Talk:Basuki Tjahaja Purnama

Confusing content and poor English
This "blasphemy case" has been trending in the news, and a lot of readers are coming to Wikipedia for background as a consequence.

Unfortunately, that section of this article is very poorly written (both language and content) and provides no background at all. What has Basuki actually said? What is in that "Al Maidah verse 51". What is the connection? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.4.129.73 (talk) 04:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Revision of the link to NY Times Article
The editing content was correct. Yet I entered the written reason in Indonesian language. Please bear with me. Thank you. Marxolang (talk) 06:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

NPOV dispute [Ethnic and Religious Issues]
The section Ethnic and Religious Issues of this article is riddled with inaccuracies, poorly constructed sentences, and contains a large number of very personal opinions about Purnama that don't come close to neutrality.

It is a serious issue as he is facing a blasphemy charge and the entire section Ethnic and Religious Issues appears to have been written by someone with an axe to grind against him. There is no objectivity in the statements contained in this section.

The section should be removed as it expresses only a purely personal bias against Purnama. This is not the quality of content that should be expected.

Izumojin (talk) 10:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Considering that the poster responsible has listed blogs and has misquoted news sources to allege a widespread disapproval of Purnama, it's a clear case of mudslinging. Seconded for section deletion. Remitonova (talk) 05:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I have reverted to the last stable version. It contains a bunch of BLP violations and a lot of the stuff is sourced to unreliable sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Basuki is his first name
Just saying. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:C94A:AC7:B0B5:D854 (talk) 08:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Fabrication
Before this becomes an edit war.

you stated “obviously”. While I personally agree, can you point to a RS that explicitly described the blasphemy accusations as fabricated? AFAIK, the Supreme Court denied his lawsuit on this topic exactly. Juxlos (talk) 09:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Done. Gadjah Mada (talk) 11:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * the source you cited quoted only a single NU activist. For a claim of that level I’d recomment rewording it as “widely seen as fabricated” instead, and use the sections instead of making 5 inline citations in lead.


 * WP:POV implies not reporting opinions as facts. Most articles report as “some thinks it’s fabricated” and not explicitly “these are fabricated”. Juxlos (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The Asian Correspondent source is about Rizieq Shihab, and his claims that the allegations against him were fabricated. 1000 references which do not mention or even imply the topic as fact are not valid. Juxlos (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Is this a POV photo? For real?


How is this a WP:POV photo? Is it because the photo "make it look like the demonstration was much more peaceful than actually was"? If I google image search "aksi 212" for example, most of the photos that come up show the aerial images of a non-violent demonstration. Are they all POV photos as well, because it does not zoom into a random angry bearded guy with an Islamic hat or turban? JahlilMA (talk) 06:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I would have to agree with here - the images available are represented better with the new one (air view) compared to the old one (close-up ground view). Juxlos (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Jokowi Ahok.JPG

Why mention Tawhidi?
Per WP:BRD, coming here to discuss with and anyone else interested. My reason for removing this material is simply that it is irrelevant to the page - it is just grandstanding by a social media figure. Tawhidi is not a theologian and is mostly known for courting controversy on Twitter. Why are his actions or views relevant? It is not discrimination based on nationality, nor does the presence of two reliable sources really make a difference. It is a question of due and undue weight. Giving space to irrelevance like this worsens the article. Ganesha811 (talk) 12:29, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * With no response on talk, I'm going to remove the material again - please come here to discuss if there are objections. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thanks for bringing this to the talk page. Work has kept me busy for the last week, and I apologize for not responding. Since you invited discussion and there was none, it would be churlish of me to rererevert, so I will concede the argument. Thanks again for engaging on this issue. Regards Davidelit (Talk) 04:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the response! If you'd like to discuss, I don't mind - we all get busy at work sometimes. If not, thanks for AGF. Ganesha811 (talk) 12:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)