Talk:Parang (knife)

Warren Ellis
An author wanting a parang for Christmas doesn't really warrant inclusion. Fences and windows (talk) 05:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Picture
The picture shows a knife that does NOT have the characteristic shape of a parang. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.83.164.67 (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to the "parang pisang", I agree, but it's what we have. The "pisang" isn't defined here either. Kortoso (talk) 07:23, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Origins
This discussion includes for the edits in Golok article as it is the same issue. As mentioned in the earlier edits, the reason for the origin of Parang and Golok is Malay Archipelago is because "The term "parang" is also used in Brunei and Malaysia for the traditional machete." We look forward to hear the inputs from Jayaagung for the basis of placing Indonesia as the origin. Thank you. -Jeblat (talk) 03:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Too much debate, the fact is parang and golok come from Indonesia! Created by Pribumi (native indonesian people) We speak originated! not who is wearing Blocked sock.Jayaagung (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


 * "Too much debate, the fact is parang and golok come from Indonesia!", this does not mean that a claim you've made automatically becomes a fact. If there is a reliable scholarly research done specifically on this subject matter, I would gladly look into it.
 * Of course it is explicitly written there "Place of origin", hence the title of the discussion that I've made. It seems to be that it is very hard to pin point exactly where did the golok and parang were first conceived. Even if you take into consideration Indonesia alone, there are hundreds of ethnic groups that have their own version/style of parang and golok distinct from one another. Let alone cultures from other neighbouring countries. So the question is, if you take into consideration of all the cultures/ethnic groups that uses parang and golok, which one of them (cultures/ethnic groups) did the parang and golok first came into existence? It is very hard to pin point precisely which one of them. Now, please bare in mind also that ethnic cultures pre-dates the existence of Indonesia or any countries for that matter, perhaps a millennia if not hundreds of years. So which in that point of time and where did the parang and golok first came into existence? Unfortunately, there are no archaeological evidence that I'm aware of to date. For that reason, I've settled Malay archipelago, a geographical region as the "Place of origin". Malay archipelago includes Indonesia, East Timor, Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines and Christmas Island. I think it is justifiable as these are the countries where parang and golok have been widely used, albeit the difference in style. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at when you wrote on my Talk page "Indonesia Region: Malay archipelago or Maritime southeast asia". Maybe you can expand a little on that. That leads to another reason for me to use the word Pribumi, the natives of the geographical region. I understand that the link leads to Native Indonesians, that is why I choose to stick to Pribumi instead of Native Indonesians as the term Pribumi is also not exclusively used or understood in Indonesia alone. Whether the term Pribumi carries a political connotation or anthropological term, that's for another discussion. Unless if there is a specific article that refers to the indigenous people of the Malay archipelago as a whole in an anthropological term instead of political term, then it will be suitable.
 * If there are other users here who disagree with what I've written, I'll be happy to hear them out as well. My intention for the answer is only for accuracy, not for my own personal bias or nationalistic view. -Jeblat (talk) 07:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: Just found out that there's an article for Austronesian peoples. Maybe "Used by: Austronesian peoples of the Malay archipelago region" will be preferred. ;D -Jeblat (talk) 07:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * UPDATE 2: It is also noteworthy to mention that the term golok and parang is an umbrella term for a wide variety of styles throughout the Malay archipelago region. If it is an article on Parang Kabeala (this is an example of the article that I created on this specific parang), then it makes sense to say the origin is from Sumba, Indonesia. If it is an article on the Sundanese golok called bedog, then it makes sense to say the origin is West Java, Indonesia. If it is a Filipino gulok/golok, then it makes sense to say the origin is from the Philippines. If it is an article on a traditional Timor Leste style of parang, then it makes sense to say the origin is from East Timor. If the article is on Parang Bongkok, then it makes sense to say its origin is Terengganu, Malaysia. Same thing goes with Papua New Guinea and so forth. -Jeblat (talk) 04:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

there are lots of weapons, for "PARANG" (name and shape) It comes from Indonesia we are not talking machete (parang) versions from other countries in India, this is like a debate between fried chicken vs ayam goreng in wikipedia page Blocked sock.Jayaagung (talk) 10:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * there are lots of weapons, for "PARANG" (name and shape) It comes from Indonesia we are not talking machete (parang) versions from other countries in India: Neither am I talking about any machetes from India. Still you have not respond to my points above. Parang and golok itself is an umbrella term. It appears that you're making a nationalistic argument here. Look back to the earlier points that I've made above. The existence of parang and golok pre-dates the existence of any countries in the Malay archipelago region itself. I know exactly what you mean by there are lots of weapons, for "PARANG" (name and shape). That's a linguistic argument itself, and a self-defeating argument too. If you're working on the basis of "there are lots of weapons, for "PARANG" (name and shape)" in other parts of the world and "we are not talking machete (parang) versions from other countries in India", means you've just claimed that there are parangs that originates/exists in India too. I've never made any linguistic argument in my points above for you to even think about starting one.
 * this is like a debate between fried chicken vs ayam goreng in wikipedia page: Neither am I making a linguistic argument here. Read up my earlier points above.
 * Look forward to your response on every points that I've made, and you've also committed multiple Edit warring beginning from other earlier users already. -Jeblat (talk) 11:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

https://www.amazon.com/Traditional-Weapons-Indonesian-Archipelago-Zonneveld/dp/9054500042/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1394869874&sr=8-1&keywords=Traditional+Weapons+of+the+Indonesian+Archipelago|year=2002 Alam Bashari (talk) 08:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Actually I have the physical book. If you've read the previous edit summary that I've made, you've known why I reverse the citation. I wrote, "The book by Draeger that you've referenced only mention of the style of golok used in Tjimande style silat. While Zonneveld that you've reference only deals with the subject matter in Indonesia alone." I'm wondering if people actually read my editing summary before repeating the same edit all over again. As a start, maybe you can look into the points that I've mentioned above and address it. If you have credible sources to back your reasoning, that would be helpful. Thank you. -Jeblat (talk) 13:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

UPDATE: Contributions by Sock puppet users have been strike through. -Jeblat (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)