User talk:Dr. Lukens-Bull

Welcome
Welcome! We are very keen and pleased to see expert contributions to Indonesia-related articles - the need for such input has been discussed around here recently. As you can see, many articles are in bad shape, although of course, they were written with the best of intentions. Pesantren is a case in point – it’s clear that it was sloppily written (although I’m sure intentions were good), and I made a brief started fixing it up a few days ago (see history) but given that I rely on research, progress is slow.

What is your area of expertise and/or interest? Islam in Indonesia? Just last night I was reading and taking notes from Merle Rickelfs Modern Indonesia History with the intention of improving/verifying the history section of Islam in Indonesia. But, perhaps this is something you can help us on. There is also a request for expert input on Jemaah Islamiah. Even Abu Bakar Bashir needs improvement.

A lot of Indonesia-related articles are poorly written or have no references. So much of what went before seemed to place quantity over quality and it is a big job sorting through it. But, we are slowly trying to fix this. Major improvements have been made in recent months to a number of articles including Indonesia, Borobudur, Mount Tambora, Rumah Gadang, Indonesian architecture, Toraja and Indonesian National Revolution. While these few are now of good to high quality, they have been improved by a small handful of devoted but essentially non-expert, albeit careful editors (including myself). other very important articles may be long, but in bad shape. And there are literally 100s of scrappy start/stub grade articles on Indonesian topics.

Our wikipedia Indonesia project seeks to assess articles by both quality and importance. here's a link or two:
 * lists of assessed articles - by quality and importance.
 * Indonesia-related topics notice board

let me know if I can advise you further. We hope you can contribute more. kind regards --Merbabu 00:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * again, is this the way to reply?? -- another poster felt that having my user name refelcted in the references I posted is a no-no. the fact of the matter is that I am one of a handful of experts on Islam in Indonesia and even a smaller set on pesantren more specifically.  here is a link to my university home page wihc includes a link to my vitae http://www.unf.edu/coas/soc-anth/Faculty%20Profiles/lukensbull.htm Dr. Lukens-Bull 03:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Your reply method is pretty good. I inserted a semi-colon at the start of your reply to intent it, and you'll see there is two semi-colons at the start of mine to intent further. Also, you managed to insert in the middle of mine, but I've moved it (no probs). Merbabu 04:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia
A few guidelines - but seems like in 3 edits you are doing just fine already...

Kyai
Hello again. This article has been tagged as not citing its references. You however have since made some major changes and provided a number of references. Would you thus suggest that it is now adequately referenced? I.e., do your footnotes over all the article? Another option is list general references if one or more text covers more than one point in the article. Hope you can answer, the best place is probably on the article’s talk page: Talk:Kyai. Regards --Merbabu 02:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC) I dont know if this how I should reply -- the kyai article still needs a few releveant article -- specifically Dhofiers 1981 artilce on kyai kinship relations -- I can try to get this posted soon Dr. Lukens-Bull 03:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunate
That you have a user name and citations that coincide in PESANTREN - some editors and admins in wikipedia take this very seriously and would revert your edits under the banner of WP:COI without argument. SatuSuro 03:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Replies are placed at the bottom of a talk page. It dosnt really mater if you were mark woodward or merle ricklefs!  Editors on wikipedia usually do not cite their own work!  Your c.v. and knowledge about Islam in Java is - not necessarily something to be shared on wikipedia.   If you do so - {[WP:COI]] and a few other matters need to be gone into very very carefully - otherwise other editors might take issue with self-citing for a start! SatuSuro 03:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ron
You will need to be very careful about self citing. If you dont understand that - take the time to look at Wikipedia policies - as ignoring this point and putting up you cv is not a necessary defence in the face of wikipedia policies. I've said my bit, and I please dont say that I havent warned you! SatuSuro 04:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I just need clarification from say, Merbabu. I have not ignored your point -- I responed as soon as I saw your comments.  Dr. Lukens-Bull 04:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The issue is that neither merbabu or I are admins - what we need to do is to find either an admin or someone up on the official policy regarding self citing - as some more ignorant members of the wikipedia community would go 2+2 and revert your edits. We need to find an admin or editor who has dealt with this in practice as some contributors have been blocked without question over very similar issues. If it is done with sensitivity - and you dont actually cite yourself for the moment - we will need to enquire around - which might take a few days (some editors are not on as often as merbabu and I - :)  ) - to see how your expertise and information might help the Indonesia Project.  Please do not flaunt your cv as a proof of your capacity as a contributor/edditor - WP:V and WP:N require good sources and citations - one of tthe most significant problems for wikipedia Indonesia project is the lack of that in articles.


 * If you had registered as User:Pesantren for instance - none of us would be the wiser - and this problem would not have arisen. Some editors probably self cite this way - but there is no issue - if you wish to be seen and heard as an expert - although many javanists cringe at such a label - perhaps you might like to know of other projects that are offshoots of wikipedia where you can do exactly that - such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizendium - however for the moment wikipedia is not designed for that sort of status of editors....  SatuSuro 04:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Lukens-Bull, I'm not all that up on SatuSuro's points to conclusively comment, but he is well known amongst us Indonesia editors (well, he is one himself) and I have high respect for his judgement and experience, even if on the odd occasion I don’t agree (ha ha). One way around the apparent problems that might make everyone happy and ward off trigger happy admins is to use your any expertise to pull together other people’s reliable sources for the articles. No doubt you’ve come across many, even cited them in your own work. Just a thought? What do you think SatuSuro??? I intially had no problem with self-citing - it was only yesterday it struck me that even Ricklefs' was self citing - but his own book which I'm workig thru (which contains 100s more other sources) is different to open access wikipedia.--Merbabu 04:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ron, all is well - an admin has emailed me - with this as the only issue - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS#Self-published_sources - which in effect means (because of its vagueness) - that judicious use of your own sources is ok as long as it is done wisely..  Where an issue is contentious or problematic - best to use other refs.  Hope that clairifes the point that I have unfortunately repeated too  many times here!   Hope you enjoy wikipedia - we need your help! SatuSuro 04:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Citing oneself

 * from WP:COI

''You may cite your own publications just as you'd cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you're regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. Be cautious about excessive citation of your own work, which may be seen as promotional or a conflict of interest. When in doubt, discuss on the talk page whether or not your citation is an appropriate one, and defer to the community's opinion.''


 * from WP:No_original_research

''This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, then s/he may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. See also Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest.''

(Caniago 04:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC))

Clarity
Having established the official policies - we would very much appreciate your assistance with the Indonesia Project - your knowledge and resourcces would be much appreciated (now that we've indicated the potential problem area as not as significant as it could have been ) SatuSuro 04:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
I am glad for the clarification. The posting of the CV was not meant as flaunting. The use of my real name and the posting of my CV was meant as honesty -- here is who I am. SatoSuro is right, I could have created a username like crazyredneck and noone would have been the wiser. I entered the edits on pesantren and kyai because what was there was driving me nuts. I also plan on going back and putting in some of the other sources -- the ones that are there now are those that I could do with minimal effort.

If the community thinks it best, I will take down the link to my C.V.. Just let me know. I have to admit thought, that to date, that I do not encourage my students to use Wiki in their research, or if they use it that they go far far beyond it and that it should be used in any way that requires a citation. Part of the reason for that is not knowing who writes the articles. Granted the policies are meant to keep from people from such obvious fabrications as "Black is White and Up is Down" but as any wordsmith knows, the right word here or there can slant an article. Or the selective use of sources that spin a particular bias. The entries on Islam in Indonesia had this kind of problem. Knowing who wrote allows me to assess the bias that might be present. I know that the commmunity editing process is supposed to correct these sort of problems but the horrid pesantren article has been up for over a year. It is not as bad as say the dictionary.com defintion of pesantren as terrorist institution-- a POV that I will need to address in the article -- or course, Ithe only source that I know that deals withit at all is my own book but I do not tackle the question 100% head on.

A bigger problem is the lack of sources in many of the Indonesia articles. For students this will be the most useful part, they neeed to be able to go access published sources. Dr. Lukens-Bull 11:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ron - and thats why we want you in - your level headed response to our concerns - and your very sensible approach to your students and citations - is why we want you - please feel at home!  Any questions - please feel free to ask any of us- or at the project itself. Cheers SatuSuro 12:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way - we also have some articles that drive us nuts too - poorly written -no refs and in some cases outright rubbish that embarrass the Indonesia Project! SatuSuro 12:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Also - because such a large number of indonesian project articles have such poor sourcing - it is problematic - and we know that - it is also that some articles are so rarely updated- that some of us dont even bother to challenge whether an article is poorly sourced - either we simply add citations and sources as we come across them - otherwise we could spend our editing time taking issue with the problem... SatuSuro 12:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Additional Readings Segments
I don't know if it will be useful, but as a short term fix, instead of trying to reference every factoid, would it be useful to insert a 'Further Readings' segment at the end of certain articles that would like published sources user can turn to. It's not the same as citations, but it will give students (who seem addicted to Wiki) direction in which to go. Dr. Lukens-Bull 13:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Possibly. Many articles do have such 'Further Reading' sections. But they often eventaully get mixed into general references/bibliography which of course is very different. (ie, one is something extra, the other is the source of the information). Placing further reading sections is good in theory, but when they get confused for the actual references (all too easy) Then it is simply like painting over a wall without any preparation. ie, one might be able to make it look OK, but it is misleading and covers the problems. Just a thought - maybe there are other views.--Merbabu 02:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Indonesia - February Newsletter
Hello there! Please click here for the latest edition of the Wikiproject Indonesia Newsletter.

We hope it gets you interested in the some aspect of the project. Please contact Indon or Merbabu if you have any comments or suggestions (or do not want to receive this newsletter). regards Merbabu 08:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)