Talk:Batak

Saifuddin Nasution is a famous Batak politician in Malaysia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malaysian (talk • contribs)

I think this page refer largely to the Batak Toba. FYI, there are at least seven Batak tribes with different languages and tribal ceremonies (adat) and despite the fact that Nommensen was the first missionary to step foot in the Batak land but he was reaching more to the Batak Toba but there are other zending that influenced other tribes such as the Dutch zending reaching towards the Batak Karo. If I have time I might have to revise all that is in here. I suggest to change this subject into Batak Toba (Indonesia) Hendra Sembiring 10:18, 23 June 2006

I donot agree that batak people are not preferred to be called Batak, however, they are famous to be called Tapanuli. Which is coming from the two words tapian and nauli. Tapian means water and nauli means good.Tapanuli means good water. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.27.190.139 (talk • contribs)

Different Batak groups

I agree that we need to be careful to recognise the different Batak groups. There is a tendency for documentation to focus on Karo (because their traditional lands are around Medan) and Toba (because their traditional lands are around Lake Toba). Lake Toba is not really the geographical centre of Batak traditional lands as far as I am aware. Some Muslim dominated groups, because they identify the word Batak with pig eating Christians, do hesitate to refer to themselves as Batak, but will happily refer to themselves as their own group (eg Mandailing or Tapanuli).--campdog 06:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Christianity and Islam

"The Bataks themselves today are mostly Christian with a Muslim minority." Again, I think this statement derived from a Toba/Karo focus and is not really the case if we include other groups such as Mandailing and Tapanuli as Batak (which i think we should). It is though true to say of those groups that identify themselves as openly Batak, that they are predominantly Christian.--campdog 23:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 23:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Disputed Inclusion of "Ritual Cannibalism"

I would like to hear the original author's justification for featuring so prominently a disputed aspect of history. Is cannibalism so relevant in 2010 that it needs to be placed so prominently? (from User:Tondimedan 3-12-2010, unsigned)

Several editors have questioned the inclusion of cannibalism in this article, and the section has been deleted more than once. Arguments include the fact that there was no reference whatsoever to cannibalism in the original entry and that there is no reliable eyewitness account of Batak cannibalism in recorded history.

This section contains the most prominent historical references to the practice of ritual cannibalism among Batak peoples. Links and bibliographic references are clear. Where the authors did not actually witness cannibalism has been noted. It is likely that the practice was exaggerated (as indicated in the text) even by the Batak themselves, however as is the case with many historical events it is equally likely that there is some basis in fact for the multiple accounts of this practice among the Batak.

Wikipedia is intended to be a source of information, therefore the inclusion of this information is relevant and important, even if some readers find it distasteful. The section is composed primarily of quotations from other authors, not an expression of my own opinion.

I would ask other editors not to censor material from articles because they find it disagreeable, but to voice their opinions supported by documentation in the discussion section of the article. Cmacauley (talk) 16:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I moved it down as part of the religion section, because having it not just as the largest section in the article but also at the top is clearly ludicrous and disproportionate. The section is clearly also suffering from WP:UNDUE, but I haven't done anything about that, it's worth noting that cannibalism isn't a current practice and there are six million Batak people most of whom probably aren't aware of it, let alone practise it.... Sumbuddi (talk) 03:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing in the paragraph suggests that cannibalism took place as a religious activity--it is stated more than once that it was a judicial practice, therefore inclusion under religion is not appropriate. This section was located at the top of the article because it described events in early Batak history.

WP:UNDUE is for minority viewpoints and this is most definitely not the opinion of the minority. WP:UNDUE refers to the inclusion of "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources," and you will have difficulty uncovering any reliable sources that dispute the existence of Batak cannibalism. Whereas no Batak today practices ritual cannibalism, those that I know personally--a large number--are very well aware of this aspect of their history. As for those who are not aware of it, one of the purposes of Wikipedia is to educate. Cmacauley (talk) 11:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It does seem rather in depth and repetitive of different viewpoints of the same practices, in exquiste detail. It's hardly fair to place it under "Society" when it is a practice considered antiquated for 200 years. Perhaps it should be considered for its own article because it is interesting in a way and seems well researched but still may have undue weight or size on this article. Certainly there is enough notable material there for an article if it is accurate and it is well enough written so a shame to lose it through deletion. Human sacrifice in Aztec culture, Cannibalism in pre-Columbian America, Ritual cannibalism in ancient Batak society? ~ R.T.G 13:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The detail serves to rebut claims that there is no evidence whatsoever that some Bataks practiced cannibalism; the sources quoted are all reputable observers. It would be easier to dismiss a shorter section as frivolous. Where should it go, if not under "Society"? Judicial practices are part of social organization. Possibly a separate article is justified, but not in "ancient" Batak society, as the practice was abolished less than a century ago. Cmacauley (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

With all these reports by Marco Polo and others the recording of the rituals seems notable in itself. What about Cannibalism in traditional Batak law? Not a subject I am familiar with I just read most of it yesterday and thought it had at least a good potential, but it's not rated at all here by Project Indonesia yet. I skipped the creation myths and found the indiginous words used later in the article a bit confusing, but the cannibalism has a significantly largest section wether that is proper or not I couldn't know. ~ R.T.G 17:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's necessary to rebut claims that no Bataks practised cannibalism, simply stating that they did is quite sufficient. Is it a widely held view that Bataks did not ever practise cannibalism? Not as far as I can see, so I can see no reason to spell out in great detail that they did.

The sources quoted are all 19th century or earlier and it's unlikely that any would have had a modern-day anthropological perspective; the intent would have been to caricaturise the Batak as savages. The William Marsden quote, identified as a secondary source, exemplifies this "To such a depth of depravity may man be plunged when neither religion nor philosophy enlighten his steps!" In fact the Batak had religion, and it seems that this religion informed the practice; the source I added notes that by eating people, ones own life-force was strengthened by that of the deceased.

You have not read WP:UNDUE properly "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." - I will trim some of the more extraneous detail. Sumbuddi (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

If you examine the edit history of this article you'll see that numerous people maintain that the Bataks never practiced cannibalism. The controversy itself makes this level of detail necessary and makes this material significant. Also, Wikipedia's mission is to inform and educate, therefore glib statements that something did or did not happen are really not useful.

Undue Weight refers to the inclusion of some viewpoints to the exclusion of others. No one has yet tried to include well-referenced, fully-sourced evidence that cannibalism did not exist, but certainly if that evidence were to be included I would not censor it. The viewpoint expressed here is the viewpoint of many noted scholars.

Whether or not previous authors had an anthropological perspective is irrelevant; what is important is the statement of a reliable source. Marsden's remark is intended to characterize Marsden, not the Batak, and thus to put his observations into context. Cmacauley (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not useful to characterize Marsden in what is an article about the Batak, not about Marsden; as it states, Marsden never even encountered the Batak, and in the context of the entire Batak people, Marsden's relevance is nil.

You've misinterpreted the quote from WP:UNDUE. Once more for luck:

• "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject"
• "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements'.

Unquestionably there is excess 'depth of detail' in this section. Clearly cannibalism was practised, but the Batak are an extant, modern people who ceased the practice a century and more ago, and devoting 20% of the article to it is the clearest possible violation of this rule.Sumbuddi (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Picture on Traditional Medicine

The lady has a kaffir lime, not guava. I've changed it per that. --Vircabutar (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, guava was just my best guess. Cmacauley (talk) 18:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Traditional Medicine - aspect of religion

I think the medicine probably belongs with religion. All the text relates to religious beliefs, and the picture is of a ceremony that is clearly primarily religious in nature.

I spoke to a modern Karo healer, and she told me that she called on Allah or Jesus (according to the religion of the patient) when performing healing procedures. She also was not trained but assumed her role by repute. Sumbuddi (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Batak peoples - source

See here:

http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?s=54374d58dcaee27ba6b8768eb40eb086&showtopic=95791&view=findpost&p=2576405

This was previously included in this page as an undisclosed copyvio in January 2008 and is no longer on the Bonapasogit website, but it's archived there and may be on archive.org also (which would be a reliable source where this forum posting is not). Just posting it here for the time being....Sumbuddi (talk) 12:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

• Batak (Indonesia) → Batak
• Batak → Batak (disambiguation)

– Batak people in Indonesia is the primary topic per WP:PRIMARY TOPIC. An ethnic group with more than 6 million people should not be compare with Batak town in Bulgaria with only 3 thousand people. Page view statistic also showing that Batak (Indonesia) article visited 5300 times last 30 days, while the other article only visited 300 to 500 times for last 30 days. Googlefight hits 1,1 million for Batak Indonesia, while Batak Philippines only 49 thousand. *Annas* (talk) 11:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)