of the Indonesian genocide.

In 2013, this meta analysis found that 97% of climatology abstracts endorse the view that humans are the primary cause of recent climate change. That Richard Lindzen and a handful of other experts hold heterodox views does not mean that there is a lack of consensus and that any mention of humans being drivers of recent climate change be hedged. Ostip (talk) 13:24, 6 February 2026 (UTC)