Talk:Communist Party of Indonesia

EXCUSE ME, I want to about the role of the Santosa Family during the 1965 coup in Indonesia, if any. I heard from someone that the people at the helm of the Salem Group's affair were involved in that Coup. I may be wrong, or right. But, I sincerely want to know about that for my ownself only. I would be glad in anybody can through some ligt on that.

Rosa Baker.

It feels a bit weird to divide the history of PKI in two periods. Is there anything to suggest that PKI disbanded at the orders of the Dutch? As I understand it it continued working, although in a clandestine manner. Similarily PKI doesn't end 1965. It maintained a party apparatus at least til the beginning of 1990's. --Soman 18:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC) Reply

I think it's reasonable to divide the PKI's history into two parts. It had two periods where it had major popular support, and was hugely influential in Indonesian politics - the 1920s and the 1950s-60s. I think it's reasonable to emphasize these periods. The PKI didn't just disband on orders of the Dutch in the 1920s - much of its leadership was forcibly exiled from the Dutch East Indies, or forced to leave to escape imprisonment, and had little interaction with people still there. It was pretty much wiped out, in my understanding. In between, a smaller group may have continued working, but I haven't seen much written about that era - I'd like to know about it. Several sources I've read, though (recently, Helen Jarvis's notes to From Jail to Jail), do describe the PKI's history in terms of two separate periods. Regarding the post-1965 PKI, the article should mention what was left of it, and what it did within the context of Suharto's violently anti-Communist regime, but I don't know anything about that.

Maybe the solution is to remove the specific years that I put in the headers, and maybe rename the sections? Then it wouldn't imply that it didn't exist at all outside of those years, while still highlighting the years during which it was most influential? Maybe rename the sections? How about "Creation of the PKI" and "Post-war resurgence"? CDC (talk) 22:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC) Reply

The post 65 conditions for anyone with any connections with anyone known to be involved with any left leaning organisations were close to disastrous, for a long time. It was not necessarily pki membership either, so perhaps it would be more appropriate to have a heading/article relative to suharto's terror methods during his regime, rather than a history of the pki. close to the ground in java in the 1950's you only have to look at the fate of the darul islam members, ex pki people in the 60's, to get a sense of the difficulties in distinctions...User:SatuSuro 08:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC) Reply

I've put the article Tan Malaka, which I wrote a while back, up on peer review, here. I'd be interested in comments or suggestions on it, either on the peer review page or on the talk page. I'm still working on more images - ideas welcome.

It also wouldn't hurt to make sure he's properly described on this page. His relationship with the PKI was odd; he's often associated with it by historians, but he was only briefly (~3 months) the chairman, and didn't get along with most of the party's other leadership very well at all, as far as I can tell. He did write a lot about communism in Indonesia, and served (sometimes rather informally) as a PKI representative in the Netherlands, Russia, and China. Anyway, I'll work on that at some point if someone else doesn't first. CDC (talk) 23:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC) Reply

Growth of the Indonesian Communist Party

Between 1960 and 1965, the PKI and its allied peasant organisations began to carry out a program of land seizures in order to make landlords comply with existing laws. These actions resulted in violent responses by landlords, and fights between security forces and peasants. Mass mobilisations began to increase very rapidly, with large protests in the main cities and a growing number of smaller protests in other towns and villages. The party also took up the cause of plantation and industrial workers in North Sumatra, and of Javanese migrants in North and South Sumatra. It supported Hindus against East Javanese orthodox Muslims who were members of the local elite, as well as opponents of Hindu priestly authority in Bali. All this grassroots activity contributed to a major increase in the membership of the PKI and the left wing of the PNI. By 1965, the PKI had three million members and was said to be the largest communist party in the world outside the Soviet Union and China. In addition to its vast membership, more than 15 million people had indirect connections to it through their membership of the peasant associations, labour unions and other affiliates. - source - http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=8944

SatuSuro 02:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Reply

Uggh...this section needs to be reworded so it is all in past tense. Looks like a dodgy copy/paste job at the moment. Too busy to do it myself.

Not only that it's actually biased, and while I admit, the bias goes both right and left, somewhere in the middle lies the objective truth. Maybe you should consider that the PKI also attacked right-wing units in an attempt to control the post-war govt of Indonesia, almost handing the Dutch a victory with vicious infighting. 202.169.60.66 (talk) 07:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Reply

Komando Jihad

http://books.google.com/books?id=8nHawM5ygMwC&pg=PA143#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=8nHawM5ygMwC&pg=PA144#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=8nHawM5ygMwC&pg=PA145#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=8nHawM5ygMwC&pg=PA142&lpg=PA142&dq=komando+jihad&source=bl&ots=SOXdJKqJK_&sig=zU_gpba6nsGHKzWMqnBMs37sHiU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=a19LU7icG9LKsQTLw4LQCA&ved=0CDMQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=komando%20jihad&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=8nHawM5ygMwC&pg=PA143&dq=Momok+Revolusioner+communist+rhetoric&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MF9MU8uQLbXQsQSI84GwDQ&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Momok%20Revolusioner%20communist%20rhetoric&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=-JlKtzgo81QC&pg=PA17&dq=Momok+Revolusioner+communist+rhetoric&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MF9MU8uQLbXQsQSI84GwDQ&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Momok%20Revolusioner%20communist%20rhetoric&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=-JlKtzgo81QC&pg=PA18&dq=Momok+Revolusioner+communist&hl=en&sa=X&ei=U19MU5f6H6rNsQSF6IHIAg&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Momok%20Revolusioner%20communist&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Reply

Before 2025? What is that mean? Hddty. (talk) 09:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC) Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Communist Party of Indonesia. 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/20070929143151/http://typo3.ifa.webart.de/fileadmin/content/publikationen/downloads/gewaltstudie_de.pdf to http://typo3.ifa.webart.de/fileadmin/content/publikationen/downloads/gewaltstudie_de.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check }} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC) Reply

According to the following presentation, the PKI was refounded in June 2016, when it held its first legal national congress since 1962: https://communismgr.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-rebirth-of-communist-party-of.html 129.63.183.91 (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC) Reply

This blog is not a reliable source. See WP:USERGENERATED. In any case, the revival of the PKI is currently inconceivable in Indonesia. Also, please add new sections to the bottom of the talk page. Thanks Davidelit (Talk) 02:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC) Reply

The new PKI has a website, too: http://pki659.wixsite.com/komunisindonesia 129.63.183.126 (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC) Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Communist Party of Indonesia. 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/20100522023700/http://www.marxists.org/indonesia/indones/pkihist.htm to http://www.marxists.org/indonesia/indones/pkihist.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060203165317/http://www.marxists.org/indonesia/indones/sudisman.htm to http://www.marxists.org/indonesia/indones/sudisman.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check }} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC) Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Communist Party of Indonesia.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 08:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC) Reply

The Lede says "The PKI was a legal party made up of unarmed civilians operating openly in Indonesia’s political system", however the text of the article describes a number of instances in which PKI members took up arms, most notably in their incursions into Malaysia during the Konfrontasi. Additionally the article also describes the PKI leadership going underground for part of the immediate post-independence period. Finally, the PKI clearly wasn't legal after it was banned, or before Indonesian independence. Looking at the reference used to support this statement it is clearly referring to the author's view of the status of the PKI in 1965, and I'm not sure this should be stated as fact in the voice of Wiki. FOARP (talk) 13:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC) Reply

Writing this to answer @Dan Carkner.

1. First, as I wrote, your rebuttal argument was misleading. The article that I cited from The Conversation was written by a Professor from the Australian National University, writing the Communist Party's leadership did plan the 30 September Movement.
2. You requested "peer reviewed articles by domain experts" and yet the previous version of this article did not provide any source at at all for the "army-led" part.
3. The current dispute is about whether D.N. Aidit (the chief of PKI) actually shared his plan to every single PKI official. Not whether he planned it. The sources from both Indonesia and Western countries, including scholars John Roosa, already reached the conclusion that Aidit or at least his party's Special Bureau, was very much involved in the planning. The CIA's recently undisclosed report (originally written in 1968) also reached the consensus that Aidit and his top officials did plan the event.
4. The first-hand witnesses from Indonesia, Supono, a member of Special Bureau, also affirmed that Aidit did the planning and give the greenlight. This source is in Indonesian. I assume you speak the language? You may check it here: https://news.detik.com/berita/d-3667173/penyesalan-pentolan-pki-di-pengujung-eksekusi

Southeastviewer (talk) 03:52, 9 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

I understand the history well enough. John Roosa was my thesis supervisor at UBC. I think the way it was phrased is fine as a few words summary, someone can click through to the link for the September 30 article if they want the full facts. Dan Carkner (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

I don't understand, how is your relation with Roosa answering your characterization of Professor Cribb from the Australian National University as not an expert?

And what is your answer about the member of Special Bureau who did admit D.N. Aidit greenlighted the coup? Do you speak Indonesian? https://news.detik.com/berita/d-3667173/penyesalan-pentolan-pki-di-pengujung-eksekusi

Southeastviewer (talk) 03:35, 10 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Just to add, Prof. Cribb was also citing Roosa on that article. So at this point it's your words vs. Cribb and Roosa.

Do you have any backup argument?

Southeastviewer (talk) 03:42, 10 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Do you have any clear reason to revert the edit on the Communisty Party page?

I left two sources by two different scholars that the Communist Party did plan the coup (Roosa and Cribb), and there are more sources in Indonesian.

"After years of uncertainty, recent findings show the 30th September Movement was the product of months of planning by Untung, the PKI leader Aidit and a handful of others. The movement aimed to throw the army high command off balance, discredit the generals as apparent enemies of Sukarno, and shift Indonesian politics to the left so that the PKI could come to power rapidly, though probably not immediately."

Yet you are leaving it without source at all that the coup was "army-led". May I ask what is your argument on that?

Southeastviewer (talk) 03:41, 10 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

I have couple of reasons. Firstly, this is not the first time you have been reverted for shoehorning contentious material in articles pertaining to Suharto’s coup and massacres that favors the view of the Indonesian government and/or the old Suharto regime. Secondly, it seems you are cherry picking sources to push Suharto’s narrative, long debunked, on the role of the PKI in the events preceding the coup. And given that your edits go against long standing material, you should definitely seek consensus on talk before reinserting them.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 12:24, 10 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Let's unpack your claims one by one:

A. Firstly, this is not the first time you have been reverted for shoehorning contentious material in articles pertaining to Suharto’s coup and massacres that favors the view of the Indonesian government and/or the old Suharto regime.

1. The sources that I cited from The Conversation. It is not a "contentious material" according to Wikipedia's standard.

2. The article's writer (a Professor from the Australian National University) cites John Roosa who has actually written a book against Suharto's narrative during the PKI's massacre. Nonetheless, he admits in his book (that I also cited) that the leadership of PKI was involved in the planning of the preceding coup.

Counter-question: Are you characterizing Roosa as favoring the "view of Indonesian government"?

B. Secondly, it seems you are cherry picking sources to push Suharto’s narrative, long debunked, on the role of the PKI in the events preceding the coup.

1.Your claim is contradicting what the scholars actually say. The Conversation's article, citing Roosa, shows that the recent finding is actually that the PKI was planning the coup.

2. So far, no one has "debunked" Cribb or Roosa about this.

Counter-question: What is your recent source that the coup was the "army-led"?

As for the last part, I am currently on Talk page. I am waiting for the other editor's answer.

Southeastviewer (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

"Your claim is contradicting what the scholars actually say. The Conversation's article, citing Roosa, shows that the recent finding is actually that the PKI was planning the coup."

You see, this is the problem with your argument. The PKI, by and large, was not at all involved in this affair, only a handful of PKI leaders were involved. There was no mass mobilization of the PKI for a takeover of the country, and the vast majority of the party, made up of millions of civilians, were completely unaware, making the mass killings a deliberately manufactured catastrophe, as Roosa points out. And he also points out it was intended to be a preemptive action against right-wing elements in the Army that were plotting a coup against Sukarno.

If your preferred version is restored, this should be included for proper context. WP:CHERRY definitely applies here. C.J. Griffin (talk) 00:51, 11 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Let's test your logic to yourself:

First, You insist that "only handful of PKI leaders were involved" (which included the Chairman of PKI himself)

So, if you are exonerating PKI, despite the involvement of its Leader and his Special Bureau, why are you insisting to keep the description as "army-led" coup if the military who was involved was only members of Cakrabirawa (Presidential Guard), and had no control in the main military body, and its leadership was only a Lt. Colonel.

To be clear, I simply wanted to rewrite that as "coup". I do not disagree that it was the Leadership of PKI who planned this (per your own words, thank you for your admission).

But back to my questions:

1. Why are you insisting to keep it "army-led" when the military was by and large, was not at all involved in this affair?
2. Why does that exoneration only apply to PKI despite their leaders were involved, according to Roosa and Cribb?

Moreover, you still have not provided any resources to back up your argument at all except your own original research. Wikipedia:NOR

Southeastviewer (talk) 05:51, 11 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

In addition, please stop attacking me by misrepresenting my political belief. You are accusing me of using "Suharto's narrative" while I clearly cite a scholarly article and book. WP:NOPA

In fact, you are also evading my questions above. So why do you disagree with Prof. Cribb and Prof. Roosa? Both are highly credible in the academia in this domain. What's your argument?

Please scrutinize the sources or provide your back-up. If you are unable to provide any counter-argument, you should submit that the edit is correct instead of resorting to personal political attack. C.J. Griffin

Southeastviewer (talk) 12:16, 11 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

I know Roosa, as I said, and his book definitely does not argue that it was a party coup. It's a lot more ambiguous, that some party leaders who did not inform the party apparatus, and some party-aligned soldiers, did attack the generals in a messy and unplanned way. I could live with plenty of different phrasings of this one sentence that link to another article but not to try and make it seem like a party conspiracy.

Reading your talk page you seem to have entered in past disputes and been selectively banned from editing things aggressively and arguing with people who disagree with you so I am also viewing it in that light. Dan Carkner (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

So, I cannot add sources from The Conversation and John Roosa because I was arguing in a personality test page? @Dan Carkner? How about focusing on your resources?

Let's read your argument:

"I know Roosa, as I said, and his book definitely does not argue that it was a party coup. It's a lot more ambiguous, that some party leaders who did not inform the party apparatus, and some party-aligned soldiers, did attack the generals in a messy and unplanned way."

This is my answer: I did not try to write it was a party coup. It's not the main core of my argument. I know well enough that the sources say it was the leadership of the PKI which was involved. My concern is why are you insisting to maintain the "army-led coup" if the scholars/historians already wrote that leaders of the Communist Party were heavily involved as well?

Roosa wrote (and you removed this): "The leadership of the movement consisted of five men. Three were military officers: Lieutenant Colonel Untung of the presidential guard, Colonel Abdul Latief of the Jakarta army garrison (Kodam jaya), and Major Soejono of the Halim air base guard. The two civilians were Sjam and Pono, who were from a clandestine organization, the Special Bureau, which was run by the chairman of the Communist Party, D. N. Aidit."

If you look at the hierarchy of power, as I stated above, the highest-ranking officer involved was only a Colonel and Lt. Colonel who had no significant power within the military (yet you insist to call it "army-led"). Meanwhile, the Chairman, the number one person, of the Communist Party was involved in the coup along with his Special Bureau (yet you keep trying to exonerate the Communist Party).

So, why are you maintaining the "army-led coup" on a Wikipedia page while neither Cribb nor Roosa (or many other resources in Indonesia) describe it as such? What is your evidence and resource?

Southeastviewer (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

On the discussion above, you are unable to provide any counter-argument and you just walked away. And yet you just arbitrarily removed not one but three sources at the same time.

The burden is not on me to "convince" you; My duty is to simply provide legitimate sources for this Wikipedia article, and all my citations have met Wikipedia's standard.

- The Conversation: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/all/The Conversation

- John Roosa's book: WP:SCHOLARSHIP and Wikipedia:Reliable sources (reputable publisher)

- John Hughes' book: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (reputable publisher)

The burden is on you to explain why you were removing three resources (two professors and one Pulitzer-winning journalist). @Dan Carkner

If you are still unable to provide any reasoning, I will have to Request for Comment on this page to check the potential bias here.

Southeastviewer (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

I don't have any prior opinion on this matter, but I don't see why this is leading to an edit war. Dan Carkner said, "I could live with plenty of different phrasings of this one sentence that link to another article but not to try and make it seem like a party conspiracy.", so they are clearly fine with changing the wording. I think their issue is that removing the part about the army is making it seem like it was just PKI due to lack of other context. On the other hand, if we are going to say "army-led" we need a source saying that and (preferably) it should be in the body and sourced there, and that is specifically what Southeastviewer is taking issue with here. Currently the body says, "Evidence linking the PKI to the generals' assassinations is inconclusive, leading to speculation that their involvement was very limited or that Suharto organised the events (in whole or in part) and scapegoated the communists." Speculation is not enough to put this in wikivoice. I also checked the Crouch source referenced after this line in the lead. I don't have the same copy, so perhaps I am missing something, but I read the relevant section, and it seems far more nuanced. (Following from The Army and Politics in Indonesia by Harold Crouch):

The attempted coup has been subject to a wide range of conflicting interpretations. The Indonesian army's version, which gained universal public acceptance in Indonesia, identified the PKI as the dalang... On the other hand, two scholars at Cornell University, Benedict Anderson and Ruth McVey... put forward a provisional interpretation suggesting that the PKI played no role in the planning of the coup attempt. Unlike the unanimity that characterized public discussion of the affair in Indonesia, sharp controversy arose among Western scholars between those who accepted the interpretation in the so-called "Cornell Paper" and those who took the view that the PKI was deeply involved. Later the testimony of PKI leaders at the Mahmillub (Special Military Court) trials as well as the opinions expressed by PKI emigre groups in Europe and elsewhere made the "Cornell" thesis very difficult to defend in its original form. While it appears clear that the PKI was indeed involved, the circumstances and extent of its involvement are still unclear. (Page 101)

Pages 103-104 of my copy go into more detail, concluding: While the involvement of the PKI in one way or another has been widely accepted, the view that it was the sole or even principal dalang has been doubted...

Why don't we just workshop a version we are all happy with? The linked main page on this matter says, with many sources: coup movement orchestrated by the leaders of the Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI) and its sympathizers within the Indonesian military This gives the nuance that both PKI leaders and the military were involved. Does anyone disagree with just copying this wording over here?

(Also I don't think Southeastviewer should be dismissed for any prior behavior on other pages, though I agree collaborating here would have been better than reverting.) LordCollaboration (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Apparently the wording on the other page has been under some dispute with some of the same people involved here as well, so perhaps scratch that proposal. But for now, maybe we could go with "Accused of responsibility for the 1965 coup attempt, which involved some leaders in the PKI as well as the military, the party was banned by General Suharto in March 1966 and its members were violently purged." (or some similar phrasing) until we get something more specific we can agree on? LordCollaboration (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

I can live with that phrasing, but perhaps to satify all here "some leaders in the PKI as well as the military" could be phrased differently, like "some leaders in the PKI and left-wing military officers" to reflect that it was self selected conspirers on both sides and not coming officially or formally from either organization. Dan Carkner (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Or perhaps better to keep it closer to the phrasing in the higher up comment: "some leaders in the PKI and sympathizers within the Indonesian military". Dan Carkner (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

As I said above, I did not disagree that the ones involved were the leaders in the PKI. I did not try intentionally to say the whole party did it.

"some leaders in the PKI and sympathizers within the Indonesian military"

I agree with the phrase. Cc: @LordCollaboration Southeastviewer (talk) 04:25, 24 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

@C.J. Griffin You good with this as well? I will add it to the article if there are no objections. LordCollaboration (talk) 12:04, 24 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Yeah I can live with that. C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:25, 24 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

I think it is leading to an edit war because of the way Southeastviewer has been approaching it, which comes across as browbeating and hostile to the position of other editors. Reading their talk page does not encourage me that they are willing to engage with criticism or collaborate respectfully, which is especially important on a historically important and contested issue.

As for sources, I don't think using pieces written in the 60s or 70s are appropriate in terms of peer reviewed current understanding of the events. It's fair to quote them as primary sources, to say based on the information available at the time this is what was being said. Aside from Roosa (2006), the Communist Party of Indonesia article recommends Robinson's 2018 book as a source. Based on my reading of the relevant sections he seems doubtful of testimony at show trials by suriving PKI figures and the notion that it was led by the party itself. There are others like McGregor Melvin and Pohlman's The Indonesian Genocide of 1965 (also 2018) which on this specific question mainly refer back to Roosa. As does Cribb's article in The Conversation. If there is a more recent scholarly reexamination of who was involved in plotting G30 I would be happy to look it over. Dan Carkner (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

I don't know much about this topic, I just follow this page and saw the conflict, and when I checked it out the body/source didn't match the part under dispute. I agree more recent scholarship would be ideal. LordCollaboration (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

I get it. thanks for trying to step in and settle things down nonetheless. Dan Carkner (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Just want to add: The recent scholarship would be The Conversation's article that I originally cited and deleted (that also cites Roosa's book). The thing is no one has disproven Roosa's argument so far. And Roosa's argument is consistent with what the Pulitzer-winning John Hughes wrote in 1968 when he was covering the conflict and trial.

Thank you for your comment. I appreciate it.

Southeastviewer (talk) 04:31, 24 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

I mean to share this in an informational and not confrontational sense, but I believe this summary of the literature does go far to show that Roosa is the main serious revision of earlier study of this specific topic. The subsequent pieces including the Conversation article and other anthologies I cite above seem to refer back to him on this topic. Dan Carkner (talk) 13:32, 24 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Interesting. This seems to suggest both articles currently don't have a great summary. According to Supardjo, the movement was a co-conspiracy planned throughout the month of September by Aidit, Sjam, and Pono on the PKI end, and Latief, Untung, and Soejono on the military end, without any single person or group taking a dominant position of leadership. ... The main importance of the source is to act as confirmation of Sjam and Sudisman’s previous testimonies at the Extraordinaire Military Trials, which claim that only several members at the top of the PKI hierarchy had any knowledge of the September 30th Movement. Army-led on this article seems to understate the role of the PKI leaders and overstate how much of the army was involved, while "orchestrated by the leaders of the Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI) and its sympathizers within the Indonesian military" on the main article seems to overstate how many in the PKI leadership were involved ("the" should be changed to "some" or "a minority of" or "a small number of"). My reading of the Conversation piece seems like it gives a similar position (The movement involved a handful of top PKI leaders... the 30th September Movement was the product of months of planning by Untung, the PKI leader Aidit and a handful of others.). LordCollaboration (talk) 14:06, 24 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

In my defense, you are cherry-picking here. I edited multiple pages, yet you are just zooming in on one single page.

If you knew that "army-led" is disproven by different experts, what motivated you to keep on this page for so long? @Dan Carkner

Southeastviewer (talk) 04:27, 24 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

I disagree that it's disproven or denied by anyone. G30 was carried out by officers and it is summarized as such by Britannia. From the vantage point of an article about the PKI there is logic to framing G30 as an external event to the normal function of the party as an organization, even if there are also other possible ways to describe it. Dan Carkner (talk) 13:30, 24 June 2026 (UTC) Reply