Talk:Indonesia/Archive 3
 | This 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. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
International Disputes section
I am not sure of the value of this section. I've actually already removed it, but since it has found it's way back, I would thus encourage further discussion, rather than declare and edit war. Firstly, as a major section on an Country article, it is giving the perceived issues a lot of emphasis, i suggest too much. IS this done in other large articles on large countries?? Furthermore, these seem to be international disputes with 1 country only (ie, Australia). Also, this entry seems driven more (australian?) point-of-view agenda pushing than really providing FACTUAL information. it does't really provide concrete details, rather uses inuendo ie, re capital punishment - "several countries". Who? Sources, citations? As i said, i think this is a poor entry, and have removed it once. Two suggestions: as a minimum demote it's status in the article to the next lower heading level and provide citations/sources and re-write do it doesn't beat around the bush. But, preferred option would be to move it to Politics_of_Indonesia#Foreign_relations. Thoughts??? --Merbabu 04:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm - i looked up Malayasia. there is nothing about international disputes in the main country article, but thre is a section in the international relations article. I just think here it is providing too much emphasis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Malaysia#International_disputes
As the original author I thought I should justify the addition (but it's good to see it back). A large section of the discussion for this page is refers to the very favourable opinion of Indonesia apparently given in the article and this seems like a good way to bring the argument to the fore as per the good ol' CIA WorldFactBook. I couldn't be bothered finding sources but I'm sure someone will be willing to and as for the prominence, again if you were doing a project at school, or looking at travelling there etc, to have an idea of such disputes would be incredibly handy and, I think, they should therefore be present on the main page. Danlibbo 04:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- OK, so how about moving it to the Politics_of_Indonesia#Foreign_relations section? as per Malaysia? I haven't checked other countries yet. --Merbabu 04:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- I see no problem with where it is, as long as it's updated periodically. The disputes are of interest, not only to those interested in the politics. If it was to be moved, the geography section might as well also be moved to a separate page for geography instead of just expanded there, the short mention provides some information and would (ideally) link to a longer article(s) on the disputes.
- Of interest to who, may i ask? This is not a political article, rather one of information. Are you really trying to suggest that Australian concerns over illegal fishing and their drug dealers being dealt with sternly by their courts really worth the same level of heading as Indonesian Geography, Economics, Political System, History, etc. Come on - seriously. This is an international forum - is illegal fishing in aussie waters really what people want to learn? Or is the size and makeup of the indonesia economy? Or how it achieved its independance. --Merbabu 08:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- After having a look around, it appears that there is very little uniformity regarding the placement of such issues, with some countries (such as the US) a mention is made under 'Politics', in some others on a separate page and sometimes with their own headings but of varying sizes. The list of headings for each country is also seemingly random I think it's time for a massive cleanup eh?
- Well, it could then be put under a sub-heading of the Politics section you mention. :D --Merbabu 08:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Having it’s own International Disputes section as a MAJOR heading cannot be justified – do you realise it differs from an almost standard format: No other country does it. It gives an unbalance perspective on the article, even the country. Altough they may be all that you hear in the media, – these things are not as important as the other major headings which are standard across almost all countries’ articles – ie, summaries of History, Economy, Government, Culture, Language, Geography. In fact, the idea of an encyclopaedia is cut through all the media distortions. Indonesia is not about the Aceh dispute anymore than America is about the Abu Graib prison scandal in Iraq.
NONE of these countries have an International Dispute section as a top level heading - or even a second level heading. There was from memory, ONE or TWO countries with International Disputes as a 3rd level heading under Foreign Relations. International Disputes does come under many of the following as a sub-heading in the separate Foreign Relations article as per wiki convention. China (seemingly no mention of foreign policy issues, although discussion of internal), Thailand (separate article – with links to various issues), Philippines, Vietnam, Greece, US (has a 2nd level heading for foreign relations but not about specific issues rather an overall view of US foreign relations), Iran, Mexico, East Timor, UK, India, North Korea, South Korea (has a Military and Foreign Relations section but not centred around specific controversial issues – certainly no International Disputes section), Spain, Pakistan, Australia (no mention of problems with Indonesia - lol), Italy, Canada (has foreign relations as 1st level heading but doesn’t focus on international disputes but with rest has larger foreign relations page), Norway, Ireland, Switzerland, Russia, France, Poland, Germany (foreign relations is 2nd level heading, not intl disputes section), Brazil, Burma (no separate intl disputes section, but mostly about regime), Japan (has separate foreign relations 2nd level heading, - no international disputes section), Portugal, Singapore (has info within politics section but NO separate section). --Merbabu 11:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Shall we make separated articles for regencies and cities with the same name?
According of government administration in Indonesia, Provinces consists of Regencies (Kabupaten) and Cities (Kota). Each Regency has a Regency Seat (Ibukota Kabupaten), and Regency Seat won't be called "city" or "town", though it has large population. The fact: Indonesia has many regencies and cities that (coicidently) have the same name, most of them due to their historical identity. For example Kabupaten Tangerang and Kota Tangerang, they have their own separated government administration, they have their own mayor and regent respectively. But until now, English Wikipedia consider they're one entity. Can we make them into separated articles? wic2020talk bicara 11:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes of course just like in the Indonesian Wikipedia. But we should name the articles as follows : [[Name (city)]] or [[Name (municipality)]] and [[Name (regency)]]. Meursault2004 12:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Ethnic groups section
The Ethnic groups section, while fairly good, is obviously written by a single editor and contains a lot of unsourced statements. I have no doubt that the text is quite accurate (although I do think it contains one or two bits of opinion), but to conform to WP policy, we need to get cites. I'm going to add cite tag, please don't take it as an attack on the original editor's good work. Ashmoo 03:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- One issue i have with the section is that it focuses a lot on the problems between ethnic groups, or problems centred around ethnicity. While important to the subject, there is more to ethnicities than problems. I will try to contribute soon. --Merbabu 04:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Tamil Community in Medan
I was very interested to see the recently added comments on the Tamil community in Medan. I did not know of such a community in Indonesia. I hope the editor in question didn't mind me editing their contribution. I think this section needs a bit of research for some more verifiable facts. I had a quick google search and found one site saying a community of 4000 people, another 40,000! What is the history of this group? religion? etc? Has anyone got anything else to add???? Please help.--Merbabu 11:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, in Medan there is Tamil descendant community. They are called keling. There is a famous market, called kampung keling in Medan. However, I've never recognized that Tamil language is popularly used in Medan. Apart from Bahasa Indonesia, Chinese language is the second most used language there.
- I think, the comment about Tamil in Medan should be moved to Medan article, instead of in Indonesia article. — Indon 21:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Flag of Indonesia
Am I wrong, or is the Flag of Monaco the same as the Flag of Indonesia? Amelie poulain, july 7 2006, 20:08
- Please note: This was not posted by the user whose signature was given. It was posted by 83.82.46.47 (talk • contribs). --GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail 18:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Not exactly. The colours are the same but the ratio is different. The flag of Monaco has a ratio of 4:5 while the Indonesian flag has a ratio of 2:3. Meursault2004 18:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Indonesia Portal
Indonesia Portal has been made, please take a look and if possible, please give feedback. The shortcut for the portal is WP:PID. Imoeng 20:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Good Article
I put it as a nominee because it failed the FA status, so I reckon its better to go step by step. Moreover, with the new Indonesian WikiProject, this article need at least a Good article status. Cheers -- Imoeng 14:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Dyes etc
On the Ficus tinctoria page it is said that the plant is used as a dye in Indonesia - any information on local names etc? Jackiespeel 15:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Indonesia's (planned) execution of three Christians
Somewhat of a current event (August 10th-11th 2006).
While this issue is not as big as that of the current Israel-Lebanon conflict, I still would like to bring it up for discussions. I'm not exactly sure if this is the right place to do so, but I don't want to leave the issue unsaid.
In my opinion, if those 3 Christian men were, in fact, the masterminds of the murder of many Muslims in 2000, then there is nothing that could be done--I don't agree with the whole death penalty issue, but I'm not an Indonesian politician, so it's nothing I could change. But what really bothers me is the fact that the religious conflict in Poso, Central Sulawesi was not only carried out by the Catholics (perhaps extremists) themselves.
As usual, there are always two sides to an argument. My question is: what are the Indonesian government doing to the Muslims who masterminded the murders of Christians during the conflict? Perhaps, as an act of retaliation, Muslim "gunmen [attacked] Indonesian church". To this day, I have not heard anything about the execution of those gunmen.
From the New York Times article above: "As events unfolded today, it was not at all clear, however, that the government would be able to proceed with the execution of the Bali bombers." Excuse my lack of eloquence, but why the hell can't they proceed?! (Perhaps I'm not reading into it correctly, so correct me if I'm wrong.) The Bali bombings was more of an international issue as it affected many tourists in the area.
As an Indonesian myself, I find this issue very unsettling; and as an atheist, I try to be unbiased about this issue, but to me it seems like the government is very biased. Of course, perhaps some bias is inevitable since a large amount of voters in the country are Muslims, but this is taking it too far. I have no doubt that if there were no religions involved, the result would be very different.
I am not trying to attack the Muslims with this article, I am merely questioning the country's--and even more so--the government's integrity regarding this issue.
"Some Muslim leaders have called unsuccessfully for the government to undertake a thorough investigation of these allegations, and for postponing Mr. Tibo’s execution so that he can testify."(NY Times online article)
--JT 13:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- what point do you want to prove? I think this is a wikipedia, not a bulletin board. Do you want to talk about Human Rights in Indonesia or Indonesian Government's integrity? Kunderemp 02:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- There's no such person above the law. Those 3 christians have been tried and proven to be guilty of mass murder before the court. There are many examples of non-christians criminals being in the death row. Anyway, this is wikipedia, not a forum. — Indon 21:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
English Please
This is an edited version of the discussion I have had with Tamaneden about the use of English vs. Indonesian (where they differ). I think it has relevance to all so i paste it here. Hope if caused no offence...
Hi Tamaneden. Please remember this is the English language version of Wikipedia, thus we need to use, for example, "Indonesian" and "Central Java", rather than "Bahasa Indonesia" and "Jawa Tengah". Of course, in limited places where appropriate, the Indonesian may be put in brackets afterwards. You cite the example of the French page. Well, if they have used French instead of English then that is INCORRECT but to copy someone else who is incorrect is no justification for doing the same incorrect thing here.
On a related note, i noticed you put in some quite informative peices about the Indonesian media, however, they were mixed in with your use of incorrect "Bahasa Indonesia" instead of "Indonesian" and they were reverted and lost. I would support you reinstating these references as long as you don't put "Bahasa Indonesia" all the way through. FOr example, in the Indonesian language version of Wikipedia, do you refer to "English" or "Bahasa Inggris". And in the English Wikipedia, we don't say "Deutsch", we say "German". As i said, you media edits were otherwise good - please keep up the good work. Cheers. Merbabu 12:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Could you please explain to me why the OFFICIAL names of Negeri Sembilan in Malaysia and Tohoku in Japan have never been translated into English even though it is VERY easy to do so? Tamaneden
- Tamaneden, I am not sure of the relevance of the Malaysian and Japanese places you mention have on the question at hand. I suggest they have no relevance. As it is in an English encyclopedia we use English words where available. Not all cases have English translations from the native language - that is FINE! But where there is an accepted and commonly used translation, we use that. OK, maybe it is inconsistent but it is still the right thing to do. Examples:
- Deutschland => Germany
- Nippon => Japan
- Espana => Spain
- Jawa => Java
- Pasar Minggu => Pasar Minggu (yes, that is correct, accepted use in Englsih is NOT translated, even though it can be)
- Timor Leste => East Timor (this one's interesting and illustrates my point that inconsistent doesn't always mean incorrect. The offial name in English actually is Timor Leste, but the accepted and used name is East Timor).
- Munchen => Munich
- Berlin => Berlin (note these last two, one changes, the other doesn't!! Inconsistent? Maybe, but correct and accepted).
- Nusa Tenggara Barat => West Nusa Tenggara (not West South East Islands - although it can be fully translated, the accepted English is only a part translation).
- The point being, some names are translated, others not. YEs, it is inconsistent in places, but we just have to accept it. If you are going to argue that we must write "Jawa Tengah" then why are you not arguing for the use of "deutschland". And sometimes not everything fits neatly. Somethings we just have to accept.
- Once again, do not cite incorrect, or correct but inconsistent, examples/precedents from other countries. Just because they don't do the right thing doesn't mean we have to follow them. As for your specific example, we shouldn't really give it any attention, AND furthermore, i am not very familiar with the actual place. BUT the two words Negeri Sembilan would translate to "9 countries" but, that does not mean that the accepted ENglish name for this place is "Nine Countries", perhaps the accepted and USED English name is still "Negeri Sembilan".
- Merbabu 03:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- When the English translated official name creates confusion, then the original name is used. For official names of division that are based on its position, e.g. north, east, west, etc., the official name can be translated into English without problem. Thus I agree to say Central Java, rather than Jawa Tengah, in the English article. Negeri Sembilan cannot be translated into nine countries, because its official name is not sembilan negeri. Translating into "country of nine" creates even more confusion.
- About Bahasa Indonesia versus Indonesian. The confusion has been spreading worldwide that Bahasa Indonesia is the official language name. In Holland, even people asks: "Do you speak Bahasa?". ;-) So I think it is good to make a correction into "Indonesian" language. Cheers. — Indon 10:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
GDP inconsistencies
Someone emailed us to point out that this article, citing List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita, gives a GDP of ~$4500 per capita; Economy of Indonesia gives $3,700, from the CIA World Factbook. Both seem to be 2005 PPP figures. Any idea which is accurate, and which one we should be standardised? Shimgray | talk | 10:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, there are two sources. The CIA World Factbook on Indonesia [1] (updated on August 22, 2006) is $3,600 (est. 2005) and the IMF review on Indonesia [2] is $4,458.450. Both are estimations and reliable, so you can take these two as margins. — Indon (reply) — 09:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Makes sense. I've footnoted the refs, but unfortunately we can't footnote the (110th) - still, at least it's next to the $4500, which is what it's derived from. I'll add these to Economy of Indonesia Shimgray | talk | 11:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Geography edit
Earlier info about Indonesia's relative size was removed by editor User:Indon. That one of several facts in original contribution happens also to exist, in tabular format no less, on an entirely different article doesn't justify removal from this page of full freakin' edit. Don't torque people off with gratuitous deletes. It's bad form. --TheEditrix2 20:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hello TheEditrix2, have you seen my edit summary? Your edit to Indonesia article about Indonesia's size has been covered in the main article of that section. See Geography of Indonesia. There you see all things about size, etc. Your contribution is good, but it didn't go well with the flow of the whole section. Please consider of the flow of the article's story, not just putting something in it. — Indon (reply) — 07:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Dutch Rule
I think it would be so much interesting if someone who knows about it made a small section regarding the Dutch rule of the islands, since there is very little known about that era outside the Netherlands and Indonesia itself, I guess. Anyone up to the challenge? That would be great. 06:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Mountolive
- hhm - maybe look at these first...
- regards --Merbabu 06:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I had seen the VOC and Dutch part at the time I posted the above but not the others, so I do appreciate your advise since I found interesting links there. Still, I think it would be interesting to delve a bit more in the Dutch era. I'm talking, for example, of
1) which were the cities most densely populated by Dutch besides of Batavia-Jakarta, to which extent this presence was noticeable (I am not certain if they were just a few hundreds ruling mostly by local proxys or whether the Dutch population was more noticeable, even majority in some reduced areas)
2) the administrative division of the archipielago under Dutch rule
3) a more in depth account of the Dutch resistance before Japanese invasion (if there was any) and, finally,
4) also a more detailed information on the decolonization: approximately how many Dutch had to leave and under which circumstances. If there was a sizeable mixed Indonesian-Dutch population going to the Netherlands and if there is any preferential visas for Indonesian to go to the Netherlands like I guess the Surinamese have.
5) A little reference on the Dutch language spoken in Indonesia and if there are still locals nowadays who can speak it or whether this was never really a vehicular language there would be interesting as well.
Anyway these may be just freaky interests of mine, but I thought if someone had the ability to work on that, it would make the entry, which is already good, even better.
Thank you very much anyway! Mountolive 05:18, 6 September 2006