Talk:Suharto/Archives/2005/September
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Mel and 172 revert war
Could you please put your cases in this area, so that others can see what you are up to. Doing it in each others talk areas is innapropriate and reads like personal issues... :) During his time in power Suharto was often seen as a "benevolent dictator" the ruler that Indonesia 'needed'. It's all very well to invoke political/academic theory from outside of Indonesia - it looks like neither of you lived there while he was in power..... hmmmm User:SatuSuro 01:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- The final point is irrelevant; I didn't live in ancient Greece, either, but I can write about the political career or Pericles.
- This is a matter of Wikipedia policy (and courtesy). Others have reacted against this unilateral depopulation of a category (while that category is at CfD), and have pointed out that it would at least be much better to discuss the issues on the Talk pages of the articles concerned. If any argument were placed here, I'd respond to it. Instead, 172 merely removed the category with a spurious edit summary. His response to my request for a real explanation was different (and more convincing), but still not enough in my view — and certainly not grounds for removing the category without proper discussion. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with you. 172s arguments on this issue are exeedingly flawed (especially the "not all scholars" one). He even suggested calling Idi Amins reign "single-party state" instead of totalitarian (what party?). But since the category Category:Totalitarian dictators is loosing the CfD, it really serves no purpose to revert his edits now.--Ezeu 19:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- I have explained why it is necessary to remove the category on Mel Etitis' talk page. Regarding Idi Amin, I did not call his regime single-party. I would follow Juan Linz and most Africa specialists in advancing the hypothesis that Idi Amin's regime is classifiable as sultanistic or personalistic. See Sultanistic Regimes. Edited by H.E. Chehabi and Juan J. Linz. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998, p. 37. 172 | Talk 23:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with you. 172s arguments on this issue are exeedingly flawed (especially the "not all scholars" one). He even suggested calling Idi Amins reign "single-party state" instead of totalitarian (what party?). But since the category Category:Totalitarian dictators is loosing the CfD, it really serves no purpose to revert his edits now.--Ezeu 19:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)