This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IndonesiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate:WikiProject IndonesiaIndonesia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
@The man from Gianyar: I just noticed you haven't edited in a week or so. Are you available to respond to comments on this GA, or would it be helpful to put it on hold for a little while? Either way is fine - just let me know! Ganesha811 (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@The man from Gianyar: as it's been another week and there has been no response, I intend to close this review tomorrow without prejudice. If you re-nominate it, feel free to ping me and I'll see if I can pick it up for a new review. In the meantime, my comments below would provide a starting point for improvements. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to fail this GA review without prejudice due to nominator non-response. As I mentioned, I'd be happy to see a re-nomination in the future. Feel free to ask any questions about this on my talk page. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, Amir isn't his family name. It's his first name. Actually he has family name "Harahap" but because he's part of The 1928 Youth Pledge, he didn't use his family name anymore to support nationalism spirit. Since his family name indicates ethnicity. Harahap itself is a family name from Batak ethnic group. Amir also had peerage "Sutan Gunung Soaloon" but he didn't use it too. 202.80.217.97 (talk) 10:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quick question: is Amir his family name, a personal name, or something else? By Western name order it appears to be his personal name, but I'm assuming that since Amir is used throughout the article, it was a family name? Ganesha811 (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
The link to the Purba source leads to a maintenance page. It's ok if the source is offline, but if a better link is available, please switch them out.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
I'm not sure an Indonesian army (report?) from 1968 discussing defense-related events of only 20 years prior can be considered neutral. I would find alternate sources to support the information and remove any reliance on the Army source except to discuss the Army's own views.
Toer may not be neutral either as he was a significant participant in political activity at the time, but the fact Toer is referenced to support is uncontroversial and so I don't think it's actually an issue.
Earwig finds a significant overlap between the article and a 2012 blog post on Amir. The text appears to be in the article as of 2011, suggesting that the blog copied from Wikipedia and not vice versa. @The man from Gianyar:, do you have any other knowledge of this, or does it look like a blog copying from Wiki to you too? Provisional pass for now. Neither earwig or manual spot check turned up anything else noteworthy.
Comment Understanding that he was prime minister for six months, shouldn’t there be more information regarding his premiership? At the moment, his prime minister section is 2 paragraphs of background, 1 sentence on his appointment, 1 sentence on his actual tenure, and 1 sentence on his fall. There is also a lack of explanation on why he has 2 cabinets - a reshuffle I would assume, but it is not mentioned in the article. Juxlos (talk) 16:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the left eye of Amir Sjarifoeddin's face in the picture you proposed. The face near the left eye tends to be blurry. In addition, the background color in the photo you proposed, I don't mean to say is not good, but the plain color looks better to the eye. In addition, from the beginning of this article, Amir Sjarifoeddin used the photo I proposed. But the difference is only that it was blurrier in the past. So it's better to go back to the photo at the beginning of this article, but with better image quality. Aisrotkev8000 (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This picture has been used on the article for quite a while until you tried to replace it, so I don't think it's accurate to say that I'm proposing it. It's more that I don't think your alternative is much better than the current image. The alternative is blurry and distorted when viewed up close, I believe it's because it is a raster image that has been resized. The number of pixels—which are fixed—in the image are stretched to fill the larger area, resulting in a loss of sharpness. Furthermore, that same image has already been used in the article, specifically in the Journalism and World War II section. I also don't see how the fact that the image was used in early days of the article means that we should still use it now? I don't see the relevance. Kaythehistorian (talk) 15:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And the image you proposed also directly fills this article without going through the discussion in the comments column. While my image has been there since this article was founded. So I just replaced it with a better quality. Aisrotkev8000 (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my proposal, it's been there for a while... probably since I first started editing... and probably well before that. Also, what do you mean about the current image filling the article? I also don't get how the fact that your proposal was there first should matter in this? Besides, you didn't really respond to my criticism of your proposed alternative. Kaythehistorian (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it was not your suggestion, why do you insist on using a picture that you did not suggest? Besides, I spoke nicely at the beginning of the conversation. But why do you insist that I bow down and prostrate myself to you? Why do you seem to feel that you are right and I am wrong in this case? Aisrotkev8000 (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because the alternative proposal isn't much better, and is a bit worse? For the reasons I've stated above. Also where did I insist that you "bow down" and... prostrate(?) to me? Kaythehistorian (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You think my first photo is not much better and a little worse. But you feel like a saint and feel right without paying attention to others. Because you think my photo is not good and a little bad means everyone should follow your opinion? You are very rude and insensitive to others. Aisrotkev8000 (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you have good intentions in this discussion. But you always feel you are right without caring about other people's opinions and feelings. You feel like your opinion must be heard and followed. You are indifferent and not serious by just saying "Huh?? What." You should have good intentions if you want to discuss in the talk column. Aisrotkev8000 (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I'm sorry if you're feeling hurt from this discussion somehow. That was never my intention, but also that this is going nowhere if both of us can't have an actual adult discussion and are just going to revert each other's edits continuously. Getting a third opinion on this would probably be wise. Kaythehistorian (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any respect? You can't do whatever you want to others. I actually agree with the user's opinion. Please respect other people's opinions. Aisrotkev8000 (talk) 08:02, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which user? I believe there's only the two of us that have participated in this discussion. Also I thought this matter was over? Did you delete your original response to my message just to start this whole thing again? Kaythehistorian (talk) 08:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I beg you to have good intentions and respect other people's opinions. Then you said you would choose the third option to be wiser. I beg your promise Aisrotkev8000 (talk) 08:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please listen to other people's opinions. This is a democracy. No one is 100% right. We are human beings. If someone else has an opinion, let's listen to it. Don't act like you are never wrong. We all make mistakes. Respect other people's opinions. Aisrotkev8000 (talk) 08:52, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, can't you respect other people's opinions? Maybe we can be friends? I beg your understanding. You can't just do whatever you want without thinking about other people's feelings. Remember you are not the owner of this article. This article is read by everyone, not for yourself. If it wasn't for de jure democracy as you said. But in fact the discussion column was created even though the democracy I mean is de facto. I beg you to respect other people's opinions. This is not your own article. This is a Wikipedia article for everyone to read. Aisrotkev8000 (talk) 09:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You also can't just do whatever you want too? Like you can't just keep reverting others' edits without any discussion. I've already stated my reasons for not going with the image you've proposed, and instead of responding to that and having a discussion you decided to just keep reverting while saying that I'm the one who isn't respecting your opinion. Kaythehistorian (talk) 09:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are wrong. I mean, there are other users who also have the same opinion. I don't mean to offend you. Maybe as the user said that he has seen the chat column and the conversation between me and you and he said Kaythehistorian does not have good intentions. The user said. But instead of responding to the opinion, you still insist on using your photo. I don't have a problem with your rights. But the problem is you feel as if your photo is the best photo in the world and everyone should bow down to you. Aisrotkev8000 (talk) 09:22, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are putting words into my mouth, and you haven't even addressed the reasons why I don't think your image is suitable. Can we get back on track? As for the IP editor... You are aware that sockpuppeting like this is against the rules right? (see here). Kaythehistorian (talk) 09:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we can. As long as you respect other people's opinions and don't do whatever you want. Can't you think about other people's feelings. Maybe if that happened to you, of course I would feel sympathy for you. Aisrotkev8000 (talk) 09:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, I said before that my photo has been used since the beginning of this article. But my photo has a better picture. Then why do you insist on using your photo. Because in my opinion, try to look at the left eye in your photo. It looks blurry. Aisrotkev8000 (talk) 09:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2) The image you are proposing is blurry and distorted when viewed up close because it is a raster image that has been enlarged. While it appears larger, the image loses sharpness as the pixels are forced to stretch out to fill a larger area.
3) As I have said previously, I don't see how the fact that the image was used in early days of the article means that we should still use it now? I just don't see the relevance.
Okay. Let's talk calmly and nicely. Is it because the image has been used in Journalism and World War 2 that the image can no longer be used and must be different. Second, the photo you proposed has a blurry and blurry eye on the left eye. That's the problem. Third, the photo I proposed has a plain colored background, that's what I think the photo I proposed looks better and clearer. The photo you proposed has a blurry and blurry left eye. I don't mean to offend your proposal. I just have an opinion. Aisrotkev8000 (talk) 09:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1) I believe a different image should be used, yes.
2) It isn't a photo that I proposed, it's the one that has been used there since around 2017 I believe, but yes I do see the blur. However, I think that the image is still better in quality than what you're proposing because it doesn't stretch out the pixels.
3) I agree that a plain background is better than a noisy one, but I don't think having a plain color background should matter too much. Many articles have backgrounds that aren't just plain. Kaythehistorian (talk) 09:58, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I realize the photo you proposed is not your own and it has been on Wikipedia for a long time. Secondly, I think a plain background is better for a photo in a Wikipedia article. It makes the reader more comfortable in reading the article. Thirdly, the left eye in the photo I proposed is not blurry. I beg you to reconsider. I beg you very much 🙏😭. Aisrotkev8000 (talk) 10:03, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I don't think readers particularly care that much about whether the background of an image is plain or not. Also why are you begging? Kaythehistorian (talk) 10:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hope for your mercy. In my opinion, the reason readers read Wikipedia is because the information on Wikipedia is much more complete than regular news. Therefore, Wikipedia is also better to have comfort so that readers are comfortable to keep reading on Wikipedia. I hope for your mercy. I hope that you change your mind. Please 🙏 Aisrotkev8000 (talk) 10:13, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I regret writing the comment "I will not fight your orders and do whatever you want in this article". I thought you had pity on me for writing that sentence. I hoped from the bottom of my heart that you would continue to invite discussion, not accept words raw and as they are. It turns out that you are a different person. Therefore, I deleted the comment because I misjudged you. I hoped that you would continue to invite discussion, not just accept it without thinking about other people's feelings. Aisrotkev8000 (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not... that's not how discussion works. Why would I have pity on you? This is an online encyclopedia, not a church. You're the one who is bringing emotion into this discussion. Kaythehistorian (talk) 04:15, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First, you are the one who brought emotion into this discussion. You seem to be indifferent and insensitive to other people's feelings. Second, I believe you are one of the editors of Wikipedia and you are a human being, not a robot. And the Church? I am not a Christian. Why are you directing me as if I am a Christian? You know religion is a private matter. That is a bit offensive to me. Back to the beginning, I believe you are a human being and not a robot. Of course you should have feelings and care about other people's feelings and opinions. Not always thinking that you are always right. I say this because I am a human being and not a robot. Aisrotkev8000 (talk) 06:31, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why your language is so intimidating. And you are the one who brought the first emotion into this discussion. Instead of listening to other people's opinions, you still don't respect other people's feelings. If you want to discuss, you should use good words, not with a tone that intimidates others. Do you know that human nature is different. It can't be the same. Aisrotkev8000 (talk) 13:10, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you knew the parable. I want to tell a little story. This is just an example and does not offend anyone. There was a thug who forced a trader to ask for money. Because the trader was forced and had no power, he offered it to the thug so that his life would not be threatened. Now here is the thug sensitive to that person. There are 2 paths that the thug can take. The first path is the thug still accepting the money given by the trader? Or the second path is the thug still rejecting the money given by the trader? This is just my analogy and short story and does not mean to offend anyone. I mean, maybe you can increase your sensitivity to others. I wrote that comment and hoped you would choose the second path, but it turned out you chose the first path. Therefore I am disappointed with you and hope you are sensitive to other people's feelings. Aisrotkev8000 (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the weirdest interaction I have ever had on Wikipedia. Why are you begging for mercy and trying to use emotions on a Wikipedia talk page. Also, please stop using sockpuppets. It's plainly obvious that the two IP editors below are you. Kaythehistorian (talk) 04:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you human or not? Weirdest? I didn't expect you to talk like that. Being a Wikipedia editor is not being a robot. You are still human and have feelings. And you always feel right and I am wrong. Why do you force your will on others? Don't you have feelings and conscience? I have explained that the photo I proposed was taken a long time ago since this article was founded. The only difference is the image quality. Second, I have explained that the photo you proposed has a blurry left eye. Look at the eyes in my photo, everything is clearly visible. It's just that it's an old photo, of course it's not as good as today's photos. Third, the photo you proposed has a dark background/aura. It's not nice to look at from a distance. Then it's also less clear when viewed by older people. Wikipedia doesn't only belong to young people but to all groups. Therefore, comfort is an important aspect in reading. My photo has a background/aura that tends to be bright so it's easier and more comfortable to look at (especially older people). Fourth, the photo I proposed has a plain background so it looks better when viewed by readers. Aisrotkev8000 (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not forcing you to do anything, and you're not forcing me to do anything? I genuinely don't get why you're making this so heated, it's unnecessary. Anyways, I've already said my reasons for keeping the current image instead of changing it, and I believe that the current image should remain on the infobox up until this discussion is finished. This is why we need more users to join this discussion, we're going in circles otherwise. Kaythehistorian (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know what Lmao stands for? Lmao stands for Laughing My Ass Off. If you don't believe me, please check it on Google. I didn't expect you to remain unchanged. I expected you to have a good discussion. But it turns out you have no good faith and sensitivity towards others. And you even said inappropriate words in the Wikipedia discussion column. Ass is a word that is quite offensive and it is in the abbreviation Lmao. The word you said. Please check it on Google. I didn't expect you to be that bad. Not only did you not discuss in good faith, you also had time to joke judging from your tone of voice. And you also used words that should not be used when discussing in good faith. I hope you are a little more sensitive to this situation. Aisrotkev8000 (talk) 13:16, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kaythehistorian, I mean, Aisrotkev is right. I wanted to be positive. Can't we agree on Aisrotkev's picture? I think the picture he submitted is probably better. I didn't mean to offend you. Thanks. I apologize if I am wrong. 114.10.45.168 (talk) 08:57, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, it is clear that someone besides the both of us—and your sockpuppets—should join us in this discussion because this is going nowhere. We're just reverting each others' edits ad infinitum. Maybe some people from WikiProject Indonesia should be asked to weigh in. Kaythehistorian (talk) 04:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And for 114.10.45.168 yes, I was wrong. I'm stressed with you because you don't have good faith in this discussion. You also seem to not respect other people's feelings and opinions. Previously I didn't know about the sock puppet rules because I was just an ordinary person who was interested in Wikipedia. Thank you for reminding me about these rules and I apologize. Aisrotkev8000 (talk) 05:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have good faith? Meanwhile, you're the one who has been using sockpuppets in this discussion? Incredible. Anyways, as I've said previously, the current image should stay on the infobox up until this discussion is finished imo. And how we finish this discussion is by getting more users involved rather than just going in circles repeatedly. Kaythehistorian (talk) 12:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the sock puppet, I have explained it there and I have apologized because I did not know about it before. If you ask about good faith, I do not know. From all the discussions that have been done, your tone is very intimidating. In addition, your tone of speech always feels that your opinion is right. I have explained at length and your tone is still intimidating and seems to belittle other people's opinions. I hope to discuss in good faith. Not to force your own will on others. Aisrotkev8000 (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How am I belittling your opinion? How am I forcing my will unto you? We just have a disagreement on what photo should be used on the infobox, it is not that deep. However, I have doubts on whether you are acting in good faith at this point with the use of sockpuppets. At this point, I would rather just end this whole thing but it seems like we're at an impasse unless another person shows up to comment on this. Kaythehistorian (talk) 07:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is your language. You are not sensitive to feelings and conditions. You also had time to speak like a joke. When in fact it is better to speak using good intentions. You even spoke inappropriate and rude words. One of them is the word Lmao which stands for Laughing My Ass Off. Ass is a word that is quite offensive. I say that not all humans have the same nature as you. Moreover, you speak in the Wikipedia discussion column. Speaking in the Wikipedia discussion column must use good intentions. For the sock puppet, I have explained above/previously that I previously did not know about it and I have apologized. I also thank you for reminding me. You even from the entire discussion on May 17th had no intention of making up and apologizing or maybe at least saying thank you like I did. But again, I never forced you to do that because it was done from the deepest desire of the heart. So, if you are talking in the Wikipedia talk column, you should use polite language and not be rude like you say the word Lmao which stands for Laughing My Ass Off. Ass is a word that is quite rude and offensive to some people. Aisrotkev8000 (talk) 09:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did say sorry? but also I believe that this conversation has just gotten so. weird. Why did you start telling a story about some trader in the middle of this discussion about what portrait should be on an infobox? I'm sorry that you feel hurt somehow by this discussion, but also that I've kinda stopped assuming you're acting in good faith here at this point based on your behavior. Kaythehistorian (talk) 10:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am telling you because of your insensitive nature to conditions and situations. I do not know why from all the discussions that have been carried out it seems as if your opinion is right and mine is wrong. As fellow human beings, it is natural to remind each other. Therefore in the previous comment I have said that you are human and not a robot. Of course as a human being you should have sensitivity to conditions and situations. But you instead said harsh words in the Wikipedia discussion column. But after I traced it, one of the reasons why the photo I have should be used is because at least my photo comes from the Indonesian Government while your photo does not come from the Indonesian government and comes from the Dutch archives. Is Amir Sjarifoeddin Harahap the Prime Minister of the Netherlands or the Prime Minister of Indonesia? Why should we use a photo from the Dutch archives. At least even though Amir Sjarifoeddin does not have an official photo, it is better to use a photo from an institution or part of the Indonesian government because he is Indonesian. This is one of the factors that I previously forgot to mention. Aisrotkev8000 (talk) 11:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay buddy, sure, thanks for the reminder. Anyways, to me it feels as if you're just a very delicate person. I wasn't harsh at all in this discussion, but I apologize if I seem that way. I would note that I don't think trying to argue about it using emotion and stories of a trader instead of the facts at hand was going to solve anything though. In regards to the infobox portrait, I still believe that the old portrait should be kept for the reasons I've stated above (though I know what you're going to say about that). I don't think the source of the image should matter too much? As long as the image is publicly available and on Wikimedia Commons (with a compatible license). Kaythehistorian (talk) 13:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your understanding. I appreciate your words. But, how about voting from other users or opinions from other users on which photo should be used in Amir Sjarifuddin's article? It seems that WikiProject Indonesia has not responded to your comment there. But, I want to ask with a sincere and deep heart. Can you recommend/reconsider my photo? I think regarding your concern about the resolution/photo being not good/clear, I have improved the quality/resolution of the photo so that when viewed and enlarged the image will not be broken. I mean, maybe if you allow me to recommend/reconsider my photo for you to see again, I would be very grateful to you 🙏. Aisrotkev8000 (talk) 14:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Photo A
Photo B
I hope you will reconsider. Please take a good look at these two photo comparisons. According to your comments in the previous discussion, I believe my photos have met all your concerns in the previous discussion. And, I have also tried and hope that my photos meet your criteria when viewed from the previous discussion. Aisrotkev8000 (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still believe that the current image is a better fit nonetheless. The image you're proposing is a raster image that has been resized into a larger resolution, resulting in a blurry and distorted view. I can tell that you then used AI to "upscale" it. And I don't find your arguments in favor of it to be convincing. However, if you manage to find a higher quality version of the image you're proposing—similar to the quality on this image—then I wouldn't be opposed to changing it. Kaythehistorian (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Up until then, however, I believe the current image should stay on the article. Full stop. Though perhaps a cropped version of the current image could be used. Kaythehistorian (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
