Talk:Batak

Untitled
Saifuddin Nasution is a famous Batak politician in Malaysia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malaysian (talk • contribs)

I think this page refer largely to the Batak Toba. FYI, there are at least seven Batak tribes with different languages and tribal ceremonies (adat) and despite the fact that Nommensen was the first missionary to step foot in the Batak land but he was reaching more to the Batak Toba but there are other zending that influenced other tribes such as the Dutch zending reaching towards the Batak Karo. If I have time I might have to revise all that is in here. I suggest to change this subject into Batak Toba (Indonesia) Hendra Sembiring 10:18, 23 June 2006

I donot agree that batak people are not preferred to be called Batak, however, they are famous to be called Tapanuli. Which is coming from the two words tapian and nauli. Tapian means water and nauli means good.Tapanuli means good water. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.27.190.139 (talk • contribs)

As a people from Toba living in other part of Indonesia, I agree with the term of Batak for native Toba as well as Tapanuli to differenciate from other Batak's sub etnics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djandel (talk • contribs) 23:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Different Batak groups
I agree that we need to be careful to recognise the different Batak groups. There is a tendency for documentation to focus on Karo (because their traditional lands are around Medan) and Toba (because their traditional lands are around Lake Toba). Lake Toba is not really the geographical centre of Batak traditional lands as far as I am aware. Some Muslim dominated groups, because they identify the word Batak with pig eating Christians, do hesitate to refer to themselves as Batak, but will happily refer to themselves as their own group (eg Mandailing or Tapanuli).--campdog 06:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Christianity and Islam
"The Bataks themselves today are mostly Christian with a Muslim minority." Again, I think this statement derived from a Toba/Karo focus and is not really the case if we include other groups such as Mandailing and Tapanuli as Batak (which i think we should). It is though true to say of those groups that identify themselves as openly Batak, that they are predominantly Christian.--campdog 23:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox
For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all Infobox Ethnic group infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 23:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Disputed Inclusion of "Ritual Cannibalism"
I would like to hear the original author's justification for featuring so prominently a disputed aspect of history. Is cannibalism so relevant in 2010 that it needs to be placed so prominently? (from User:Tondimedan 3-12-2010, unsigned)


 * Several editors have questioned the inclusion of cannibalism in this article, and the section has been deleted more than once. Arguments include the fact that there was no reference whatsoever to cannibalism in the original entry and that there is no reliable eyewitness account of Batak cannibalism in recorded history.


 * This section contains the most prominent historical references to the practice of ritual cannibalism among Batak peoples. Links and bibliographic references are clear. Where the authors did not actually witness cannibalism has been noted. It is likely that the practice was exaggerated (as indicated in the text) even by the Batak themselves, however as is the case with many historical events it is equally likely that there is some basis in fact for the multiple accounts of this practice among the Batak.


 * Wikipedia is intended to be a source of information, therefore the inclusion of this information is relevant and important, even if some readers find it distasteful. The section is composed primarily of quotations from other authors, not an expression of my own opinion.


 * I would ask other editors not to censor material from articles because they find it disagreeable, but to voice their opinions supported by documentation in the discussion section of the article. Cmacauley (talk) 16:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I moved it down as part of the religion section, because having it not just as the largest section in the article but also at the top is clearly ludicrous and disproportionate. The section is clearly also suffering from WP:UNDUE, but I haven't done anything about that, it's worth noting that cannibalism isn't a current practice and there are six million Batak people most of whom probably aren't aware of it, let alone practise it.... Sumbuddi (talk) 03:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing in the paragraph suggests that cannibalism took place as a religious activity--it is stated more than once that it was a judicial practice, therefore inclusion under religion is not appropriate. This section was located at the top of the article because it described events in early Batak history.

WP:UNDUE is for minority viewpoints and this is most definitely not the opinion of the minority. WP:UNDUE refers to the inclusion of "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources," and you will have difficulty uncovering any reliable sources that dispute the existence of Batak cannibalism. Whereas no Batak today practices ritual cannibalism, those that I know personally--a large number--are very well aware of this aspect of their history. As for those who are not aware of it, one of the purposes of Wikipedia is to educate. Cmacauley (talk) 11:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It does seem rather in depth and repetitive of different viewpoints of the same practices, in exquiste detail. It's hardly fair to place it under "Society" when it is a practice considered antiquated for 200 years. Perhaps it should be considered for its own article because it is interesting in a way and seems well researched but still may have undue weight or size on this article. Certainly there is enough notable material there for an article if it is accurate and it is well enough written so a shame to lose it through deletion. Human sacrifice in Aztec culture, Cannibalism in pre-Columbian America, Ritual cannibalism in ancient Batak society? ~ R . T . G  13:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The detail serves to rebut claims that there is no evidence whatsoever that some Bataks practiced cannibalism; the sources quoted are all reputable observers. It would be easier to dismiss a shorter section as frivolous. Where should it go, if not under "Society"? Judicial practices are part of social organization. Possibly a separate article is justified, but not in "ancient" Batak society, as the practice was abolished less than a century ago. Cmacauley (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * With all these reports by Marco Polo and others the recording of the rituals seems notable in itself. What about Cannibalism in traditional Batak law? Not a subject I am familiar with I just read most of it yesterday and thought it had at least a good potential, but it's not rated at all here by Project Indonesia yet. I skipped the creation myths and found the indiginous words used later in the article a bit confusing, but the cannibalism has a significantly largest section wether that is proper or not I couldn't know. ~ R . T . G  17:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure it's necessary to rebut claims that no Bataks practised cannibalism, simply stating that they did is quite sufficient. Is it a widely held view that Bataks did not ever practise cannibalism? Not as far as I can see, so I can see no reason to spell out in great detail that they did.
 * The sources quoted are all 19th century or earlier and it's unlikely that any would have had a modern-day anthropological perspective; the intent would have been to caricaturise the Batak as savages. The William Marsden quote, identified as a secondary source, exemplifies this "To such a depth of depravity may man be plunged when neither religion nor philosophy enlighten his steps!" In fact the Batak had religion, and it seems that this religion informed the practice; the source I added notes that by eating people, ones own life-force was strengthened by that of the deceased.
 * You have not read WP:UNDUE properly "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." - I will trim some of the more extraneous detail. Sumbuddi (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

If you examine the edit history of this article you'll see that numerous people maintain that the Bataks never practiced cannibalism. The controversy itself makes this level of detail necessary and makes this material significant. Also, Wikipedia's mission is to inform and educate, therefore glib statements that something did or did not happen are really not useful.

Undue Weight refers to the inclusion of some viewpoints to the exclusion of others. No one has yet tried to include well-referenced, fully-sourced evidence that cannibalism did not exist, but certainly if that evidence were to be included I would not censor it. The viewpoint expressed here is the viewpoint of many noted scholars.

Whether or not previous authors had an anthropological perspective is irrelevant; what is important is the statement of a reliable source. Marsden's remark is intended to characterize Marsden, not the Batak, and thus to put his observations into context. Cmacauley (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not useful to characterize Marsden in what is an article about the Batak, not about Marsden; as it states, Marsden never even encountered the Batak, and in the context of the entire Batak people, Marsden's relevance is nil.
 * You've misinterpreted the quote from WP:UNDUE. Once more for luck:
 * "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject"
 * "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements'.
 * Unquestionably there is excess 'depth of detail' in this section. Clearly cannibalism was practised, but the Batak are an extant, modern people who ceased the practice a century and more ago, and devoting 20% of the article to it is the clearest possible violation of this rule.Sumbuddi (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Picture on Traditional Medicine
The lady has a kaffir lime, not guava. I've changed it per that. --Vircabutar (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the correction, guava was just my best guess. Cmacauley (talk) 18:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Traditional Medicine - aspect of religion
I think the medicine probably belongs with religion. All the text relates to religious beliefs, and the picture is of a ceremony that is clearly primarily religious in nature.

I spoke to a modern Karo healer, and she told me that she called on Allah or Jesus (according to the religion of the patient) when performing healing procedures. She also was not trained but assumed her role by repute. Sumbuddi (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Batak peoples - source
See here:

http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?s=54374d58dcaee27ba6b8768eb40eb086&showtopic=95791&view=findpost&p=2576405

This was previously included in this page as an undisclosed copyvio in January 2008 and is no longer on the Bonapasogit website, but it's archived there and may be on archive.org also (which would be a reliable source where this forum posting is not). Just posting it here for the time being....Sumbuddi (talk) 12:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

– Batak people in Indonesia is the primary topic per WP:PRIMARY TOPIC. An ethnic group with more than 6 million people should not be compare with Batak town in Bulgaria with only 3 thousand people. Page view statistic also showing that Batak (Indonesia) article visited 5300 times last 30 days, while the other article only visited 300 to 500 times for last 30 days. Googlefight hits 1,1 million for Batak Indonesia, while Batak Philippines only 49 thousand. &#42;Annas* (talk) 11:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Batak (Indonesia) → Batak
 * Batak → Batak (disambiguation)


 * Support – There seems to be a primary topic here. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: A move to Batak people may be better, as Batak languages and similar topics are fairly primary — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support as primary topic but could go for Batak people. —  AjaxSmack   02:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. But to Batak as this will avoid the dab. Nothing will be lost linking to Batak but it will be annoying to go via a dab. Ambiguity can be helpful - as it is in this case. --Merbabu (talk) 03:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Batak Warriors 60011135 edit.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Batak Warriors 60011135 edit.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 22, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-09-22. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! — howcheng  {chat} 21:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Batak. 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/20101018185652/http://www.thejakartapost.com:80/news/2010/08/16/malim-the-batak%E2%80%99s-native-religion.html to http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/08/16/malim-the-batak%E2%80%99s-native-religion.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308042807/http://www.cseas.ncnu.edu.tw/journal/v02_no2/pp55-98.pdf to http://www.cseas.ncnu.edu.tw/journal/v02_no2/pp55-98.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110313064524/http://faculty.washington.edu:80/kushnick/diss.htm to http://faculty.washington.edu/kushnick/diss.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110819012734/http://joegiardina.net/T/INDO/SUMATRA/toba/bataks.htm to http://joegiardina.net/T/INDO/SUMATRA/toba/bataks.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The need for Gallery section?
Hi Herryz, you seemed very persistent in having the need to create a Gallery section in the article just for 1 photo. Is it because the photo was uploaded by you and the person in the photo is you, that makes you feel that it is important to create a Galley section for it? -Jeblat (talk) 11:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, who are you? Are you an editor or something so you are very persistent to remove it? Even your account just does not exist, why dare you throw away the gallery I created? My name is Herriz and it is male. Gallery columns can be loaded for the good. It is one of Batak traditional house in Taman Mini Indonesia Jakarta, and has not been included in this gallery. Is that wrong? Stop editing it, or do you like to delete something created by others? -Herryz (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm a registered user with an account here. You can see my username is Jeblat. Your reasoning that because it is a photo of a traditional Batak house that you need to create a Gallery section is weak. It's not that there are no photos of traditional Batak house within the article itself. In fact there are two photos of traditional Batak house in the article already. Therefore the edits that you've made is very unnecessary, unless it is very constructive that adds value to the writing content and reliable sources as citation of the article then nobody would object it. Please view other high quality rated articles within the Indonesian ethnicity subjects like Toraja as a good example to follow. -Jeblat (talk) 13:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

You make things hard. you better keep quiet and do not make my anger appear. There is no limit to creating an image in the gallery. You do not make anything that is not a problem becomes a problem-Herryz (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, that's not how you would come a proper discussion. Your anger does not matter here or to me. Your argument still lack any reasoning for a discussion to even begin with. I'm seriously trying to discuss here. I'm suggesting that we leave it out to other users here to come to a Consensus if it is necessary to create a Gallery section for one photo. If the consensus reached here by neutral party is to create a Gallery section for your photo, by all means create a Gallery section, and vice versa. -Jeblat (talk) 13:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

What is your right to remove it? Do you have the legality to remove it? I will make calculations for you, you are very annoying. -Herryz (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please keep your arguments civic. Me being annoying is not a good argument point. It is not a question of "legality to remove it" as I didn't remove your photo from the Commons. But it seems like I can't talk sense into you to have a proper discussion here although I seriously and honestly intend to listen to your reasoning. So I suggest we open it for Third opinion. Do take note that this dispute has been added in Third_opinion. Also, please do not edit my dialogues here.

-Jeblat (talk) 14:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC) (edited)Jeblat (talk) 09:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) My reasoning is that it is very unnecessary to create a Gallery section just for 1 photo of yours. Until now you have yet to give a very convincing reason to create a Galley section for 1 photo.

3O Response: @,  Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are quite specific in regards to the use of images and galleries of images. The most relevant to this discussion is, which details the context in which galleries of images are generally permitted on articles. The implementation of a gallery simply titled "Gallery" is greatly discouraged, as this implies that the images may not have direct relevance to the content of the article and do not enhance the reader's understanding of the article's subject.

The image in question is relevant to the article following, but image galleries are meant to be used specifically for collections of images. The article is very well illustrated with images in coordination with the article's text, and two images of Batak houses are featured prominently (in and, also ). The use of an image with a human in front of a Batak house may be useful in describing the houses, but that is quite above this article's scope, which is much more general than Batak villages and houses. I don't believe that the image in question more accurately represents the houses or villages than the images currently in place in the article, as it shows a house incompletely. The only other relevant article I'm seeing exists would be Batak architecture, which already shows many quality images of houses.

Wikipedia articles are not repositories of images, so they should not contain more images than are necessary, but Wikimedia Commons is for images! This photo would be extremely relevant to the Commons' Category:Batak villages, which is a subcategory of Category:Batak. Rhinopias (talk) 02:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * thank you for bringing this to 3O, but my opinion is not a "conclusion" as your edit summary suggests. I am not contesting your reversion, but in light of the extensive edit warring that you and engaged in a few days ago, I think that you both should read Edit warring (notably WP:3RR) and BOLD, revert, discuss cycle very carefully. If an editor is not following the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle by reinstating their edit that was removed, and they are not reasonably participating in a discussion, the dispute should be brought to the appropriate noticeboard instead of how you both proceeded. Rhinopias (talk) 04:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you are too much to question the picture. Unless I load pictures of traditional house from Germany, then you protest, then I will shut up and delete the picture. You are very sensitive to this, it makes me sick of your attitude. You are not even an editor but you are like an Editor. you are very annoying. Maybe it is your nature everyday.


 * Thank you for the conversation, I hope you can warn @Jeblat to be more cooperative in behaving and not as great, it is very embarrassing. Regards Herryz (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Rhinopias. Just noticed your message as I was a way for a week. Noted with thanks.


 * Summary of the discussion:-


 * - Rhinopias's last edit on this issue, here.


 * - Admin intervention for edit warring here.


 * Case closed. -Jeblat (talk) 04:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Batak. 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/20091229193152/http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/indon/batak.html to http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/indon/batak.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Flag of Riau.svg

Describing each subtopic using the point of views of different ethnic groups
I get the sense that this page blurs the lines of some aspects of the ethnic groups that are not shared by the other ethnic groups.

I am suggesting to break down each subtitle from the point of view of each ethnic groups. For example, there are many aspects that Karo and Toba do not share, like the Terombo. Another example is the photos. They need to be specified which ones are Karo, Toba, Simalungun, or the others. It will make easier for non-North Sumatran to grasp the similarity and differences between each ethnic group.

I will see what I can edit in these months.

Regards, Adi Primanda Ginting Adipginting (talk) 06:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)