Talk:Indonesia/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Economics

Two issues regarding links: what happened to link #34? There's no source there. Did it go missing? Secondly, the foodstuffs referred to as a major commodity isn't the same thing as the page that the word links to, is it? Feeeshboy 07:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know and I don't know. If you can find #34 in the previous diffs, please reinstate it. :-) --Merbabu 08:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Update to Pre-historic and pre-colonial section

I just put in a major update to the history section. See here:[1]. It addresses the discussion we have had about almost no info on the pre-colonial history. I know I could have put some more refs in put I need to hunt a bit on the net and on the bookshelf - how tiresome!. While it may seem that this makes it overly long I beg to differ for a few reasons.

• Firstly, i checked it against 4 FA country articles and their equivalent sections are range from no shorter to over twice as long!
• Secondly, although this section is now maybe only 1/2 the length it was a week or so ago, i feel it has MORE info due to much better prose, and a focus on what is really relevant and significant (rather than, say, a full descriptions of all the presidents since 1998!!!).
• Thirdly, if i had wanted to do, my additions could have been even shorter had I just listed names and dates, but I have also added some descriptive/qualitative info to provide some context and idea of significance thus hopefully increasing the readers' interest levels.
• Fourthly, if you look closely i actually took a little bit out either cos i felt it was unnecessary or I worded it differently so it is really not that much more.

That list of feature articles and approximate word length of their (excellent) history sections...

• India: 730 (words)
• Australia: 1000
• Bangladesh: 900
• Canada: 1600
• (Indonesia 770)

Of course, if you have better prose go ahead and "wordsmith it", but i am proud of this edit so please be careful if you want to make changes - I'd appreciate your reasoning if you relly must!! he he

Btw, do you realise we have no fauna, flora and/or ecology/natural-history section here??? Doesn't Indonesia have the 2nd-highest level of biodiverstiy in the world or something??? Maybe it can be combined with geography under the new heading Ecology or Natural History"? THe next project for before Sunday???--Merbabu 08:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we can include zoological and botanical info in the geography section, which already says something about the forests. This is a good catch. If nothing else, this article MUST mention the Orangutan. I suppose a separate article on Indonesian wildlife should follow. Feeeshboy 20:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I wrote a bit on the train for the ecology. Rather than wait weeks til I am happy with it (there is more to write) i have posted into the article for others to add to and mold into shape (prose, cites, and I've probably got some tourist brochure speak and peacock terms in there). --Merbabu 22:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Origin of the name

Do you think it is a good idea to make a new subheading with that title? Per Agne's suggestion, Australia has it and I think its not bad idea to write that on this article. Cheers -- Imoeng 12:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Please read this. Extremely interesting. I didn't know about these things either! Cheers -- Imoeng 12:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I already did :P. Please copy-edit. Cheers -- Imoeng 13:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The etymology section is a great addition. Does that mean we can get rid of (or just move) the sentence (from Greek: indus = India nesos = islands) in the 2nd sentence. It's position there has always bugged me. lol --Merbabu 23:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Religion map

File:Map Indonesian religions.jpg

Indonesia religions map
Although all 6 recognised religions are represented thoughout Indonesia, this maps shows the majority group for each area

Just a comment, Image:Map Indonesian religions.jpg used under the subheader "Religion" is actually incorrect since it seems to suggest Papua New Guinea to be part of Indonesia by giving it a shade of green as opposed to grey that is used to indicate non-Indonesian territories. Hayabusa future 15:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Although i think the map is a great idea - it is a great tool I too am finding a few "issues" with it.

* West Timor, like East Timor is predominantly Catholic.

* If Protestantism and Catholicism were classed as one religion - as the rest of the world does - a significantly different picture would appear - for example, the Maluku area would have a lot more "Christian" colour, as would the northern Sulawesi area. To be fair to the map, it is only reflecting the dubious official Indonesian classification of the two denominations being 2 seperate religons.

* Related to the above, is that this map only show majorities whether they are 99% majorities of 51%. This is not that helpful in that we all know that all religions are spread throughout all parts of Indonesia. For example, in Maluku the balance between Christian and Muslim populations is often 50-50, rather than say the 95-5 on Java. Conversely, there are significant Muslims minorities in Papua and Bali yet they can have no place on this map. This map, by not stating it is a majority map, implies that Indonesia regions are religiously "pure", which is incorrect.

* The pinkish dot in East Java should actually be red to depict the Hindus of the Bromo-Tengger region.

It's a difficult question this map, despite my above-listed gripes, it does show some excellent points such as the traditionalist and modernist Muslims, the more "Christian" areas of the east (although as mentioned above, I think it underrepresents the reality). The map is a great idea conceptutally - for someone who knows nothing about Indonesia, it is indeed useful, but anyone with anything more than a flismy understanding is really not being served well by the map.

--Merbabu 02:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This map needs an overhaul. As an Indonesian, I never know that islands just across Riau area are predominantly Buddhist. Where are the Confucianists (they are acknowledged now as religion by the government, although in fact they call themselves "Tridharma", i.e."three confessions": confucianism, taoism, and buddhism followers), in Singkawang may be? North Sulawesi and Maluku predominantly ("modernist") muslim? And differing "modernist" and "traditionalist" muslim does not represent the dinamic of muslim in Indonesia recently (The fact is that new, and liberal, thoughts among the muslims in Indonesia come from "traditionalist" area shown in the map! Who are then the 'modernists'?). And, if separating Protestantism and Catholicism is considered dubious, then the muslim areas should be written in the same color, since all of them are Sunnites following the parallelity of Sunnite-Shiite. Never so separate in Islam between "traditionalist" and "modernist" are so wide like between Protestantism and Catholicism. Indeed, there is also need to differentiate 50-50 and 90-10 area (and maybe 30-30-40!) Kembangraps

Ecology section

I've added a few paragrpahs on ecology and environmental issues - yes, much work still to be done. Currently it is combined with Geography which is fine as it is still small. Later we may want to add a new section or at least change the current heading. I am happy with the current combined section or seperate sections as long as it is well thought out. THis section should be brief but informative - thus we must be economical with words like the history section. Topics should include:

• the existing geography topics,
• as Feeeshboy suggests, a quick mention of a few notable species (orang-utan, komodo dragon, Rafflesia (sp?) flower, and the Garuda bird - just kidding on the Garuda),
• Mention of different environments incl. tropical forests, coral reefs, alpine areas, and also man made environments, particularly the 'ecology' of the sawah or rice fields.
• Any notable ecosystem wide points? ie Wallace Line.(needs some thought and research)
• Mention of environmental problems

I gave some thought to headings for the section (whether combined with geography or not) i suggest:

• "Flora & fauna" - I don't like this. Tends to look at individual species rather than the ecosystems as a whole (which includes living and non-living elements)
• "Ecology" - my interpretation is that this is the broadest - even includes geography and interactions b/w species, but i probably others disagree.
• "Natural history" - but does this include a holistic environment, ecology approach. The best approach?
• "Environment" - too vague in my opinion, prefer "Natural History" or "Ecology"

--Merbabu 23:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The addition is great! But can you provide citations? With that specific information, you must have seen some sources. Cheers -- Imoeng 10:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

he he, yeah. i put a couple in. I can find more - just not a job i enjoy. --Merbabu 10:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You can tell me the sites, I can put them in if you want. Imoeng 10:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Extend collaboration?

This collaboration officially ends this Sunday. I agree with Imoeng's suggestion to extend it by one week because this arguably the most important Indonesia-related article, it’s had some magnificent work done on it this week, and beacause there is still room for more high quality of improvements. Eg, Culture, Environment, Government (incl. structure and current issues). What do people think? Imoeng, are you the one to coordinate the process (incl comments on the colab page)? --Merbabu 23:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Merbabu. However I am not the one, although I started the collaboration thing. I have posted this on the collaboration page. Please respond there. Cheers -- Imoeng 06:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

How about changing Collaboration of the Week, into Collaboration of the Month. I know this is out of WP practices, but I think one week is not enough to improve an article into a "submitable" GA or FA. I see that at the end of COTW, the article is half improved and half finished. Just my 2 cents. — Indon (reply) — 08:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is the link here [2] - people can still nominate and vote for articles in the meantime.

As for collaboration of the month, although i think 1 week is too short for all articles, 1 month is probably too long to maintain interest except for the odd special article like this one. --Merbabu 08:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur. ;-) — Indon (reply) — 08:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

What about a fortnight then? Cheers -- Imoeng 10:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Comparative length of section

I did some comparisons with equivalent sections in some Featured Countries (there's about 10, i did 3 so far). Indonesia is not drastically off the mark. And these things vary on the country. It's not 100% accurate, but certainly fit for purpose - i'd say 90% accuracy, if not up to 95%.

I don't intend this to be used to justify any major removals or additions of info, rather as a guide. Ie, don't just put info in cos we want to match other countries - lol. Rather, section length, and thus Removals & additions, should be based on information quality - unless of course sections are extremely long, none of which the comparision table seems to suggest. And each country is different.

Remember, this table doesn't tell us about quality - just quantity.

From the table i interpret the following:

• I don't like the Lead - plus the table shows it is long. Can we cut some of the history from it? It is repeated later anyway.
• History is the longest section in all countries, and Indonesia's is the shortest of all. If there is good info we still have some room.
• Government & Politics is OK, but probably the current issues need tightening up
• Our Nat History section is long - but i think that is fine for Indonesia, it has an unusually rich nat hist and unfortunately unusually "rich" environmental problems.
• Overall, at least compared to Bangladesh, Canada, and Aust, Indonesia is on the shorter side - that's fine. Remmeber, lets make sure other editors are creating quality, not quantity.

	Indonesia	Australia	Bangladesh	Canada
Lead	286	227	277	167
Etymology	160	282	n/a	207
History	745	1000	994	1569
Government & politics	525	460	453	449
Administration divisions	346	274	200	215
Geography	204	235	259	450
Fauna, Flora, Nat Hist, etc	400	270	n/a
Demographics	700	712	438	387
Culture	334	736	640	440
Language	in demographics	in demographics	n/a	300
Foreign Relations & Military	n/a	300	n/a	445
Law	n/a	n/a	n/a	180
Economy	410	370	536	480
Totals	4100	4866	3797	5290

--Merbabu 04:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikilinked, if its fine with Merbabu. Imoeng 11:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Should we seperate Geography & Nat History?

Initially, i was opposed to this - they are strongly inter-linked, and although seperate sections seems to be more common, i do not believe precedence is ever a strong justification - and i am still far from convinced on a seperation. But on the other hand the section is long, so a few questions:

• Should Geography & natural history section be seperated?
• If so, should the second section be Natural history or Ecology? Personally, i prefer Ecology (it is broad like the content we have), but I can live with Nat Hist if I must (less broad, but OK). But, I strongly oppose the term "Fauna & flora" which is narrowly focuses on individual species - one can see that the section is a lot broader than that - the fact that "F & F" commonly used in wikipedia doesn't mean we should use it - even in Australia "F & F" is used, but like Indonesia, that article actually takes a broader ecological approach.

Please see my sandbox to see how it might look. (Comments here, please).

--Merbabu 01:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support, better to be separated. — Indon (reply) — 01:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

"Support" noted. What is your reasoning though? --Merbabu 02:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It's simply comparing the article with your sandbox. You've better. Anyway, geography is a different "animal" than nature, IMO. :-) — Indon (reply) — 02:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, i respect your choice - i might even support too eventually, as the section is long and it may increase clarity. I just don't agree that geography and nature is unrelated (see Wallace line discussion). If a seperate NatHist/Ecology can directly follow Geography, then that would be a good compromise. Let's see what others think. Thanks --Merbabu 02:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support: I think that the Ecology content has grown sufficient to separate it. I looked at several nations' pages of varying quality, and the better ones had a separate Ecology or Flora and Fauna section (i.e. Australia, which is FA). Surprisingly, some ecologically interesting nations, like China (class A), had no ecology info whatsoever. I think the Wallace Line info belongs more in Ecology than in Geography, because Geography would still have the fault line info, which is similar. Feeeshboy 03:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support: I would say separate the whole Natural History from Geography. Firstly, I agree with the title. Secondly, it becomes longer than the original content of the Geo section, so it is better to be separated IMO. Lastly, I agree with Indon that Geo should not cover animals and stuff. What about if we make a new big subheading? Cheers -- Imoeng 09:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Happy to go with consensus. Can we call it Ecology. --Merbabu 11:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)--Merbabu 02:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the content currently there would be more aptly described as Ecology than as Natural History. Feeeshboy 15:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Reads better when split, and as Indon put it, geography and natural history are v. different animals, however they might be related. Also, yes Ecology rather than Natural History for me. --Bwmodular 15:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Lead and Etymology

Hey, folks. I've been looking at the changes to the Etymology section. I think Merbabu added some really important content regarding the history of the idea of Indonesia as a unified entity, but I feel that it belongs more in the Lead. I also thought that the Lead could use some trimming. I put together a new take on these sections in my Sandbox. Please let me know what you think of these proposed changes, and be aware that I did cut out a fair bit of detail in the interest of keeping these sections tight, especially as much of the content is repeated later in the article. These paragraphs are far from perfect, but should (I hope) convey a useful new direction for the beginning of the article. Feeeshboy 06:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow - on first reading, for a "far from perfect" "new direction" it is nothing short of excellent - if i wasn't so risk adverse, I'd say replace the old one now, but given that it is the lead for the world's 4th biggest country maybe others should comment. Let me go over it again. --Merbabu 10:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

(reply to Feeeshboy) It's a bit hard to compare without the diff function. How about, being bold to replace the whole lead from your sandbox, then I can compare it easly. However, briefly, I think Feeeshboy (how many 'e's you have? :-)) has better lead, IMO. I don't like putting Soekarno's and Soeharto's name in the lead. The lead should summarize the whole article. So I guess, 1st paragraph is introduction, context and etymology, 2nd paragraph is short brief of history from ancient to the present, and the last paragraph is some achievements (national language, democracy, unity) and also controversies (religious & regional conflicts, etc.). I think, these all have been covered by your lead.

Just a small comment from this sentence: "The modern-day borders of Indonesia are largely based upon those of the Dutch East Indies colony, rather than on any preconceived notion of unity; however, a shared history of colonialism and rebellion against it, a national Indonesian language, and a majority religion of Islam help to define Indonesia as a state." is a bit too long, thus confusing.

Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 13:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It's great, i am sure others will agree and we should use it. There's a couple of facts and points of emphasis that need to be checked first - give me a day or two - better still just paste it in and someone might correct it.

• For example, does it imply that it was Hindus who arrived and built the Kingdoms? My understanding is it was native Javanese who built them, but they had become Hindu, used Hindu ideals, myths, brought by traders. I think that is what you mean. Maybe just 1 or 2 words changed for 100% clarity.
• Also, need to confirm the Chinese actually went to the Spice Islands at the source, or whether they bought it later from after "natives" brought it to trading ports.
• Given the brevity (a good thing) to make it clear I suggest "modern-day borders of Indonesia are largely based" . The borders are essentially (completely?) as they were at the outbreak of WW2.
• "the collapse of Imperial Japan" => "the surrender of Japan"??
• This line is excellent - but 1 change in my opinion: "Since then, Indonesia has had a somewhat turbulent history, including political corruption and instability, periods of rapid economic growth and decline, environmental catastrophe, and the slow growth of democracy."
• Can we say something about the SPice islands being at the centre (ie, one of the main drivers) of the European age of exploration? I think i know where i can find a book to cite. Or, although accurate, is this over the top for the article? (some trivia, not for the lead, but did you know that the Brits had a tiny island called Run in the Banda Islands (almost a spec) that was one of two nutmeg islands in the world. And the Dutch had some deadbeat place, Manhattan I think its name was. ;-) The dutch swapped Manhattan for Run!)

Even with the above minor points, this is more than good enough as is, in my books. --Merbabu 13:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah? Well, I doubt the rent is any higher on Run than it is here on the Upper East Side, lol. I've incorporated a lot of suggestions into my sandbox piece and am getting ready to put it into the page. I just want to point out one thing that is not included in my version, a sentence, which I believe Merbabu contributed to Etymology, which I couldn't quite fit in to my liking:

• Indonesians often affectionately refer to their country as Tanah Air Kita (literally Our Earth and Water), reflecting Indonesia’s archipelagic geography.

I would suggest this for reinsertion somewhere in the geography section if it is useful there.

One more thing in my defense: I don't necessarily agree that all long sentences are confusing sentences, and although I've been known to spin out webs of syntax that would make John Milton turn in his grave, I think the long sentence about unity (still long after a minor change) is clear and effective prose, and furthermore, I can stretch out this particular sentence a bit longer yet and still the meaning is not lost because you're still following it, bit by bit, dependent clause by dependent clause, prepositional phrase by prepositional phrase, until it last reaches its oh-so-wordy end in such a small and unassuming dot of punctuation. Yeah, I should go back to working on meaningful content. Feeeshboy 04:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree about long sentences being fine if A it is appropriate, and B they are well-written. The new Lead satisfies both these points. --Merbabu 05:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I really want to comment, but everything I wanted to say has been pointed out. Great job, Feeeshboy, really great job! Honestly I think you know more about Indonesia than me, ahahahah. Cheers -- Imoeng 08:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Modernist Islam vs Traditional Islam

I am still confuse about Modernist Islam and Traditional Islam in Religions Map ? Can someone explain it ?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.118.148.218 (talk • contribs)

First, please sign your post by typing in ~~~~. Better still - create an account. :-)

Anyway, this is a very important point i think to understanding Indonesia - it needs to be further developed in the article, particularly the religion section. NExt job? I offered this explanation earlier - did this help: According to my understanding the difference b/w 'traditional' and 'modern' Islam is not quite what one would expect. Traditional relates to the Indonesian-infused, usually more moderate form that is often mixed up with animist and mystical beliefs, and all mixed up with local cultures including old Hindu and Buddhist beliefs. Modernist Islam refers to the increasingly prevalent more orthodox forms of Islam which are more in line with islam as practised in the MIddle east. While both exist everywhere, Traditionalists are more prevalent in rural and regional areas, and modernists more prevalent in urban areas.

Moving into POV territory, it's been said that the the most likely to be less tolerant or fundamentalist in their beliefes are the modernists whereas the traditionalists are likely to be more tolerant as their own version of Islam is very accepting of other influences.

THe traditionalists have "traditionally" been more numerous particularly in high-population Java but the influence of modernist Islam is increasing.

Certainly something that needs to be developed in the article - I can look into it and hopefully express it better than here. --Merbabu 04:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)