Talk:Indonesia/Archive 9

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 5

←

Archive 7

→

'To Do' list...

We should discuss here the items on the 'To Do' list...

"Religous map - what to do about it?"

What are the issues with this? It has caused some complaints - for example, West Kalimantan has 1.2m Christians (Protestants & Catholics combined) and 2.2m Muslims - hence it's green. But in my opinion it is OK as long it:

(a) Clearly states that these are majority religions in each province (and that all religions exist to some extent in each province). I checked the official figures closely to verify their representation on the map and the seemed almost all correct. Even when I went through the official data and combined the stats for Protestants and Catholics it made very little difference. And given that overall, 85-88% of Indonesians identify as being at least nominally Muslim, it should be no surprise that most of the map is green;
(b) A clear link to a table either on line off line showing the actual detailed breakdown is provided.
(c) Cleary states it is religious affiliations as recognised by the Indonesian govt;
(d) Can actually be verified. It is original from the UN. I have checked it against govt census stats and it is largely in-line with those - i have made a few minor changes and will upload the new version soon;
(e) The distinction between 'Modernist' and 'Traditionalist' Muslims is a valid one but probably needs clarification - ideally with links to such concept to back it up. Apart from firming up definitions, we need to establish that the distribution of the two groups is correctly represented on the map (for example, from my knowledge, West Java is more toward modernist (orthodox) Islam, while the rest of Java is far more traditionalist (ie, syncretic, 'abangan', less orthodox).

Here is a link - i understand this to be official govt data - please provide superior source if this is no good. What are people's thoughts on the map? --Merbabu 04:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Vegetation & ethnolinguistic maps

These are outstanding maps. They are very clear, yet comprehensive and informative. They really help reader's understanding better than any text can. One small catch is that they are based on the 1970s data. Much of this is still the same, but can we update it or use it as a basis for updated maps? Any volunteers? I can help source the information, but I have no ability to actually draw the maps. --Merbabu 06:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I think they are fine to use as they are (unless we find better ones), but I would like to see a note in the caption about them being 1970's maps. (Caniago 04:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC))

even though i actually put them there, I'm now coming around to the fact that such old data is problematic - it is useful in that it gives a fairly reliable general idea as most things haven't changed, but I'd still like to see whether we can develop something newer - ie, use this idea, just confirm data. Merbabu 04:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

How about using this linguistic map from ethnologue.com. [1] It seems precise, but I'm not sure how old it is though... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.5.16.197 (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Staple food in Indonesia

Hi! I wonder if this article should write anything about staple food in regional areas? Is there any region in Indonesia that consumes Sago, Singkong, Corn or other staple food instead of rice? Has anyone ever read any article about the government's programme to replace regional staple food to rice during the rice surplus period in the past? Thanks! Budiaman (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Picture for the Government and politics section

One suggestion has been a picture of the MPR building. Obviously an external pic would be easier to get, but i suggest an internal pic of all the MPs would be far more interesting. Or apart from the MPR building, is there another pic that is relevant? Merbabu 06:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

PS, it was mention (by User:Caniago?) that a message has been sent to ask for a permission to publish an image from the homepage of MPR DPR. --Merbabu 06:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't from me. Maybe Indon? My vote would be for the building, rather than transient political figures. (Caniago 04:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC))

Agreed. I'd love an internal pic of the chamber in session, but will settle for an external pic. Merbabu 04:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Religion in 'Contemporary issues' section

The role of religion (ie, Islam) in Indonesian society and government is being hotly debated. A contemporary issues section must mention that. Currently we have:

In the freer political environment of the post-Suharto years, the role of religion, particularly Islam, in society and politics is hotly debated. [and then the example of the anti-pornography bill].

My thoughts are that there are two issues, one general and one specific, that need to be considered:

General: Review how we represent and reference what I've called the 'role of religion in Indonesia'. No doubt there is room for improvement. One or two sentences is all we need if written well, and...
Specific: Review the current status of the specific issue of the pornography bill. I used it because at the time although the bill was put forward as simply banning pornographic literature the reality was that it had much broader implications for society, particularly for women. I can contact a friend who was monitoring this issue closely (and collecting good articles on it) and get back to you all in a few days I hope.

Any thoughts? --Merbabu 06:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The latest I read is that is has been significantly watered down in government committees. My concern is that putting too much detail about current affairs issues in an encyclopedia will lead it to becoming dated very quickly. (Caniago 04:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC))

Trimming some sections

I strongly believe that although it is a longer article, length is not a major problem here. There is no doubt a bit of 'fat' that could be trimmed, but as long as each section in the article has pertinent information (as I believe it does) then lenght is not a problem. When compared to FA country articles, it is longish, but not the longest. Anyway, let's discuss some sections...

'Special Regions' - done, please review

I've cut this paragraph down as suggested in the to do list, although I am not 100% convinced it was necessary. What do others think? It now just has a 'bare-bones' single short sentence for each special region. here is the diff [2] however, it is best just viewd in the article as I simply pushed the info into the footnotes. I think it works well that way. Merbabu 07:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

My concern about the Special Regions section is that even though they are "special", they shouldn't have an extraordinary amount of detail compared to the normal provinces which are equally important. Once sentence per Special Region is sufficient. (Caniago 04:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC))
'Parliament'

We should consider reducing the size of the 'Parliament' section and making it one paragraph. Just a 30% reduction maybe. Merbabu 07:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

'Etymology' - done, please review

There was a large block quote in the article. I don't think it was necessary and have moved it into the footnotes as it was interesting but there was not obvious article to move it to. Merbabu 07:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

'Demographics' (particularly 'Religion')

This has been mentioned in the current peer review. There is probably some 'fat' that can be trimmed (to footnotes?) but generally speaking demographics and religion in Indonesia is both complicated and such a defining feature (ie, compared to say FA articles Germany or even Australia) I think that a longer section is OK as long as there is no fat. Merbabu 07:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

As for the demographics section you might want to check out India, which is FA class and has this section nicely summarized even though Indian demographics is not a simple topic. Regarding religion I would just keep the first paragraphs as the rest of the section duplicates the Religion in Indonesia article --Victor12 16:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

OK thanks. Someone will get to it soon - I might be buisy the next few days. Agree, there is a bit of history and overally descriptive comments in 'religion'. I'd say knock down 'religion' by 50% and we are doing well. And a a bit can come out of 'ethnic groups' too. Merbabu 23:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I've whittled down the religion section done by about 50% and the ethnic groups by some too. I think now it is an appropriate length - to do anymore excessive and although the remaining points can be found in Religion in Indonesia, if no-duplication was the only criteria for inclusions, then this article would simply be a list of links. But, the suggestion to cut it drastically has made for a much better article - less waffly.Merbabu 13:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Culture

Is there any more specific information that we could add to give a little more color to the paragraph about the film industry? For example, what genres are popular in Indonesia? I looked at Cinema of Indonesia, but didn't find it there. Feeeshboy 03:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, In jakarta is mainly online. MMORPG, Online FPS,and RTS. that's what I see. There maybe more people playing offline. The Japanese RPG is also welcomed here.

(PS: The most popular RTS here is Warcraft III . It popular in both the melee and the DoTA Fanatic terrorist 12:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Too many pics in 'History' section?

I think there are too many pics in the history section. I suggest we remove one. The two best ones in my mind are carved ship pic and Sukarno's - representative of two very different errors. Thus, we are left with two pics of the Banda Islands. I suggest we remove the fort picture as the nutmeg pic is more balancing as it is a 'softer' pic providing more variety - otherwise we'd have a trading ship, a fort, and a pic of Sukarno in uniform. Here is how it was. Merbabu 03:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, take a look at Japan, recently made an FA article, which has far more pics than Indonesia. The nutmeg pic represents the sort of agricultural resources European powers came to Indonesia for, but it doesn't represent the 300 years of colonial occupation - the reason why I added the fort pic. As they say, a pic tells a 1000 words, and for someone who doesn't want to read the full article text the pics provide a way of telling a visual story. (Caniago 03:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC))

Japan has way to many pics - lol. Fortunately the number of pics is not an FA criteria. Further, SatuSuro was complaining that they were appearing badly in a low res screen. Merbabu 03:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The number of pics is a matter of opinion. I've tried the article on both Mozilla and IE at various screen resolutions and I don't see a problem. The main reason for having the pic as I said is to represent the colonial occupation, an important period I think you would agree. (Caniago 03:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC))

Restructure

I've restructured the govt section into two main sections following a FA comment and further discussions with that editor. Here is the discussion. The 'Contemporary issues' bit got merged into a few different sections. It's radical, but on the other hand, FA articles are the best that wikipedia has and most (all) seem to judge that a lack of subsections is the best way to go. Merbabu 04:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Admin divisions pic

Comment: I've changed the admin division map back to the plain map rather than the map overlayed with province hyperlink labels. The hyperlinked map looks really bad on my system, with different problems depending upon which browser I use. With Firefox the (see screenshot [3]) the labels merge and become incomprehensible. With IE (see screenshot [4]) the map is overwhelmingly large, forcing the text in the section into a very narrow column. Either way, the map looks very strange in the context of the article and the size and layout we have used for the rest of the images. The Indonesia map in the geography section has the standard image size, so why should the map in the admin division be treated differently and emphasized by increasing its size? Also, the labels on the map already duplicate the complete listing of provinces already contained in the text. Are the provinces really so important we need to repeat the information twice in the article and cause presentation problems with the article in some people's web browsers? (Caniago 07:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC))

Comment - I think the problems are being overstated and use of this pic is by no means unsalvagable. You are correct, we do not need a map and the list - thus, scrap the list as it doesn't go anywhere near the useability-at-once-glance. As for your screenshots, the first is not incomprehensible - just a little messy and can be fixed no doubt. The second (firefox) is exactly how I see it and I think it looks outstanding. Yet another reason to use firefox and not IE. Look at Australia, United States, for example. Brilliance. Why does style have to win over 'usefulness'? Merbabu 12:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Australia has six states and 2 territories. The map on that article is quite a bit smaller yet its still comprehensible, even on my system. Indonesia has 33 provinces, quite a big difference. Even with the map set at the very large size it was, its still a mess. I doubt it can be fixed without making the font size unreadibly small. BTW, the second image you say looks like your system is actually from IE not Firefox. (Caniago 13:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC))

Well, if that pic is of IE it looks just like my Firefox rendering; and since many more people use IE than firefox, then that is all the more reason to use it. In firefox and IE for me it looks outstanding thru a range of resolutions. SUre, in lower res it doesn't look as good, but NOTHING looks as good. It coudl be trimmed, otherwise it should go back and the list removed insted. Merbabu 13:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

indonesia seems like a really cool place to come to and its looks like its very nice.

Yeah it is. But never spend a vacation in Jakarta :cough: :cough: Fanatic terrorist 12:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Guys, we've made it

Congratulations to everyone!!! Imo eng 13:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected

i notice some recent vandalism on this article, should we use the "Category:Semi-protected_against_vandalism" tag?
andry 03:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm always reluctant to recommend protection. Let's just give it another 12 hours - if it continues, by all means request protection. Merbabu 03:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Ownership of Wealth

Am I missing something? That the wealth of Indonesia is owned by a tiny minority isn't controversial. It's a rather banal fact. The only thing controversial about this is pointing it out... something Indonesia's elites--and their Dutch/French/US/British/Japanese corporate buddies--would like to keep quiet. Regardless of what one thinks about it, it's just a plain fact. --Dylanfly 15:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

As I've pointed out before (though not to you), according to the United Nation's Gini statistics, Indonesia has a more equal income distribution than Australia, USA, UK, etc. So, before we start adding claims about Indonesia's wealth being hoarded by the elite any more than occurs in your average country, I'd like to see more conclusive evidence (preferably quantitative) and additional citations. (Caniago 15:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC))

With all due respect, this is really bland stuff--I mean, most Indonesians live on a few dollars a day--something obvious if you even spend a week in Indonesia. Yale professor Amy Chua makes the same point in her bestseller. Again, the fact itself is rather dull--it's what you say about it--that's where the arguments begin. --Dylanfly 15:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we already have the "49.0% of the population live on less than US$2 per day" statistic from the World Bank included in the article. Its true there is a rich elite in Indonesia, but you find this in every country. I believe that to make a case that somehow Indonesia is different, in light of the Gini income equality statistics, we should have stronger evidence. (Caniago 16:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC))

The fact that Indonesia is ordinary in its extreme distribution of wealth does not change this as a basic fact of the nation's economy. Indeed, Indonesia is quite typical of the third world: a rich elite and a gargantuan mass of poor people: these circumstances practically define what it means to be third world.

Suharto (and family) is usually ranked as the number one thief in world history; getting away with $30 billion, give or take 10 billion. This, while most Indonesians are lucky to eat a scrap of meat once in a while. At the same time, while Suharto was plundering the nation's oil, rubber, beachfront developments, gold, etc... he was also creating more schools and lowering population growth. "Progress" in the New Order. But you have, according to the recent UN report, Indonesians as one of the world's poorest--each commanding about $1400 in total wealth (about equal to poor India), even as the growth of billionaires and millionaires is among the world's fastest. ([5]) You've got miserably poor children in the street selling kretek for pennies, while BMWs zoom by. Go to 99% of the kampungs in Indonesia and the kids are lucky to have flip flops on their feet. This isn't at all to say it's all bad--there is a small, but growing middle class, rising literacy, etc, but it's still a nation where vast bulk of billions and billions of wealth end up in the hands of the few. Let's just name a few while we're at it: Freeport-McMoRan, Shell Oil, and Fujitsu. As bad as it is in Java, it's downright nasty in Irian, Flores, Aceh, etc. Again, one sentence pointing out the obvious should hardly be controversial in Wikipedia. --Dylanfly 16:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm already aware of everything you say, and have first hand experience at both ends of the income spectrum in Indonesia. I'm not against adding something mentioning income disparity as long as there are good citations from multiple authors, and its includes a mention of the published Gini stats which for some reason don't support the "intuitive" view. (Caniago 17:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC))

OK--additional refs provided. But you also have to be aware, the Gini is itself a very biased tool. The Gini is a handy statistical device with which to allay concerns about poverty. It's an instrument of the World Bank, one of the organizations culpable in stealing Indonesia's resources. One hundred million Indonesians live on under $2 a day, while the military-Chinese-industrial elite plays golf. The whole crisis in 1997-98 was a popular explosion against the kleptocracy. It's the very basis of the Reformasi! The fact that Indonesia is typical--that it's similar to Peru or the Philippines in these ways, does not change the fact that inequality is one of the basic features of the Indonesian economy. It's as basic to the discussion, as talking about rubber, rice, Suharto, or Dutch colonialism. It's just a fact of life in Indonesia. Who knows? Maybe the young people and the middle class can get some reformasi going.--Dylanfly 17:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted you again. It would be great if you could wait until we have a consensus about what (if anything) to add to the article regarding income equality. Hopefully there will some other editors providing their opinions on this soon. (Caniago 20:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC))

Firstly, the lead should only summarise the most important facts in the article. That pvoerty is a major factor in Indonesia is exactly that and that is mentioned. That much of (presumably big) Indonesian business is majority foreign owned is too detailed, and not-notable for the lead.

Incidently, the same could be said of, say, Australia.

A case could possibly be made to further improve the inequality/poverty section in the economy section however, much effort has already gone into this over months - it would have to be a good effort based on reliable statistics - not just a few opinionated one-liners from a book that a politically motivated editor has read. It's not that I'm doubting the information or the source, it just doesn't seem appropriate for an encyclopedia. Give us some reliable data as opposed to reliable opinion, and a reason why it's better than what's already there. --Merbabu 22:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Out of interest I calculated the combined wealth of the top 40 richest people in each of the USA, Australia, Indonesia, Singapore and China relative to the GDP of their respective countries. Using this metric the USA, Indonesia and Australia are fairly similar - 4%, 5% and 6% respectively. The standout for wealth concentration among the "elite" is Singapore - 19%, while China is 1%. Comparing the combined wealth of the top 40 richest relative to per-person GDP, Indonesia and the USA are similar (1.2*10^7), while China has the biggest gap (1.9*10^7) and Singapore and Australia the smallest (8.5*10^5 and 1.2*10^6). For a recent published report about income equality from the ADB see: [6] (Caniago 11:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC))

I have to admit, I'm pretty stunned that you want to hide the obvious. The emperor has no clothes and you two are like his courtiers running around talking about verification of clotheslessness. I mean, this just isn't controversial--it's fact. Moreover, the fact that it's typical, doesn't change that it's a fact. I mean, it's rather obvious that Indonesia is tropical and relies on rice, but this doesn't take away from the importance of rice. It *would* be useful, in speaking of Singapore, Australia, and the USA, to note the corporate concentration of wealth--it's **basic** to the economy. Some people think it's great--it's the "free market", and some oppose it. But it's just a fact. So why hide it? Well, there are political reasons to hide the concentration of wealth. So why conspire with the elites to hide what is a plain fact? 100 million Indonesians live on under $2 a day, while the Suharto family sits on $30 billion, and you guys want to say it's all relative. That's pretty harsh. Do you know what $2 a day means? It means malnutrition, it means vulnerability to disease, it means babies dying from diarrhea. Obviously, I am politically upset by this, but I think it's far more ideological to hide the truth from the audience. To me, this is like concealing that Indonesia is on the equator or that its rainforests are being cut down. Some people like to see Indonesia's forests cut down (exports, revenue, jobs, etc.) and some are opposed (global warming, etc.) but it's just a fact that they're being cut down. The same is true about the concentration of wealth in Indonesia: it's just an ordinary fact. I'm not happy about it, but I just want to state it in the article. I don't want to comment on it, or tell people what to do, but I think it's perfectly fair and reasonable to have one sentence pointing out one of the single most basic aspects of the Indonesian economy. --Dylanfly 13:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

edit conflict: Please cut the rant and address specifically the specific points raised here. Wikipedia is not a forum for your political views. Please stick to the point, please.--Merbabu 13:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Brother, that's not a rant--that's a way of saying you're hiding an ordinary fact about the Indonesian economy. I might add that your use of "rant" is very politicized--it's a way to accuse another of being ideological, and posture yourself as neutral. I'm suggesting that your neutrality is in fact covering over an elemental condition of Indonesian geography. --Dylanfly 14:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - you are the one making it political. Yet you indeed have posted a rant. You are new and need to learn more about wikipedia. It's not about politics. What about "geography"? --Merbabu 14:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If the above post seems too "political" then forget it. In plain language what's another way to describe the distribution of wealth in Indonesia? Would you call it equitable? Would you call it top-heavy? I mean, if you were going to give a lecture to college freshmen on the Indonesian economy, how would you characterize ownership, wealth, and so on? --Dylanfly 14:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict - use preview) You have had two editors address your points specifically, but you have chosen not to respond to these points, rather rant on off on tangents. If you cannot respond in kind, then please don't expect much else. You advice to "forget it" is very good, and was already on my mind. Good day. --Merbabu 14:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest taking a look at USA#Income and social class for an example of a more appropriate way to introduce any claims about wealth/income distribution into this article, supported by quantitative data. (Caniago 15:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC))

Happy Independence Day 62th my beloved Indonesia

Happy Independence Day 62th my beloved Indonesia. Wishes you all the best in the future, for the shake of all nations --Andri.h 00:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Happy Independence day, and congrats to everyone who worked hard to get the page promoted to FA. Great that it should be today's featured article. 2 Indonesia-related articles as the featured article in one week? Brilliant. --Bwmodular 08:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

good job, everyone! nice timing too ^^ 125.163.84.202 10:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC) Happy Independence day! and it is really nice of you guys featuring this article today. All the best for Indonesia and y'all. Arkwatem 12:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Flag

Merbabu, why have you reverted an appropriate, accurate and fully-referenced edit about the flag? [7].

I know you have put a lot of work into this page, but you do not OWN it.212.71.37.99 09:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

We can't mention every aspect of Indonesia, only the most important ones. If you take a look across the WP:FA standard country articles (such as Japan, Camaroon, Australia), no details about national flags are mentioned. (Caniago 10:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC))

Actually some country articles DO have information about the national flag. Furthermore, deleting factual and referenced information is vandalism. I have reverted your deletion. If you think the article is getting too big and some of it needs to be in a separate section, then put it there; or at least discuss it here first. If you disagree, please follow proper WP protocols.212.71.37.98 11:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't put unnecessary information here. You can find other more specific article about that. Besides, your source about the flag comes from Majapahit is unreliable. And reverting your edit is not vandalism. Please read WP:VANDAL. If you are serious, why don't you create an account? — Indon (reply) — 11:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually Majapahit is correct. See Flag of Indonesia and other references. Deleting accurate data IS vandalism. This is well-established. If you disagree, try deleting an accurate section from a few random articles. Don't think you'll be tagged as a vandal? Think again. What in God's name is "unnecessary" (n.b. not inaccurate) information? Lastly, not having an account does not make me wrong per se. 212.71.37.98 11:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You didn't read the page Indon pointed out, did you? "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." (Caniago 11:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC))

Yes I did, and please don't shout at me. I don't think that deleting factual and referenced information is a "good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia". It was a knee-jerk "not invented here" response to an edit form an unregistered user.212.71.37.97 12:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you feel this way. If you want to contribute here it would be wise to read assume good faith and the opinion of other editors about your current behavior [8]. (Caniago 12:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC))

"deleting factual and referenced information is vandalism" - no it isn't, we'd have articles 1000 pages long if we kept every fact every anonymous editor added. We already have an article about the flag linked directly from the top-left of the article (Flag of Indonesia), we don't need to unnecessarily duplicate it again here. (Caniago 11:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC))

I had not noticed the other article. Perhaps if that had been mentioned as the reason for deletion in the first place, this misunderstanding could have been avoided.212.71.37.98 11:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"we'd have articles 1000 pages long if we kept every fact every anonymous editor added." Respectfully, that is the entire point of WP, provided we are talking about fact.Although the information should be divided up into separate sub articles if necessary. If you think that actual facts should be deleted from WP because there are just too many of them, then you've missed Jimmy's point. WP is not paper. 212.71.37.98 11:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You obviously haven't been editing WP for very long, and it would therefore be wise to assume good faith with the other (more experienced) editors here. You should read WP:Article size to see why your views are misguided. (Caniago 12:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC))

WP is not toilet paper. --Merbabu 12:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've been playing you along as a bit of a social experiment. The model response to the very first post would have been "Thank you for your attempts to improve the Indonesia article, however there is already an article at Flag of Indonesia which contains this information; accordingly the article has been reverted." Don't bite the newbies. JDW. 212.71.37.97 12:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop picking fights. Your posts here and on a user talk page came first, and accused people of vandalism and bad faith. And you continue to maintain that stance after 3 very experienced editors have counselled you otherwise. --Merbabu 12:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) And to anon editor, whoever you are, "thank you that you understand the problem why your edits were reverted". So stop beating the dead horse and move on. — Indon (reply) — 12:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Request citation

The article mentions a "significant, albeit imperfect, implementation of regional autonomy in Papua" -- first, I think this inaccurately refers to the plan for "special regional autonomy" (Otsus) for Papua, whereas "regional autonomy" really applied to all Indonesian provinces in the Reformasi period after Suharto. So first, the term should perhaps be clarified, but second, I request the citation since most analysis I have seen suggests that implementation of Papua's "Special Autonomy" (as opposed to the standard garden variety "Regional Autonomy") has been more than imperfect and indeed quite lacking. Terima kasih! Arjuna 09:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC) (new citations added Arjuna 09:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC))

There are two references already provided for that sentence that was tagged - both from the International Crisis Group. --Merbabu 10:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks -- noted. Although I'm willing to remove the tag, I do sense the sentence mischaracterizes the situation towards/in Papua. Note the first citation I added -- hardly a radical source: the observation that "Many of the law's requirements have either not been implemented or have been only minimally implemented, even five years after of the law s promulgation" is widely held -- in smart (non-radical) circles in Jakarta as well as Papua. Mainly adding this note for the record. Arjuna 10:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Wow, that's impressive! The article is being featured, exactly on August 17 -- Indonesian Independence Day! Congratulations to all of you Wikipedians! HoneyBee 11:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

New materials about Sukarno & U.S.

Dylanfly reverted Merbabu removal of new materials about the overthrow of Sukarno and U.S. connections. Although it is very nicely and well-referenced, but this article (which is about Indonesia in general) has suffered by its length and this article must summarize the country from its history to its culture. Dylanfly, please go to still-in-the-bad-shape Overthrow of Sukarno article and add that material there. — Indon (reply) — 14:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Indon's assessment. Dylanfly's information would be valuable to the 'overthrow' article. In this Indonesia article it is too much detail. In my 'revert' I did add that the New Order was more 'western friendly'. --Merbabu 14:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't make that addition, I just kept it. Anyway, it's simply vital in this article to point out that Suharto's Indonesia was strongly supported by the USA. That fact is essential to its international relations, economy, and militarism. I can hardly think of a more important fact about the New Order. Instead (further below) it discusses the US's "humanitarian" aid, without mention of the military relationship. Indonesia, like many states, was a dictatorship receiving billions and billions of US dollars. You wouldn't know it by reading this page, and thus, one gets a hollow description of the New Order. I think that sentence could be trimmed, but "Western friendly" totally misses the point. That's kind of like saying "Poland was USSR-friendly." --Dylanfly 14:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

"keeping" an addition or re-instating it makes it yours. But it doesn't matter who made it, it's too much. The fact that Suharto was more 'western friendly' is indeed important - we agree on that, but to say that there is nothing more important in this article than that fact is way overstating the point. Really, you think this is the most important fact? It is one aspect of contemporary Indonesia, it is not it's most important. Please keep strong political opinions out of the article. Maybe you can make a few more suggestions to replace here on talk "western friendly" - 1/2 dozen words at the most though. regards --Merbabu 14:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I really have to say, that regardless of anyone's opinions about Indonesia one way or the other, US support was a defining feature. I see that as a neutral fact, not a political commentary. I think a lot of Cold Warriors in the USA would be really proud of that fact and a lot of critics would be upset about US support for Soeharto. It doesn't really matter. What matters is that the economy, politics, international relations, export industries, and human rights of the New Order were inseparable from US support. I think there's wording we can agree on between the tepid "western-friendly" and the extreme "US puppet." Something in the middle would be fair and accurate. --Dylanfly 14:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Dylanfly, there are already articles that needs those information you said in New Order (Indonesia), Suharto, or Overthrow of Sukarno. Why are you so insisted to put everything in the general article here. If we put every little details here, then would you want to wait hours before this article is loaded in your browser? — Indon (reply) — 15:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

And that is the reason why United States of America is never featured. I just open that article in my new tab while I'm writing this and it is not loaded yet completely. — Indon (reply) — 15:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you both - has to be mentioned but only very briefly. It really can't be more than 1-sentence, in fact, 1/2 is better. And not in emotive language - "US puppet" is certainly a no go. Just say that the New Order was welcomed by western powers. Or be very specific by what support you mean. --Merbabu 15:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

"Welcomed" is no better than "friendly." It discounts the billions and billions of dollars in military and economic support proferred by the US and others. We're talking about dollars, guns, military training, economic oversight, schooling of technocrats in US universities--the works. Indonesia has been a veritable satellite of the US. From 1965 to the present, US support is crucial to understanding Indonesian politics/economy/etc. It's just basic. 'Friendliness' and 'welcome' ignore the 800 pound gorilla in Indonesian affairs. --Dylanfly 15:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Please offer alternative wording per my previous quote that is succinct and non-emotive (and preferably not with the words 'gorilla' and 'satellite' state. --Merbabu 16:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)OK--I wasn't suggesting that 'gorilla' go in there. I was trying to open the door for y'all to chime in. I also asked the original author if s/he has an opinion. If there are other editors with suggestions about the phrasing (something between friendliness and puppetry), please add your thoughts. --Dylanfly 16:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Administration of Indonesia --> CUT?

Several editors have rightly pointed out that an article on Indonesia could easily go on infinitely, and that it must, therefore, be kept trimmed and taught. However, the need for brevity can also serve as an editorial instrument to control content. As a professional Indonesianist, let me say that I think this article needs some revision. Since space is a legitimate concern, let me propose that the Administrative section is unneeded. There is already a WP page on the provinces; listing all 33 of them here serves almost no purpose, but takes great space. I suggest we ditch that section (and MERGE what needs saving). This change would afford the opportunity for a more accurate overview of the nation.--Dylanfly 17:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No. The Admin section is the shortest part of the article and is a part of all Feature Articles (which you should look at too). What other material do you think you need to add to make it more 'accurate' that needs a whole section worth and has not already been mentioned? --Merbabu 17:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. Please go browse other country featured articles. They have all administrative section. It's the most important section to learn about a country. This article is not served only for "professional Indonesianists", but for general readers. — Indon (reply) — 17:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it required to deal with state administration? And/or can you tell me how to find WP Featured country articles? It's a pretty weak section and quite long. The only longer section is History. Do we really need to have such esoteric information about how the federal government administers the archipelago? It favors rather arcane information at the expense of telling the reader about what Indonesia is like. --Dylanfly 17:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Go find here. And perhaps you would have to read how articles can be featured. It's a not an easy process here. — Indon (reply) — 17:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

And yes, most of readers (who really want to learn about Indonesia) need everything about it. We summarize all (not only things that we want others to read) here and provide links to other WP articles. — Indon (reply) — 17:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Would not a 'professional Indonesianist' know that Indonesia does not have a 'federal' government? --Merbabu 17:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC) My bad: it's been proposed, and by no means enacted. But that's kind of a petty personal attack on me, eh? Let's stick to the issue of the article.--Dylanfly 17:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Think of it this way: even if one keeps some sort of Admin section, do we really need a full list of the 33 provinces? That's available on the linked page about provinces. It seems redundant and space-hogging. --Dylanfly 17:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again, it and 'etymology' are the shortest section of the article. As you point out, History is the longest. It is also required by precedent in all other FA country articles (and any country article i know of). It is also not esoteric - a long section's worth on how the New Order was propped up by the US is. As has been explained, wikipedia is not a place to post your ideologically-based gripes no matter how well-referenced or 'accurate'. As for the claims of a personal attack, that's rubbish. You've come here implying you are some authority (ie, 'professional Indonesianist') but have so far provided nothing particularly profound or scholarly and in the case of 'federal' you are down right inaccurate (at best very sloppy). If you are going to imply a higher expert position, at least get basic things correct. --Merbabu 17:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent). Dang, Merbabu, be nice. I'm here to help and you again insult me. That's not cool, in general or by WP standards. An apology would be nice, but let's at least keep it civil, okay? I did follow User:Indon's suggestion and looked at other Featured countries. Y'all are right that they all have an Admin section. I'm just saying the Admin section is pretty darn long, if you count the list of the provinces. There might be a way to condense it.--Dylanfly 18:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, calm down to both of you. Let's get back to the article. WP:SIZE counts (if I'm not mistaken) the "content words", excluding footnotes, templates and other formatting contents. So if we look again to the article, the admin section is actually the smallest section, counting the number of words there. It looks longer, but it merely lists the provinces and capitals. The longest is actually the History section. That's why if we want to include more details, please think further not to clutter with too many details here. There are more appropriate articles in the History of Indonesia series of articles. — Indon (reply) — 18:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes Indon, it's not so much size in terms of word count, but in terms of level of detail. Adding a section's worth of this material to make it 'accurate' is going to be a problem.

It's been suggested that alternative wording to my suggested "western-friendly" or "western-supported" be found. Please do so, but keep it NPOV, succinct, and excellently referenced like the rest of the article. thanks. --Merbabu 04:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Problematic sentence about economic growth

The following sentence is under heavy debate by scholars from Indonesia, Australia, the US and Canada: "Suharto's "New Order" administration encouraged foreign investment in Indonesia, which was a major factor in the subsequent three decades of substantial economic growth." On the face of it, the sentence is more or less factual: Indonesia's GDP grew and grew steadily under Suharto's rule. "Foreign investment" was certainly a part of this, particularly when one considers deforestation (Japan), gold mining (Canada + US), sweatshops (US, German, etc.), etc. etc. It brings up the serious ideological problems with GDP. In other words, there are a hell of a lot of Indonesians, academics, journalists, etc. who have huge problems with this sentence. The Cendana Group got away with tens of billions--perhaps $20 billion (or twice that) for Suharto himself. God knows what Shell Oil and Fujitsu got away with. So, yes, there was "economic growth," and yes it was correlated with "foreign investment."

Obviously, given the editor discussion above, there are concerns about space and POV. But having a statement like the one above basically expresses the POV of the Washington Consensus: it's conceals enormous bias. In sum: I wonder if there's a way to preserve the basic premise of the sentence (Indonesia's economy did expand, whatever one's feelings about how it happened) but somehow reduce the World Bank tone. Any thoughts? --Dylanfly 17:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Error on foreign debt

This sentence is an improper citation from Schwartz:

the New Order administration brought a degree of discipline to economic policy that quickly brought inflation down, stabilized the currency, managed foreign debt, and attracted foreign aid and investment

Schwartz notes the large debt accumulated under Sukarno, but just say that they rescheduled debt payments. In fact Suharto massively increased indebtedness. See Ricklefs 3rd ed, page 352. Ricklefs notes how screwed up economy was in '65, but talks about Suharto piling on the debt and full compliance with IMF, use of 'Berkeley Mafia', etc. It's not an egregious error, but it the above sentence seems to portray the New Order as having nicely managed debt. --Dylanfly 22:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I've changed "managed foreign debt" to "rescheduled foreign debt" to use the exact words in the reliable reference provided that does not conflict with Ricklefs either. I don't know what the big deal is, in this context they mean the same thing. It's just history. No, they weren't Marxists, and they were cosier to western countries, but no argues that the New Order with the Berkeley Mafia were better economic managers (albeit not perfect) than the disastrous Sukarno administration - at least in the 60's/70's. End of story. Next barrow? --Merbabu 10:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making the change. It's important not to gloss over the New Order's economic record. That sentence is still pretty rosy. The current administration is working hard to bring down the massive debt compiled during Suharto's reign--debt that in addition to helping many Indonesians was devoured by the oligarchy. It's a shameful theft from the people of Indonesia, and it's created a rather nasty economic legacy (entrenched oligarchy, non-diversified economy, foreign debt, economy dependent on export of raw materials, etc.). I think the Suharto bunch/mafia did help to get Indonesia's economy out of a jam, but I also think its fair to raise concerns about what replaced it. Schwarz wrote a good history, but it's only a skim: there are others who have much more carefully examined the New Order's track record. This is our only paragraph about the New Order economy and it's an extremely cheerful assessment.--Dylanfly 13:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Languages and Motto

I see what appear to be Indonesian nicknames on here so I'll present these two pieces of info as an expat in Indonesia and let you sort it out. :)

Languages As far as I can determine, English should be listed as an official language on the page. People I've asked said it is and it is a required subject in sekolah nasional here. The majority of national plus and international schools use it as the main medium of teaching and communication. In addition, the government has sponsored an immersion program (the name of which sounds like "maersi") in several school, including Gubug and Tegal, where I've been invited to visit and teach English. Almost all of the teachers are required to learn English for the purpose of instruction. The point is that these schools are converting from Indonesian as the main language to English.

Motto "Bhinneka Tunggal Ika," according to various people, (and also some pages on Wikipedia) is Sanskrit not Old Javanese. My Javanese brother-in-law, my wife, and an Indian student of mine all agree on this point. I am not an expert (or even a novice) on either subject, so I cannot say for sure, nor can I provide conclusive evidence to support my claim. Can you please investigate this? If it is not true, you'll need to notify the makers of other Wikipedia pages regarding this motto that it's not Sanskrit.

Thanks for the good work on Indonesia's info!

Best regards, Glenn McGrew ReveurGAM 03:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. The information in Wikipedia is based verifiability, not truth. Personal experiences and communications are unfortunately of little use. For us to make any changes we need to have references to reliable sources. To address your specific points: (1) the official language of Indonesia is defined by the constitution (see Constitution of Indonesia), so its irrelevant which languages are in use in schools or anywhere else. (2) According to the book "Historical Dictionary of Indonesia" (2004, Robert Cribb and Audrey Kahin, Scarecrow Press), the motto is Old Javanese and was coined by Empu Tantalar in the 15th century. The page Bhinneka Tunggal Ika has some more details too. Since Old Javanese is influenced by Sanskrit, this may be where the confusion lies. User:Meursault2004 happens to be an expert on Javanese literature, so he would be able to comment further. BTW, could you point out which pages on Wikipedia say "Bhinneka Tunggal Ika" is Sanskrit, I can't find any. (Caniago 20:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC))

A nice touch - verifiability, not truth. Hehe. It's sad that many books that are accepted as references are based on personal experiences and communications, yet are considered reference material. To respond:

1) I checked with my contact in DepDikNas (the Dept. of Ed.) and it is correct that English is not official. Sorry for the misinfo before. It's a bit confusing, what with it being a required language of study and so many schools being converted to English.

2) I cannot find the reference now. I found the reference to Pancasila that reports it as being Sanskrit, so maybe I got them confused. However:c -You yourself mentioned the connection between Sanskrit and Old Javanese; -It can be seen in many places, such as the use of Sanskrit for military bases [Yon Arhanudse, for example]) and the word(s) Pancasila; -My brother-in-law, who understands Javanese, said it's Sanskrit; -Various other Javanese people have said it's Sanskrit; Don't you think it should be investigated further? Since Javanese people HERE are telling me it is Sanskrit, I believe there is a possibility they are correct. Do you know any Sanskrit experts, because a Javanese expert may - or may not - know the origins of the words? Better from the horse's mouth (or as close as we can get) rather than the horse's relative's mouth, if you get my drift.

Let's not forget the Dictionary you referenced above. Did it only explore who coined the phrase, or did it also state where the phrase - the language - originated from? Also, isn't it possible that those men - who, by name, I'd guess are Caucasians, not Indians or otherwise closely connected to Sanskrit - could be wrong?

Thanks for the debate. It's good to keep the brain from rusting. :) Best regards, Glenn ReveurGAM 10:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC) (edited to correct)ReveurGAM 10:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I've pinged User:Meursault2004, hopefully he can provide some insight. If you do a search on Google Books (http://books.google.com), there are some books which say its Old Javanese and some which say its Sanskrit. Languages often import words from other languages, so it is possible that the phrase by itself is both valid Sanskrit and valid Old Javanese, and that its been called Old Javanese by the academics because the rest of the text it is from has been verified as being Old Javanese. In fact if you read the article Old Javanese, it says out of 25,000 words documented in Professor Zoetmulder's Old Javanese – English Dictionary, about half are borrowed from Sanskrit. (Caniago 12:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC))

Thank you Caniago for calling me here. In fact in Indonesia or even in Java Old Javanese/Kawi is often confused with Sanskrit. The reason is already told here by Caniago. About half of the Old Javanese vocabulary is derived from Sanskrit. And this motto is quoted from a book written in Old Javanese, and this very phrase is even Old Javanese in structure not Sanskrit. In fact this phrase which consists of four words, has more Javanese than Sanskrit words in it. The only Sanskrit word is bhinna. Bhinna + ika yields bhinnêka. So it out of question that it is Sanskrit. Meursault2004 14:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Good to see the word of authority - when we need it thanks for that! Satu Suro 14:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Haha I am not an authority, I just happen to have access to the necessary books. BTW user:ReveurGAM, why Wikipedia can't contains personal communications etc., and why Wikipedia is allowed to contain material found in published books which are nonetheless also based on personal communications etc., you can read about it in Wikipedia:No original research. Meursault2004 08:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Quite interesting. I checked with some colleagues at IKIP-PGRI (The Institute for Teaching and Education, founded by the Teacher's Union of the Republic of Indonesia) in Semarang, who both work in the language department and both speak Indonesian and Javanese. They both indicated that the motto originates from Sanskrit.

In addition, I checked with my brother again. He said that these words are not used in Javanese. Whether they were ever used in Javanese Tunggal is used in Indonesian, and it means "singular." He told me that it translates into Indonesian roughly as "Berbeda-beda hanya satu," which literally translates as, "Differences only one," but figuratively means something like "Despite differences, we are still united."

However, I checked with my mother-in-law, who was alive when the Dutch still controlled this country, and she said that "tunggal" and "ika" are old Javanese.

So, Meursault, are you stating that "tunggal" and "ika" have no basis in Sanskrit? Also, are you a recognized authority in Sanskrit and Old Javanese, or can you produce enough references to put this whole debate to bed?

In the meantime, I will try to locate someone here who a leading authority on both languages.

Thanks, Glenn ReveurGAM 09:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I contended this issue last year and I will contend it again now. Since I last brought up the question of the true origin of this motto, I have talked to many more people in Indonesia (where I live) - mostly Javanese people - including university professors and experts of the Javanese language. As of this time, I have yet to meet an Indonesian who says that the motto originates from Old Javanese (or Indonesian, for that matter). Every person I've asked has either said they don't know (a small minority), or they have said it is Sanskrit (the vast majority).

The Influence of Sanskrit
1. The main article on Sanskrit says that of Old Javanese, perhaps half originates from Sanskrit (Zoetmulder, Petrus Josephus (1982), written at The Hague, Old Javanese-English dictionary, Nijhoff) and the main article on the Indonesian and Old Javanese languages reiterates the same claim. This lays a foundation to support my claim.
2. The Sanskrit article on Old Javanese goes as far to say that Sanskrit had a stronger influence on Old Javanese than any other Indian language.
3. Add to this the fact that so many Sanskrit words continue to be used in Indonesian (eg: aneka=many) and the validity of adding Sanskrit as the source is strengthened.
Bhinnaa
1. As Meursault already said, bhinna is Sanskrit.
2. The main Sanskrit article also refers to: http://language.psy.auckland.ac.nz/austronesian/language.php?id=290. This article lists "bhinneka" as meaning "one" in Old Javanese, and its origin is Sanskrit.
3. In addition, on http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sktdict.txt, "bhinnaa" means "separated", which would be another way of looking at the meaning "diversity". You can plug "bhinnaa" into other online dictionaries and get similar results, such as on: http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?script=HK&tinput=bhinnaa&country_ID=&trans=Translate&direction=AU, which lists "bhinna" as meaning: different, different from, anything less than a whole, alien, divided into parts, disunited, split (as well as other irrelevant meanings).
Ika
1. In the Sanskrit article, "eka" is listed as meaning "one", which is not a far cry from "ika".
2. Further, "one" in Javanese is "siji," not "ika" nor "eka".
3. My associate, a Javanese teacher, suggests that in Old Javanese, "ika" and "eka" mean "one."

Therefore, bhinneka seems like it is entirely Sanskrit.

Given the already documented connection between Old Javanese and Sanskrit, the resemblance between "eka" and "ika", and the direct link between "bhinneka" and Sanskrit, it seems that 2 of the 3 words come from Sanskrit (directly or as loanwords remains unknown). So I would like to propose that Indonesia's motto be shown as coming from Old Javanese/Sanskrit.

The anecdotal evidence that no Javanese (or Indonesian) people I've interviewed say the motto comes from Javanese is just icing on the cake. Ironically, one Javanese man who supports this claim is named "Catur" ("four" in Sanskrit).

Last year, Caniago claimed that some books say it is Sanskrit and others O.J., but he provided no conclusive proof that I am incorrect. He admitted that the motto might be from BOTH O.J. and Sanskrit, and he further stated that academics may have declared it O.J. simply because it was housed in a text composed of O.J. If we follow that logic, that means that now "Bhinneka Tunggal Ika" is from the English language. Since words' origins do not come from text they are contained in, but from the originating language, this simply doesn't make sense.

If you look at loanword pages, or even dictionaries that show the "lineage" of a word, they try to go back to the root source. Shouldn't we be observing the same standard of documentation that other Wiki pages, and many dictionaries, employ?

Last year, Meursault said that my claim is incorrect, but he admitted he is not an authority on the subject. Caniago stated that Meursault is an expert on Javanese LITERATURE - not the Javanese and Sanskrit languages. One can be an expert on Javanese literature without actually knowing the language (by reading translations). He said it's Old Javanese, but he provided no documentation to support his claim.

Because of Wiki rules, their claims are thus invalid. Wiki requires documented references for anything put into Wikipedia, not personal opinion or original research (sadly). There is no conclusive proof to support that the motto is strictly Old Javanese (or modern, for that matter).

I have provided documentation that supports my claim and invalidates Caniago's and Meursault's claims. Please let me know your thoughts.

Note: I am contacting Dr. Stuart Robson, noted Javanese expert, on this issue.ReveurGAM (talk) 06:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Just a couple of points. Firstly the article Bhinneka Tunggal Ika quotes a reference on this. This means it is indeed verified, not based on anecdotal or original research. Secondly, surely this misses the point. To say the slogan is from Sanskrit by extension implies that slogans such as "Just Do It" or "The real thing" are partly from old French (juste, real). The language is, not the slogan. Davidelit (talk) 08:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Davidelit. I have some comments:

There is only one reference [Santoso, Soewito Sutasoma, a Study in Old Javanese Wajrayana]. I haven't got access to that book, although Google Book search says that pages 9 & 76 mention the motto in question.
1. Does that mean that all the information on that stub page is from that one reference? Is one reference alone enough to prove the information is correct? I find that highly doubtful. If that were true, then university students writing a thesis could comfortably support a point in the thesis with one reference and never have it questioned by the examiners. Isn't that somewhat flimsy?
I think you overlooked something I said. Your comment about slogans employs the exact same logic that I used to refute the assumption that "Bhinneka Tunggal Ika" is purely Old Javanese (see my paragraph which starts: "Last year, Caniago claimed...") The quetion is whether or not these words are loanwords that were socialized and BECAME part of Old Javanese, or were merely used as a foreign language, much the same way a writer might throw in words from a foreign language for whatever reason. N'est pas? Now, because I used that French phrase, does it mean it is English or does it mean it is French? Do you see my point now?
I am proposing the amendment "Old Javanese/Sanskrit" not "Sanskrit" be made.
All that I've said previously aside, if I'm wrong, I'll admit it.
1. In correspondence with Dr. Stuart Robson, who wrote his thesis on Middle Javanese, he states that only "bhinna" is Sanskrit and the rest is Old Javanese. He suggests looking at Prof. Zoetmulder's dictionary and can reference nothing else. Below are his comments (salutations and personal items deleted for brevity).
2. Dr. Robson: "Now regarding the motto 'bhinneka tunggal ika', I can tell you the following. It is definitely Old Javanese, not Sanskrit, although it does contain one Sanskrit loanword, namely 'bhinna'. We can analyse this little sentence into four words (not three!), thus: bhinna ika, tunggal ika. (bhinna + ika becomes bhinneka by a process of combination called sandhi) Bhinna is derived from Sanskrit, and means 'split, separate'; ika is a pronoun, 'that, it, they'; tunggal means 'one, single'. The sentence divides into two small segements: bhinna ika, tunggal ika. Note that here the predicate (adjective, verb) comes first, and the subject second. So we get the translation: 'they are separate, [and yet] they are one'. In the original context, the Old Javanese religious poem Sutasoma by Mpu Tantular (latter part of the 14th century), this alludes to the two main religious traditions, Buddhism and Sivaism (and has nothing to do with ethnic or social groups). If you would like to put any of this information into an entry in Wikipedia, by all means do so."
3. Dr. Robson: "Old Javanese ika is an Austronesian word, and has no connection with Sanskrit eka 'one'. The only reference I can suggest is P.J. Zoetmulder's Old Javanese-English Dictionary; there exists an Indonesian translation/abridgement of this, that you might be able to find in Semarang."
I am contacting Dr. Jai Maharaj and soliciting his help to determine, from the Sanskrit end, that Dr. Robson is completely accurate. I will post an update when he responds.
I'm also contacting Mr. Roger Tol, the head of the KITLV office in Jakarta, since Dr. Robson suggested it.

ReveurGAM (talk) 06:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

(Edited to fix numbering)ReveurGAM (talk) 06:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want another reference for it being an Old Javanese phrase, how about Cribb, R. B. (1994). Historical Dictionary of Indonesia. Scarecrow Press. p. 56. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help). Audrey Kahin was the coeditor of the journal Indonesia for many years. (Caniago (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC))

Thank you for reminding me. I had forgotten about the Historical Dictionary.ReveurGAM (talk) 08:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Roger Tol's associate, Willem van der Molen, responded with the following:

"Dr Roger Tol asked me to review the problem on the origins of the Indonesian state motto you are currently addressing. Prof. Zoetmulder's dictionary is the best source for the solution of your problem. Here you find authoritative information both on the meaning of the words and their origins."
He further stated: "Presently there are no other written sources as authoritative as Prof. Zoetmulder's dictionary." (edited for brevity)

I am still awaiting a response from Dr. Maharaj's associates (since they, not he, are the experts on Sanskrit). Thus far, it seems the common Javanese conception that the motto is Sanskrit is unfounded. Thanks to everyone for your patience with me. :) ReveurGAM (talk) 08:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I am glad this problem is solved. It is true that many Javanese confused Old Javanese with Sanskrit, which isn't odd at all as almost 50% of Old Javanese vocabulary is of Sanskrit origin. It is similar with English as stated here above. Sincerely. A so-called 'expert' on Old Javanese or Meursault2004 (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Trisakti University Events and Sharia Courts

I am a recent arrival to editing this page on Indonesia - I've been to Jakarta a number of times and Bali once and find the country and its people most intriguing. I added some information about the 1998 Trisakti University events plus a single addition (Sharia) to the entry regarding Sharia courts. One person here in particular has been objecting to/undoing my entries for what I believe are childish, even selfish reasons. Moreover, this individual has been making threats about reporting me under false pretenses to Wikipedia. Does ANYONE else here object to my activity and/or contributions? Be assured that my intentions are sincere. Plus, I wish to make friends here, not enemies....... what about the individual I mentioned? Wikimuppy 04:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"The individual" is me, User:Merbabu - but WP:NPA requires us to comment on edits, not editors. Your edits are problematic:

We don't need to know in detail about the trisakti killings in this very broad, space-limited article that covers the whole of Indonesian history in a few hundred words.
You stated that you do not need to provide a reference for your assertion that the Indonesian Religious Court is a sharia body. You will notice that everything else in this Featured Article is referenced - why should this point be any different? Your refusal to provide a reference is fundamental no-no on wikipedia.

I'm not here to make friends, but to improve an encyclopaedia. If, as you say, you are here to make friends, my suggestion is to try My Space or Facebook. However, I commend you on bringing your issues to the article talk page as advised. regards --Merbabu 05:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

My response: My entry is succinct, clear, and valuable - it mentions an important event/date that marks a turning point in the history of

Indonesia Wikimuppy 05:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC) (wikimuppy)

My response: NOT everything is referenced/cited - it would be ridiculous to cite every single person, place, & thing. This is obvious to everyone else.......... why don't YOU get it? Wikimuppy 05:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC) (wikimuppy)

My response: Your infantile response merely reveals another level of your arrogance. With your silly, recent undos you are clearly neither making friends nor improving the encyclopedia. Grow up. And good luck, chum - you'll need plenty of it. Have a nice day. Wikimuppy 05:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC) (wikimuppy)

I have never heard of the Indonesian Sharia court and you have refused to provide a reference. There is one in Aceh which is already mentioned.

Also, are you familiar with WP:NPA page? Do you believe it has any relation to your comment: Your infantile response merely reveals another level of your arrogance. With your silly, recent undos you are clearly neither making friends nor improving the encyclopedia. Grow up. And good luck, chum - you'll need plenty of it. Please advise. --Merbabu 06:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

My view is that the Trisakti killings, while important in the history of the period, is a detail that isn't significant enough in the context of this high level summary of Indonesia's history to be included. This article is very constrained by how much space is available (see WP:SIZE), so we need to be very selective to provide an overview of the history without any unnecessary details. It is probably ok to include this fact in the History of Indonesia article. Regarding the Sharia court claim, this certainly needs to be cited from a reliable source to be included. (Caniago 07:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC))

(unindent) WikiMuppy, everybody who are new to Wikipedia and has interests in Indonesia is having intention to contribute directly to this article. However, we cannot include every details in this article, due to WP:SIZE policy (Caniago has mentioned it). And Wikipedia policy disagrees with you that not everything should be referenced. Wikipedia works with three fundamental pillars: neutral point of view, verifiable and no original research. Merbabu has mentioned it. So please calm down and if you believe you have reliable source to add something about Indonesia, then please find an appropriate and more directly-related articles. — Indon (reply) — 07:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

All right, dear people........... make whatever changes you wish. As I first said, I am here to contribute worthwhile information, and maybe even make some friends. May I first add some brief, final remarks to this discussion?

1) The Trisakti event is most important and adding the date/background events is simply consistent with the format of the September 30, 1965 coup entry.... BOTH are worthwhile entries requiring minimal detail inclusion for this high-level article.

2) See http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2006/71341.htm for mention of the Sharia courts that operate throughout all of Indonesia. Of course Aceh gets all the attention/press because of its semi-autonomous status, but throughout Indonesia Muslim courts deal with marriage/family matters; these courts address ONLY Muslim issues and are Sharia-based.

3) When I questioned the dire need for a citation for 'Sharia,' it was only because there are so many other entries (e.g. Japanese invasion, human rights abuses, etc.) that have no citation and I accepted this since it is not reasonable to cite EVERY name and place and thing; the only entries that truly require citation are crucial events.

Hopefully you'll understand now my intention....... and the fact that I am willing to go quietly, even though I have the same privileges as everyone else here, should confirm my intentions to you. I don't care who receives the credit for the information I provided; I just want to enrich the content of the article. Of course, this article was a hit before I showed up on the scene - I merely wanted to improve it and Wikipedia welcomes contributions from all those who can make such improvements. Again, dear people, this is a PUBLIC medium..... those who wish to have complete control over such a medium need to start their own blog or newspaper. Please remember that the next time someone who is not part of your inner circle steps in to make a worthwhile contribution. Be well. (wikimuppy)Wikipuppy 17:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Please put your information about Trisakti event to Reformation (Indonesia) / Indonesian Revolution of 1998 / Jakarta riots of May 1998. Those article are more appropriate and are still undeveloped. Why do you insist to put them in this general article? Yes, Trisakti is important event in Indonesia history, but so do Mpu Sindok establishment of Mataram, the construction of Great Post Road by Daendels, the administration of Raffles, the Max Havelaar publication by Multatuli, the youth pledge of Sumpah Pemuda, the New York Agreement about Papua, the 2004 earthquake that led to Aceh peace agreement, and on and on until you realize that we have put GB of info in this article. Please read again WP:SUMMARY and WP:SIZE. Not every details can be put in this article.
For sharia court, it is not officially named as that in Indonesia. It's called religious court, regardless of whatever you say about the court, and this has been mentioned in the Government and politics section.
Every statements in Wikipedia can be challenged their sources, not only for just crucial events.
Although Wikimedia is a public medium, we have WP:POLICY and WP:GUIDELINE. There is no inner circle here. What Merbabu and Caniago did to this article is to keep this feature article retains its status from being de-featured. Again, those details are not forbidden, but not in this already long article.

WikiMuppy, I really suggest you to calm down. Your contribution is really helpful to Wikipedia, but it's only not in the appropriate place. Please also note that Wikipedia works by consensus and we are working here together. — Indon (reply) — 01:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

(IMPORTANT!) WikiMuppy, I just realized you have been blocked and then you created a new user as Wikipuppy. Do you know that you have broken WP:SOCK law? I warn you that this is not good for you. You can be blocked permanently. — Indon (reply) — 01:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

789 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.229.128 (talk) 07:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Muslim population

This is from Islam in Indonesia, I consider that Muslims in Indonesia is just only 80%, always, not 86% or 85%. It is base from Islam in Indonesia were "The country's religious composition remains a politically charged issue, and some Christians, Hindus, and members of other minority faiths argue that the census undercounted non-Muslims".Indonesia census bureau is full of sensitive issues due to their deceiveness of thier calculating Indonesia's population.Karelin Gabon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.182.142 (talk) 01:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

But you don't have a reliable source - this is just your opinion. It might be correct (and it might not be), but we can only state what is provided by reliable sources, not your opinion. If you can provide alternative sources, and not simply your own reasoning, then maybe you have a case be answered, but without a source, the case is closed and further changes such changes could be considered vandalism. --Merbabu (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Clearly there is a political incentive to undercount non-Muslims, as Karelin Gabon notes, but Merbabu's got a point. I wonder if a reputable academic source has challenged the official census? Until we've got that in hand we'll have to take the Ogre (as Benedict Anderson calls it) at its dubious word. Smilo Don (talk) 14:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

And to overcount them :-) Davidelit (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Islam in Indonesia

Would it be possible to incorporate a bit of the information from the article on Islam in Indonesia and, in fact, a bit about religion in this country in general? I came to this article specifically to try and answer questions I had about Islam in Indonesia and, while it seems I could have taken a much more direct approach, it wouldn't hurt to include a snippet on the topic and a link to the in-depth article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Renthehoek (talk • contribs) 06:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is an overview of the whole country and provides links to more detailed information such as the Religion in Indonesia article. There are good reasons for this: see WP:SIZE. We already have a whole paragraph on religion, and I think thats as much as we should have. (Caniago (talk) 14:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC))

I agree with Caniago. I have changed the link from Islam to Islam in Indonesia - hope that helps. --Merbabu (talk) 14:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a query

May i know what is the abbreviation used for Indonesia? IND is for India, so what is used for Indonesia? Just a random question. Indianescence (talk) 11:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Usually INA in sports events. Internet country code is .id Davidelit (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism...

Hi there, Merbabu and all! I am new here and not too sure where to point out a comment. I hope this is all right. I noted in the Etymology section:

"The name Indonesia derives from the Latin Chungu, meaning "taliban", and the Greek taliban, meaning "attack".[5; source listed as: ^ a b Tomascik, T; Mah, J.A., Nontji, A., Moosa, M.K. (1996). The Ecology of the Indonesian Seas - Part One. Hong Kong: Periplus Editions Ltd.. ISBN 962-593-078-7]. If you put them together it means taliban attack." - I think this is a "defacing attempt" on Indonesia by whoever out there without the knowledge of the main editors of this page.

I have Tomascik et al. (1996) book, and in fact, I personally know all the authors of the book. The book does not say so. The book says "Indonesia, derived from Greek words "Indos" meaning India and "nesos" meaning island.. You can check the book yourself, page 1, Chapter 1.

Appreciate some review and comments from the Wiki guru here.. Thx. (A concerned Indonesian, --154.20.135.221 (talk) 01:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)).

Yes, it appears to be vandalism in the last few days. By User:Da best editor". I've rolled it back. here. Thanks --Merbabu (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Merbabu! That was super quick.. :-)... Terima kasih ya! --154.20.135.221 (talk) 03:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

"'indoCIA'" :
- [[https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/id.html Indonesia]] - [[The World Factbook]]. Retrieved on [[2007-08-14]].
- {{cite web|url=https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/id.html|title=Indonesia - The World Factbook}}
"RICKLEFSp24" :
- {{cite book |last=Ricklefs |first=M.C|title=A History of Modern Indonesia Since c.1300, second edition |publisher=MacMillan |year=1993 |location=London |pages=p.22–24 |url= |isbn= 0-333-57689-6}}
- Ricklefs (1991), page 24

DumZiBoT (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)