Jump to content

Talk:Indonesia/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Old talk

I have changed the reference to "Bhinneka Tunggal Ika" being Old Javanese. Someone changed it back but I thought my change hadn't taken effect and so, did it again. I believe I am correct, but will do some more research before I come back. If someone wants to change it back, I won't change it again until I have a reliable source for my belief. Peacenik. 26/09/2004.

I think 'Binneka Tunggal Ika' is sanskrit.
That is correct. Vhadiant, can you properly sign your comments please? Use four consecutive tildes and the database will tag the correct user name and UTC. Julius.kusuma 12:47, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Julius, are you saying that you think that "Bhinneka Tunggal Ika" is Sanskrit too? I couldnt find any sources on the net to support this. I remember reading it in Ailsa Zainnudin's History of Indonesia, but could find no support for that. Do you have any more info? --Peacenik 20:50, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Peacenik, I believe that is correct. This is recollection from my Indonesian history class. However, old Javanese is very similar to Sanskrit IIRC, so it may be the case that both are correct.

Yes, Old javanese is similar to Sanskrit ( Sansekerta in Indonesian Languange ) 

 It is certainly true that many Javanese words are the same as in Hindi, and Sanskrit is the link between the two. Julius.kusuma 01:19, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No it's Old Javanese which is also called Kawi. The Old Javanese language is very different than the Sanskrit language. Old Javanese is an Austronesian language while Sanskrit is an Indo-European language. However Old Javanese incorporated many loanwords from Sanskrit. I can also prove that Bhinneka Tunggal Ika is Old Javanese and not Sanskrit. Why don't you just read the article: Bhinneka Tunggal Ika. Meursault2004 15:34, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

it would be appropriate is there was a bahasa Indonesia unicode script for the country's called name. Colipon 22:51, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)

No bahasa Indonesia uses the Latin character. There are hundreds of local language dialect and they have their own character but the national language uses the Latin character. It would be inapropriate to use any of these characters. Vhadiant

Yes, bahasa indonesia use latin character, also some local dialect. But other some local dialect use local character.

'Bhinneka Tunggal Ika' is Old Javanese, yes. It is first written by Empu Tantular in Kitab Sutasoma during the reign of Majapahit that has suceeded in uniting (nearly) all the lands we now know as Indonesia, even a small part of Malaysia. In Indonesian, it translates into 'Berbeda-beda namun tetap sama' or roughly 'Different but one'. And bahasa Indonesia use latin character. So as bahasa sunda, betawi, and batak--roughly nearly all the major local dialect

entertainment?

History is interesting isnt it? Know what would make it more interesting? little carttons of ppl killing eachother. Come on, do it!!

Are you mocking indonesian or something? Indonesians are quite prone of controversy, correct. But it could not be helped, for there are vast diversities among the people; be it in religion, tribe, and social manners. And because of the long period Indonesians spent during oppresion, they value democracy and freedom nearly into the point of extreme. This is a major problem int the politics. But still, that doesn't give anyone the right to generalize Indonesians as a violent nation.

Indonesia is indeed a violent nation.

this article

I have to point out that this article is currently very mis-representative. Even the CIA-World Factbook is more even handed: "Indonesia is the world's largest archipelago; it achieved independence from the Netherlands in 1949. Current issues include: alleviating widespread poverty, implementing IMF-mandated reforms of the banking sector, effecting a transition to a popularly-elected government after four decades of authoritarianism, addressing charges of cronyism and corruption, holding the military and police accountable for human rights violations, and resolving growing separatist pressures in Aceh and Papua."

People (especially American who might not know about Indonesia) could die if, for example they tried to take photographs or talk to a local without being aware of the risks.

The history section edits out the 'cooperation' of the Indonesian elite with the Japanese during the Pacific war, fails to mention Soedjatmoko and his famous offering up the resources of Asia in exchange for political aid, doesn't even mention the military coup by Suharto and his purge/killing of over half a million Javanese villagers to ensure democracy never raise its head against him; no mention of the invasion of Dutch New Guinea in 1961, of the invasion of East Timor in 1975, ...

The 'Politics' sections makes no mention that the Indonesian Military holds political seats and power, that no Indonesian President could hold office excepting with their support.

The Economics section makes no mention of the fact that the "oil and natural gas, tin, copper and gold." are all in the invaded/occupied nations under Indonesian military occupation. Makes no mention of the fact that the Military Generals and their families own the Indonesian businesses in those regions or the extent of official corruption in Indonesia.

The Geography section does not mention that Indonesia and the entire Malay archipelago is on the Asian tectonic plate, while New Guinea & therefore Papua is on the Australian (which is why Papuan mountains are so high). Does not mention ecological items like the 190,000 tones of tailings from Freeport dumped into the local river each day or the resulting infertility of the Papuan race in south West Papua due to copper poisoning. Nor the plague of worm which the Indonesian introduced to the wild & domestic boar of New Guinea since their 1961 invasion.

The current article seems to make Indonesia sound like a multi-ethnic wonder-land, failing to mention that Java is Islamic, and the other religions are mostly in occupied territories under dispute from the native people (Aceh, Borneo, West Papua & Maluku, even the Hindu on Bali are now under threat from new Indonesian laws which some people suspect were designed to convert them to Islam).

All up, I ask, please somebody or group of people re-write this article. I wish not to write it myself as NPOV would be excessively exhausting to maintain, having read the details of rights abuses against the West Papuans.

An apology for Wikipedians who've written in good faith. I just had a quick scan of the history of the Indonesia article, which I did fail to do before writing the above. And it looks like the article just grew naturally into its current form... ..I put just the word "Indonesia" into Google and got the "Indonesia House" & "Inside Indonesia" links from the first page, which I did add to the external links. The format and look of the page is utterly beautifull IMHO, just missing some details to bring it up to the level of other Wikipedia country articles. :)Daeron
"In 1940 during World War II, Japan had been denied vital aviation fuel by the Dutch Indies government, unable to negotiate for the fuel Japan begins its invasion of Malaya in December. Capturing Indonesia in 1942, Japan found the Indonesian elite to be cooperative trade partners and willing to marshal troops as needed. Sukarno, Mohammad Hatta, and Kyai were decorated by the Emperor of Japan in 1943."
Daeron what do you mean with Kyai? In Indonesian (as well as several other related languages), it is nothing more than a title. Can you be more specific? Meursault2004 08:58, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Thank you, its an error and should be fixed. I have extreme disadvantage of not speaking Indonesian; which has also made it much harder over the years to find multiple serarate accounts. And I hadn't been preparing anything for this article, it surprized me that it seemed undeveloped compared to other articles; but that's probably my mistake again, I suppose the south-east hemi(?)sphere is remote to much of the English language world.Daeron 09:58, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

...I don't believe this... I'm sorry, but the way you talk gives me the idea that you are of the opinion that Soeharto is no more than some kind of a dictator. Many thinks the same, I won't deny that. But you have failed to mention that he is who we call as 'Bapak Pembangunan' or 'the Father of Development'. During the reign of Soekarno, whose deed perhaps stopped at the proclamation on August 17th 1945 and the short time following when MPR and DPR are established, Indonesia are on the verge of being turned into a communist nation, and people are on the worst of poverty due to the minimum development and import-export. When Soeharto was the president, Indonesia was at its best of condition--schools are openened everywhere, the 9-year-education program are legitimated, etc. It would be too much to mention all of them. He ruled with military force, correct, but I personally think it was pretty much needed to keep things in order, and would be the right thing to do had not he overdid it.

And about Soekarno etc cooperating with Japan, it wasn't completely true. During their time in Indonesia, Japanese banned all national organization and established 'Putera' which aim was to have the educated people of Indonesia to work for Japan. Soekarno, Mohammad Hatta, and few others joined in 'Putera' just so they could gain information about Japanese and have supplies from them. This is also so the Japanese wouldn't keep their eyes on them while they secretly establish the national movement. There are also controverisal/underground organizations established by Indonesian icons that worked secretly amongst the villagers. I hope this would give you the rough sketch of the national movement during Japanese reign.

Questions

Aceh NPOV

"The agreement remains controversial and could still flounder, but for now, Aceh has the quiet it so desperately needs as people try to reconstruct their lives." I took this sentence off the end of the first section, because it is not a "verifiable fact."

Reply: I believe it is indeed verifiable that the agreement is controversial, and threats to its success could be documented by reference to various press accounts - though I admittedly lack the inclination to spend time searching down such references. In terms of the importance of documenting that Achenese need quiet to reconstruct their lives, I find it hard to imagine that a state of conflict could be conducive to the recovery from the unimaginable calamity of the tsunami. As I wrote that text (founder, not "flounder," by the way, though someone else presumably edited that word), I would ask you what you think my point of view is, other than wishing for quiet rather than war in a disaster zone (is that a truly controversial POV?). That said, if you dislike the rest of the sentence, would you also object to language like "however, the agreement remains controversial and its outcome is as yet uncertain"? If so, why?

Michael 01:44, May 14 2006 (UTC)

Other Independance Groups

I was wondering if perhaps Meursault2004 or someone may be to answer a question about other independance groups in Java & Aceh (42-45). I've had a suspicion that if the Japanese hadn't suddenly developed a an unexpected interest in encouraging Sukarno's group as a independance movement; that a different coalition of people would have formed the original post-war independance movement. I also think they would still have succeeded, for example the Aust. Trade Unions that black-listed Dutch shipping until the Dutch stop opposing the independance; wouldn't have known diddly about the internal politics, only that the Indonesians were now demanding their independance and that was something the Aust. Trade Unions were in favour of.Daeron 11:01, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

It is correct that there were many different independence movements that sprung among the different locations and ethnic groups. The thing to keep in mind is that almost all of the leaders who became the prominent Indonesian leaders were part of the educated elite that came about on java in the early 20th century, thanks to access to western education that was developing in java. These leaders were not exclusively Javanese, nor did they all advance an agenda of a united Indonesia. Other organizations include Jong Celebes for people from Sulawesi, groups from the Batak people, and groups from the pacific islanders in the east. Even during the independence war in 1945-1949, these groups still existed and some continued to press the agenda for their own independent state separately from the Javanese. Another historical piece often overlooked: when Jakarta and Yogyakarta were taken over by the Dutch and the capital was temporarily moved to Western Sumatra, there were fears that the people there won't give the power back to Sukarno-Hatta at the end of hostilities. And indeed, after Java was restored in 1949, there was quite a bit of friction in transfering power back to Sukarno-Hatta in Jakarta. The problem is that most people who grew up in Indonesia (including myself) were not taught this version of history, but rather one that emphasizes national unity, blah blah. Older people tend to know this fact better than the younger ones, because many were educated in the 50s and 60s, before the curriculum was radically changed to include mostly propaganda. Julius.kusuma 23:51, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Independance

An error, there...

The japanese colonisation, was more de facto then de jure, it did not last long enough to even be considered a proper annexation.

The netherlands should be the prime mention there, but japan could be mentioned as a temporary admin.

  • The Colonial government capitulated to the Japanese, so it is a proper annexation. Moreover, a lot of the movements towards independence, and the establishment of the government, was done during the Japanese occupation. I don't see what you're trying to drive across here, that "[the Japanese occupation] was more de facto then de jure".
there wasn't any netherland after japanese invansion except those who had been imprisoned. De jure? In whose perspective? European perspective? Netherland didn't have any power at the time. The Japanese also made some little change in administration such as renaming Batavia as Jakarta. Kunderemp 03:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
excuse me, but who said the Japanese renamed Batavia as Jakarta? Jakarta was given its name WAY before the time of Japanese!
Before Japanese, the name of the City was Batavia. And before Batavia, the name was Jayakarta, not Jakarta. That was the standard history taught in elementary schools in Indonesia. Give me your proof if you believe Jakarta was given its name before Japanese arrive in Indonesia. Kunderemp 02:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Official name

I believe the official name for Indonesia is not Republik Indonesia, but it is Negara Kesatuan Republik Indonesia (NKRI). --*drew 12:36, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I had never heard a reference to that as a name for Indonesia during the time that I lived there, but a quick look through the constitution [1] shows that it is often referred to as NKRI. However, all that really means is the Unitary Republic of Indonesia (as opposed to Federal). There is no specific declaration in the constitution that NKRI is it's official name. --Peacenik 22:23, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In practice, it is called Negara Kesatuan Republik Indonesia only in formal ceremonies. But the formalities is what is the issue here. This term is in contrast to the pre-1959 Federal Republic of Indonesia or something like that. Julius.kusuma 23:39, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

NKRI is hardly used anymore and I think it has the conotation of the old republic.
Which "old republic"? The term NKRI was coined to constrast with the old "United States of Indonesia" or "Republik Indonesia Serikat" of the 1950s. I believe that you have it backwards. Julius.kusuma 01:22, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Republik Indonesia is sufficient. People (mostly Struggle-Indonesia Democratic Party) uses NKRI when they tried to contrast it with other concept such as Federalism. I totally agree with Julius.Kusuma. Kunderemp 03:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
When we talk about official name, just take a look what written on official letterhead, or in an official law documents. It is said: "Republik Indonesia", and NEVER Negara Kesatuan Republik Indonesia (I'm civil servant, anyway). Yup, NKRI is used just to show that "we are unitary country" (for example, it is used to contrast with concept such as Federalism, or against disintegration), and today it is still often to be used, too. wic2020talk 04:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
According to CIA World Fact Book, it is:Repulik Indonesia. Please go to this page: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/id.html#Govt Tamaneden

Just out of curiosity, how many of the people discussing in this page are Indonesian? I kinda have the feeling that most of you are. By the way, the official name is Republik Indonesia or RI. NKRI is used merely to emphasize things up.

Neutrality disputed

I'm tagging this article as having its neutrality disputed. Not only many unfavourable aspects of Indonesia are not mentioned, the West is demonised for its actions as if they were plotting against a country willing just its independence — that is ridiculous in ignoring both Indonesia's bloody expansionism, and its siding with also bloody expansionist Communism.

Leandrod - do you have specific passages that you take issue with? How would you write them more neutrally? - Cdc 00:17, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Cdc: unless you have specific aspects that you have a problem with, and can tell the other contributors about, what's the point of tagging this article as POV? Also, note that here is an article History of Indonesia which may be a more appropriate place to add/edit. Finally, if you want to really add focus on one particular aspect, for example related to East Timor, then the better way to go would be to make a page about it which is linked from the History of Indonesia page, or the Indonesia page, or both. Julius.kusuma 00:26, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

HOW ON EARTH could you categorize Indonesia as pro-Communist? That's grossly inaccurate.

FYI, the PKI or Partai Komunis Indonesia or Indonesian Communist Party is the most forbidden party in Indonesia. People proven to be a part of it are sentenced into jail, as done to Pramoedya, the late famous writer who was thrown into the isolated island of Nusa Kambangan (like Indonesian alcatraz prison, if you may). So it's stupid enough to even have the thought that Indonesia as communist. And what, please, do you mean by bloody expansionism?

Template:Indonesia infobox

I've moved the infobox to a template; it seems like a good mechanism to me. Davenbelle 02:29, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

That's a good idea and it is done at many other country infoboxes, e.g. Canada or United States. It should be kept that way. Wikiacc 20:34, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It looks like somebody (hint hint, Cantus) has put it back here, I would like an explanation. (There was no edit summary explaining this.) Wikiacc 22:26, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yeah. There's a vote going against this; bring your friends! — Davenbelle 23:58, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Please Clarify

From the last sentence of the second paragraph under the "History" heading:

"When the Portuguese came in early 16th century, they found a multitude of small states, vulnerable to the Portuguese, and later other Europeans wanting to dominate the spice trade."

This sentence is confusing, and needs clarification (in particular, the appositive "vulnerable to the Portuguese"). Does "they" refer to the Portugeuse, or the Arab traders mentioned in the previous sentence?


Also: "The 1950s and 1960s saw Sukarno's government aligning itself first with the emerging non-aligned movement and later with the socialist bloc, including the People's Republic of China and Yugoslavia." ? I'm not sure there is enough evidence of alignment with Soviet Bloc; and it skates over the absorption of Borneo, Celebese, Moluccas, and West Papua. The Soviet bit surely could not relate to the 1957 grab of $250m from Moscow, that was a funny & obvious ploy to put the Americans back into line and get the $650m they wanted from Washington. It's also the same ploy they used in 1962 when the US Sec. of State wanted to support the Dutch & West Papuan independence instead of Indonesia; quickly roll the Soviet Premier out & watch Washington fall over itself to support the Indonesian land grab.211.30.95.182 02:46, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It probably could be phrased better, but I think it's a reasonably accurate description of what happened; my general understanding is that Sukarno's preference was probably to stay nonaligned, but practical needs (for military gear, especially) meant he alternately made nice with the Soviets and at times the U.S. Ricklefs (History of Modern Indonesia) suggests that the Papua invasion was mostly done with Sovet military toys. I don't know how Yugoslavia gets in the game... Hmm.. Cdc 06:21, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't know where you got that impression of the Papua invasion; it was all done with US aircraft, Sukarno had a decade invested building that relationship and it had already provided the political support in forcing Holland to endorse Sukarno as President, in absorbing Borneo & the Celebes in 1950 quickly followed by the Moluccas when they tried to declare independence the next year.
All the aerial bombings in Papua from 1966 to 1978 were also with US bombers. They had purchased some cheap Soviet MiG fighters with the Soviet money Indonesia got from Moscow in 1957 to scare Washington back into line & to provide blank US cheques again; but even those were not operational for the Papua invasion. Besides the communist philosophy was totally incompatible with both Sukarno's & the military Generals goals. And you forget, to them the Soviets are ugly barbarians just like the Americans & Australians -- they'll take our money, just not our culture or view points.
It's like that burns hospital Australia built for them in Bali, Indonesia always had the money to do it itself - but Bali is Hindu & not deserving of such services in Jakarta's mind. As non-Asians the Soviet, Americans, & Australians were & are just barbarians with too much money from which we are easily parted with smile and a promise.

Indonisia

I see someome added a redirect "Indonisia". Is this spelling formally accepted somewhere? If not, why would wikipedia implicitely encourage the usage of misspellings? (google: 25,000,000 for ...esia and 18,000 for ...isia) Mikkalai 23:05, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There are lots of redirects for misspellings in Wikipedia - see Wikipedia:Redirect. Advantages include making searching easier for people who can't spell, and preventing those misspellers from thinking they've found a topic that doesn't have an article, and creating one that then needs to be merged. It happens, quite a bit. I don't think having misspelled redirects encourages the use of misspellings any more than an online dictionary that guesses what you meant for a misspelling does. And 18,000 Google hits indicates that "Indonisia" is a mistake many people make. CDC (talk) 00:20, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Of course it is a common mistakes. Espescially for those who use Arabic (Indunisia) or Mandarin (Yintunixia). Smile :) Kunderemp 03:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the mistake are due to the pronouncation.... like in English, for example... I still found it disturbing, though.....

History text moved

I've made an attempt to tighten up the History section here to make it more of a summary style, with details moved to History of Indonesia. This is in line with the style suggestions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries. There is more to do - it's still pretty long compared to, say, the same section for India or United States - but I think it now provides a somewhat simpler summary of the highlights, which is the intent of this page. While I've reworded a few things in moving them, I've tried to avoid actually removing any information altogether. CDC (talk) 07:06, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've just been comparing the history section in this article with the main History of Indonesia article... crazily the former has more detail than the latter! Unless there are any objections, I'll move the extra detail into the History of Indonesia article and tighten this section up still further.--Sepa 17:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Economy

Economy summary and full page should probably be updated, as it is outdated. It speaks of "massive problems of poverty" while the poverty level reached 16% in 2004, lower than pre-crisis levels. 24.124.61.165 21:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

After some thought and consideration, I created an Indonesia-related topics notice board, along the same lines as other regional notice boards (such as those for Malaysia and Africa). This was established to coordinate efforts to improve Indonesia-related Wikipedia entries. If you've made contributions to Indonesia-related articles in the past, or would like to, please take some time to visit, introduce yourself, and sign the roster. --Daniel June 30, 2005 18:37 (UTC)

Demographics

The article says there are roughly two groups, Malays and Melanesians. This may be true, but the Indonesian people are enormously varied. I especially noticed this in a museum in Jakarta (I believe) that had a map of the country with all the peoples. What struck me (as was probably the intention) was how many utterly different peoples there are. Not just culturally, with different head-dresses and such, but totally different faces. For example, on just one island I've been to, Borneo, there are two major indigenous groups with different skintones (Dayak and Penan). The demographics section should make this diversity clearer.

There is, however, a political implication that complicates this. I said that the Indonesian people are enormously varied. This is so much so that one can hardly speak of 'the Indonesian people'. What is Indonesia now is really just the leftover from colonial days. This problem is acknowledged in Africa, but I've never heard of it regarding Indonesia, which is strange really. It is most obvious in New Guinea. On the one hand this island has a visibly artificial border cutting through it, separating one people. On the other hand the Western half is part of Indonesia, politically linking those people to other, totally different, people. But the same goes for Borneo (split between three countries). Furthermore, there are separatist movements in Sumatra and the Moluccas. And I can imagine similar problems exist elsewhere. So this is a tricky issue to address whilst staying politically neutral. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be addressed in the article. DirkvdM 18:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes you are right. A few hundreds languages are spoken there. Indonesia is as wide as Europe. The distance between Banda Aceh to Jayapura is probably the same distance from Dublin to Moscow. Such as in Europe there are roughly two or three different groups: Indo-Europeans, Finno-Ugrians and Turkish peoples (if we don't include the Basques). Yet people from Denmark look different than people from Greece, although both are Indo-Europeans. Back to Indonesia, most Indonesians are indeed Malays or Austronesians. But the relation between these Austronesians and Melanesians predates the colonial time. There are even people of mixed heritages, such as the Moluccans and some Papuans and Timorese.
As for the isle of Papua or New Guinea, I don't think you can state that they all belong to the same people. There are many differences between people on the whole island. You must not forget that more than 500 languages are spoken there! And these languages can be very different from one another. OK enough about this. Meursault2004 22:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes of course, the major division should be mentioned first, but given the variation some more detail is really necessary. I just don't have sufficient specific knowledge about this. Also, the biggest detail should go in the Demographics of Indonesia article. I'll just make a mention of this in both articles, hoping someone more informed will pick up on it. DirkvdM 08:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The article says "There are, however, many more subdivisions, since Indonesia spans an area the size of Europe or the USA and consists of many islands that to a large degree had separate developments." Using the total areas listed for Indonesia, USA and Europe, Indonesia is 1/5 the size of the USA or Europe. I am unsure whether the area listed for Indonesia includes the waters between the islands, if it does not then the article is correct to say that Indonesia spans a greater than is listed (1,919,440km²). However without a number it is difficult to tell whether Indonesia spans an area comparable to that of the USA? 02:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

This comparison is often made, and refers to the total area of Indonesia including the waters between the islands. More fairly, it should say "geographical area". I think this is a fair comparison, because the USA itself consists of dense pockets of population, hence the comparison does not assume uniform distribution of population (and diversity). That's why the song goes, "Dari Sabang sampai Merauke..." ("From Sabang to Merauke"), referring to the span from the westernmost region to the easternmost region. Julius.kusuma 14:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2017

Change, As with many other developing countries, high fertility rates are still a major problem to,As with many other developing countries there are high fertility rates.

Because this may seem biased 123.231.120.143 (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP (talk • contribs) 15:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Remove image

Could we remove this image? I think one map in template is enough. Hddty. (talk) 02:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC) this picture should be in the show so that people know Indonesia and the island, even foreigners are less familiar with the island of the island and the location of Indonesia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.194.140.118 (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Indonesia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Flag red color RGB

See my post at commons:File talk:Flag of Indonesia.svg Hddty. (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

SLANG as an infobox language?

I am not by any stretch an expert on Indonesia but I was surprised to see "slang" listed among the main languages. I presumed it was some indigenous language called "Slang", but no, it is Indonesian slang. Again, I am not an expert, but is this really an infobox-level important language in the country? I presume that the majority of British people and Americans also use slang every day (even as opposed to regionalisms, vernacular and dialect) but it would be Uncyclopedia level to put British slang as one of the principal languages of the UK. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 23:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Incomplete sentence

"Whereas, the first parliamentary cabinet, led by Sutan Sjahrir as prime minister."

Something is missing from that sentence.

"Whereas" is typically part of this form: Whereas fact asserted, action taken.

"Whereas King George has been an unwise ruler, we declare our independence."

--23.119.204.117 (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Oops. Fixed that. Thanks for pointing it out. Davidelit (Talk) 00:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2017

11 Century islam built not 13 century. 49.148.147.23 (talk) 06:31, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — IVORK Discuss 14:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Indonesia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Languages

Let's avoid perpetuating the common confusion of Indonesian and Malay. Ethnologue considers the latter a macro-language and indeed identifies a few million speakers of *subdivisions* of Malay in Sumatra (Minang), Kalimantan (Banjar), and Sulawesi (Makassar). However, there are other languages NOT considered directly under this macro-language with at least as many speakers in Bali (Balinese), Sulawesi (Bugis), Jakarta (Betawi), and elsewhere (e.g., Javanese and Sundanese). See https://www.ethnologue.com/country/ID/languages for a comprehensive list of the 700 languages and draw your own conclusions. Martindo (talk) 12:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 220 external links on Indonesia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Earlier

America and Britain were in a strong moral position in 1949, as they had just given independence to the Philippines and India. Thus, they could call for democracy in a Dutch colony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scibaby97 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

ABOUT INDONESIA PROFILE

can you change the number of islands in Indonesia to 17,000, can you also replace the map image that does not include natuna as an Indonesian territory territory, can it also eliminate the dominance of Java and Sundanese on ethnic groups and language in box profiles Salami pintara (talk) 01:25, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

You can make any changes you like, as long as you provide citations. regards Davidelit (Talk) 04:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Done for the svg map (including Natuna Islands). About the Javanese and Sundanese dominance, they are well-referenced facts. Gunkarta  talk  04:46, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
The problem is not about well-referenced facts, the problem is that all ethnic group in Indonesia only represented in "other" except Javanese and Sundanese. Given the diversity of Indonesia, I propose that the text be change into See ethnic groups. Also I think the text in "Recognised regional languages" should be changed into See languages similar to what I mentioned before because not all Javanese and Sundanese spoke their own language. Maybe the section ethnicity and language in this page should be separated so they would be unique and linked directly from the infobox. Hddty. (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Word choice in "Education and Health"

The word "scheme" (as in, "[...]the National Health Insurance [...], a scheme to implement universal health care," emphasis mine) should be changed to a synonym with a more neutral tone, perhaps "plan" or "program." As a reader, the word "scheme" was the most attention-grabbing part of the paragraph; imagine my disappointment when the subject turned out to only be healthcare. Ufolaulu (talk) 15:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)ufolaulu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.193.161.23 (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

What about the THE RAID movies?

In Cinema I see zero mention of the smash hit action movies THE RAID and RAID 2, despite them being Indonesian. Why? Tallaussiebloke (talk) 07:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Original text: The name Indonesia derives from the Greek name of the Indos (Ἰνδός) and the word nesos (νῆσος), meaning "Indian islands".

The hyperlink of Indos needs to directed to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Indus as it is already correctly put in the Article "Names of Indonesia"

I cannot edit this article as it is semi-protected — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amabau92 (talk • contribs) 08:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done on March this year. Apologies for not notifying here immediately. AdaCiccone (talk) 08:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

The historical timeline is incomplete, ending with dissolution of USI in 1950 and not indicating its replacement with RI and more recently KBRI as the name that the country officially calls itself.Martindo (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done, I forgot the date I edited this particular topic, but in that edit I made sure that it ends with the current state of the country, the Unitary State of Republic of Indonesia (Negara Kesatuan Republik Indonesia, NKRI). AdaCiccone (talk) 09:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Unelected ministers

This page mentioned that ministers were chosen by the pres without the legislature approving. It wasn't backed up by a source, and I couldn't find anything that backed it up, so I deleted it. If you have a reliable source saying that it is correct, please add it. If you find a good source saying the opposite, please add that. Toad02 (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Link to Dutch and The Netherlands Wikipedia page same as you refer to Portugese, French and British Wikipedia pages

Hi,

Is there a reason why there are links on the page to the Wikipedia pages of Portuguese, French and British but not to the Dutch and The Netherlands Wikipedia pages?

I would like to request a change for this. Because for Dutch people like me, it seems that we are undermined on the page.

Thanks in advance.

Best regards, Jeffrey Meerpoel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.250.76.147 (talk) 11:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Can you please specify which links you refer to? The page links to Wikipedia pages in dozens of other languages, including Nederlands. –Austronesier (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't think he refers to languages only, but IMO anything in the article related to the Netherlands. Please do review my most recent edit, in which I added several links for the "Netherlands", and let me know if there's any mistakes. AdaCiccone (talk) 05:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
@AdaCiccone: Thank you! Yes, you're right, this must be the issue which the reader referred to. I have added another link to Dutch East Indies in the third paragraph, which apparently caught his eye. But I presume that the lack of such a link was not the result of deliberately "undermining" the Dutch pepole... —Austronesier (talk) 08:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
@Austronesier: You're welcome :) However, I don't think addition of the "Dutch East Indies" link is correct (in terms of historical context) in that paragraph, especially the mentioning of "350-year presence", because the Dutch East Indies lasted less than 150 years. When I added the "350-year presence", I thought about including the era of the Dutch East India Company, which was present in today's Indonesia from the early 1600s to 1800. This, combined with the Dutch East Indies era, is probably the reason for the popularity of the phrase "three and a half centuries of Dutch colonialism" in Indonesian history textbooks. And I use the word "presence" because I believe the lead section of an article shouldn't too detailed. FYI, the Dutch East Indies link used to be there, and I was the one who removed it last year because I thought it was misleading. Nobody objected to my edit at the time, but I'd like to hear POV from other editors about this particular topic. AdaCiccone (talk) 08:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
@AdaCiccone: I had the same thought, because there is no single article that covers the complete period of Dutch presence in Indonesia. But then I have seen that the "History" section of Dutch East Indies article gives a full overview including the VOC period, so I added the link. But I agree, it is misleading to link to the complete article. Two suggestions: we could alter the link to [[Dutch East Indies#History]], or remove the link again. I leave it to you, as I trust in your history of sensible and careful edits for this article. If you chose the second option, I hope the Dutch reader who objected to the "underlinking" will understand that there is no malice in that. —Austronesier (talk) 09:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Still waiting for other editors to air their views on this but I think I'd just go with the first suggestion you wrote there. Though an article covering the entire Dutch presence would be the most ideal (too bad there isn't one), your first suggestion is definitely the closest one. AdaCiccone (talk) 04:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—114.4.212.6 (talk) 05:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

You haven't explained what error you're reporting, and the coordinates in the article appear to be basically correct, though I've made a couple of small tweaks. If you still think that there is an error, you'll need to provide a clear explanation of what it is. Deor (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Wrong GDP PPP per capita

Data for 2019 should be 13,998 (around 14 000) not $14,840

Source List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita

or here

List of countries by GDP (PPP)

2019 GDP PPP divided by population — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.45.54.46 (talk) 00:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Biodiversity ranking

I was the one who edited out rankings about biodiversity. I did put an edit summary then but here I just want to be more detailed about it.

@Bluesatellite: I agree if it says that Indonesia has 'one of the world's highest levels of biodiversity.' I'm against placing a particular ranking. Below is a list of sources I've come across the Internet, and the rankings vary with respect to Indonesia's level of biodiversity.

More sources do say that Indonesia has the second-highest level indeed, but the fact of the existence of other sources saying to the contrary, I believe, makes it misleading to add a particular ranking in the article. AdaCiccone (talk) 13:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@AdaCiccone: I get your point. You've taken care of this article really well, and I appreciate that :) Bluesatellite (talk) 01:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

DPD as upper house

Is DPD truly an upper house? The article at Regional Representative Council#History says that DPD is not a true upper house. There are also no law that says that DPD and DPR are upper and lower respectively. DPD being regarded as upper house and listed first in infobox (and its leader) making an impression that DPD has more power than DPR while in reality is not. Hddty. (talk) 03:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Does DPD even have powers for that matter? Juxlos (talk) 06:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
It does have some powers, for example it can submit bills on subjects related to regional issues to the People's Representative Council (DPR), but cannot pass laws on its own. Rather than being an upper house, it combines with the DPR to make the upper house, the People's Consultative Assembly, which alone can amend the Constitution and remove the president. The DPD article specifically says it is not an upper house, although its members are sometime referred to informally as senators (don't have a reference for that, but I have seen it on banners and in the press). Given all this, I think the articles need rewording, but I'm not sure how. I will have a look for the law governing the legislative chambers and see what it says... Regards Davidelit (Talk) 09:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
From what I know, DPD has no direct law-making power (only through DPR). The law itself is a compromise between the president and DPR. It would be ridiculous to put DPD above DPR like it did in this infobox. Of course DPD member is almost similar to US Senate (have the same amount of member from each province/state) but doesn't mean they have same power. Even in the law DPR is mentioned first than DPD (UU MD3 = MPR, DPR, DPD, DPRD). Hddty. (talk) 04:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I still see DPD above DPR and labeled "Upper House". MPR floats vaguely above it. The key issue is: do laws require the consent of both houses? If not, then let's not put a round peg in a square hole, namely forcing Indonesia's government into the notion of two houses. Yes, the English-language press loosely refers to DPD as "upper house" but anyone who has lived in Indonesia for a while knows that the press makes bloopers, and then perpetuates them. There are three distinct legislative bodies, with different functions. @Davidelit: I think the simplest solution is to cut "upper house" and "lower house" from the box as labels and just list the names of the three bodies. However, the box seems to use a rigid template and gave me errors when I tried to do it. Martindo (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Merge or split?

In addition to this page on Indonesia, there is another page called History of Indonesia. A lot of the information provided is repeated on both pages. Examples are:

  • references to "Java Man"
  • references to the Majapahit kingdom
  • information on Dutch colonization and subsequent Indonesian nationalism
  • references to President Sukarno
  • references to the 1997 Asian financial crisis

I suggest that these articles should be improved by either merging them or splitting them. In the case of merging the articles, any information from the History of Indonesia article which is not present in the History of Indonesia section of this article should be added. Once complete the History of Indonesia article should be redirected to this page. Another option would be to reduce the History of Indonesia section of this article to a much shorter summary and then move the bulk of the information to the other page. --Loveleahlulu (talk) 01:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The History section (and other sections) of this article should be a shorter summary. See, for example, this article at the time it became a Featured Article Special:PermanentLink/183602431. CMD (talk) 01:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to see the "much shorter summary" option, but I think it'd be better if you give an example of it, in order for readers here to have an accurate picture of what you have in mind about this. Maybe you could use your user page for that purpose. AdaCiccone (talk) 02:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Length looks fine to me and summary is clearer than the 2008 example shown in Chipmunkdavis link. Martindo (talk) 21:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Special regions

Currently, the article lists 5 regions that have "special status." What exactly does this mean, and could we add a bit more detail to the article? Thanks! Toad02 (talk) 14:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

It's already explained (though not much detailed) in the third paragraph of "Political Division." Is there something you're missing? AdaCiccone (talk) 04:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I was confused about how it differed from normal regional governments, which are given some legislative power. If you think this would be too much in depth I don't think it's necessary to add. Toad02 (talk) 14:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
This is a reasonable request and would be helpful particularly in light of the DPR attempt a few years ago to revoke the DI status of Yogyakarta. Maybe we could quote from a history book written in English? Alternatively, I'm not averse to the occasional WP practice of paraphrasing or translating from an entry in another language, and then referencing it. Details here: id:Daerah istimewa Martindo (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Make more picture

Wikipedia is the way we introduce Indonesia to all corners of the world. but on this page it seems that we haven't exploited more about Indonesia. pay attention to India and Thailand the way they introduce their identities is very strong by including many images of culture and relics of the past. I hope the editor here considers adding images to the Indonesia page. More picture like temple, tradition house, and culture heritage Kebajikan111 (talk) 11:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

We are writing an encyclopedia here. Not a tourist brochure. An encyclopedia should cover the good, the bad, and the ugly. It's not a place where your favourite country gets to compete in the promotions game with neighbouring countries.
The idea is to focus on text. If India has more pictures, who cares? If you have better free to use pictures to replace existing pics, then please let us know. --Merbabu (talk) 12:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
@Kebajikan: Talk to some friends and discuss which sections of the text could be clearer with the addition of an image. Then upload *one* with a caption and see if other editors agree that it's helpful. Then do another. I don't presume that the current set of pictures is perfect. Images on wikipedia pages come and go as years go by. Martindo (talk) 22:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Indonesia is not a secular state

While I do agree that not having official religion or state house of worship (mosque or church) is a criteria for being secular, it's certainly not the only one. A secular state is where the government is neutral on matters of religion or irreligion, and Indonesia definitely is not neutral. Chapter XI (Religion), Article 29, First Clause of the 1945 Constitution states that the country is based upon the belief in the One and Only God.[1]

Further, Chapter XA (Human Rights), Article 28J, Second Clause says "In exercising his/her rights and freedoms, every person shall have the duty to accept the restrictions established by law for the sole purposes of guaranteeing the recognition and respect of the rights and freedoms of others and of satisfying just demands based upon considerations of morality, religious values, security and public order in a democratic society."[1]

It's perfectly clear from the 2nd clause that religious values serve as a BASIS for lawmaking, which I think effectively disqualifies Indonesia as a secular state. Here's more evidence, among many others, that the country is not a secular state:

  1. The presence of a religious court
  2. The presence of a religious ministry
  3. Recognition of only six religions
  4. Islamic law (Sharia) in Aceh (can't exclude this because we're talking about the whole country here)
  5. The Alexander Aan case, an atheist imprisoned in 2012

AdaCiccone (talk) 10:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@AdaCiccone: You're right, fair enough. Rantemario (talk) 08:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

This is an important criticism but very complex, particularly if one wants to be fair and compare Indonesia to other countries that are considered secular: US, UK, France, Japan, Singapore, etc. For example, the United States Declaration of Independence refers repeatedly to Creator, Providence, and other synonyms for God that were popular at the time. Yet the United States Bill of Rights forbids the government from establishing a national religion and thus the country is considered an exemplar of a secular state. However, compulsory prayer in US schools was only banned by the US Supreme Court in 1963, more than a decade after Indonesia's Constitution was written: Atheism#Other developments.

Regarding the circumstantial evidence listed above:

  1. A shariah court only has power over a dispute involving Muslims. Because Muslims view their religion as encompassing numerous aspects of life that seem secular in the eyes of other religions, these courts have a large purview. However, religious courts exist in many other countries. See ecclesiastical court and Beth din#Present situation.
  2. Greece has a Ministry of Education, Research and Religious Affairs. Even the officially atheist Soviet Union had a Council for Religious Affairs.
  3. Only six religions are officially "protected" but houses of worship exist for other religions such as Sikhism.
  4. If 'we are talking about the whole country' why is a specific province cited as evidence? Local laws vary in many countries.
  5. Alexander Aan was cited for "disseminating information aimed at inciting religious hatred or hostility" via Facebook, which was a court's interpretation of a law against hate speech. As noted on his WP page, the charges of religious blasphemy and "calling for others to embrace atheism" were dropped. Clearly it is evidence that a large part of the population is intolerant of atheism. It is less clear that this is a case expressing national policy. More generally, as in other countries, there is variance between official and unofficial attitudes: Pancasila (politics)#Moderation and toleration.

People familiar with Buddhism, Hinduism, and Confucianism may well wonder how those religions conform to "one and only God". The Indonesian phrase can also be translated as "Belief in a Supreme Being" with Buddha thereby interpreted as such, etc.

This topic is important to discuss, but the actual situation is less than clear. Perhaps the secular/religious dichotomy should be omitted entirely as an outmoded label. Martindo (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Arguing like this could fall under original research. Better anyone else could provide source why Indonesia is/isn't a secular state. --Hddty. (talk) 22:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed information, Martindo. You could argue that my post above is only a tip of the iceberg. I agree with you that nowhere is this WP page should there be a secular/not secular thing, because, as you elaborated above, it's not that simple and there are a lot of intricate factors involved. Such details might better be put in Religion in Indonesia, so as not to balloon this article further. Sorry for the not-so-detailed post of mine above, because I was just simply trying to point out that this country is not secular in quite a simple fashion. AdaCiccone (talk) 09:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
@AdaCiccone -- LOL, you mean *you* could argue that your post is the tip of the iceberg. Yes, we agree the situation is complex and shouldn't be subjected to a secular/not secular dichotomy. (See my comments below in Talk for *DPD as upper house* regarding "round page in a square hole"). It's rare to find editors who have detailed knowledge of one country and the ability to contrast with other countries (I don't claim to be one, just able to give a few examples for consideration).
@Hddty -- OR? Surely, you're joking. A Talk page is way different from 'pedia content. The Article requires good documentation and clear writing; for the Talk, civility and open-mindedness are much more important. Martindo (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Notes

See

  1. ^ a b "The 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia" (PDF). International Labour Organization. Retrieved 11 October 2017.

History of Indonesia: 14th until 16th century poorly covered

There is a big hole in the history section, not at all explaining what happened between the beginning of the Mahapajit empire and the European colonization. Move some summarize material from the History of Indonesia article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14BA:80AC:2C00:C41:72CF:519F:E29C (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Country articles are necessarily a summary. History sections are higly summarised. Anyway, there's a paragraph on the arrival of Islam between Majapahit and European colonialism – so the premise of your suggestion is not correct. --Merbabu (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Driving Side

Driving side is Right not Left.. Please revise it.. Thank you.. Copyrighters (talk) 08:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Drive on the left. Steering wheel on the right. Prior to the British interregnum in the early 19th century, it was whatever side you wanted. Raffles stipulated left side. The Dutch came back and didn't care to change it. So the story goes. --Merbabu (talk) 08:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected request on 7 June 2020

Pusat Bantuan Kami berupaya memperbarui facebook.com dan Pusat Bantuan. Jika Anda tidak melihat petunjuk untuk versi yang Anda gunakan, pelajari cara beralih versi atau melaporkan masalah. Cari Bagaimana cara menyiapkan SMS Facebook? Bantuan Browser Seluler Bantuan Komputer Link label Bantuan Seluler Anda bisa menyiapkan SMS Facebook dari pengaturan Anda: Ketuk . Gulir turun, lalu ketuk Pengaturan. Gulir turun ke Notifikasi, lalu ketuk SMS. Masukkan Nomor 

114.125.247.114 (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 Not done: Please in English... Also, Facebook is not a WP:RS... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Hermeneutics of feminism in Islam

Hi,

I came across this promising Draft:Hermeneutics of feminism in Islam (relating to women's rights) and myself supported the same editorially too. IMO since topic potential is vast many Reliable sources on Google scholar seem to be available hence the article needs more editorial hands for some more update and expansion along with appropriate references.

Pl. do join to update and expansion, your help will be most welcome.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurat (word)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurat (word) has been relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Bookku (talk) 07:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Demographic stats missing

Are there any reliable sources for the demographic stats of Indonesia? Unlike other articles, most if not all have been split to a sub, and many common statistics like the crime rate are still missing --121.215.171.163 (talk) 07:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Error

The second sentence of this article says that Indonesia includes 17,000 islands including New Guinea. Only PART of New Guinea is in Indonesia. The other part of New Guinea is another country. Come to think of it, wrong on Borneo too, which has TWO other countries on it.2603:7000:9900:5F0C:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

It says "...Borneo (Kalimantan), Sulawesi, and New Guinea (Papua)." The parentheses kind of explain that only those regions, not the whole islands. If you believe it needs further clarification, you can add the wording here. (CC) Tbhotch™ 19:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
If you know what implicit meaning is intended, you will clearly read it this way, but still, the wording is indeed imprecise. I have changed it accordingly. –Austronesier (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Papuan Nationalist "Morning Star" Flag in Indonesia Country's Profile Article?

Is there any valid reasons why Wikipedians think its a right thing to put an image showing a banned flag in a country's profile article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garybhaztara (talk • contribs) 15:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Quite a relevant image for the relevant subsection, as your message suggests. CMD (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored. Hell, Germany article has a picture of Hitler right there. Juxlos (talk) 15:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Hitler is undoubtedly a part history of Germany, most Germans acknowledge that. Considering Indonesia's restriction on journalism about West Papua, the image would depict wild speculation over its issue among foreign/English-speaking people since they're probably not knowing what really happened. Not trying to remove its subject matter about West Papua issues, but the article would be much more objective without the image. Garybhaztara (talk) 17:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
This very objection to its inclusion for non-encyclopedic reasons underlines its notability. Keep it. –Austronesier (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I think we should refrain from preventing specific information from inclusion just because, in this case, the country in question doesn't want it or has several policies against it. Wikipedia pages include information from reliable sources, and the Papuan conflict is undoubtedly a significant part of Indonesia's history. If the same logic is used, then China's Wikipedia page (or the entire Wikipedia, perhaps) would include very few of Tiananmen protests of 1989, Falun Gong, Xinjiang, Tibet, etc or maybe not at all. AdaCiccone (talk) 05:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Indonesian Independence

Indonesia became independent on 17 August 1945 from Japan and 27 December 1949 from the Netherlands. On August 6, 1945 and August 9, 1945, the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed by the allies. On August 14, 1945, Japan surrendered to the allies and there was a power vacuum in Indonesia. In Indonesia there are also BPUPKI and PPKI bodies created by Japan for Indonesian independence. After Indonesian independence, the Dutch regained control of Indonesia in 1945-1949. From this it is clear that Indonesia was independent not only from the Netherlands but also from Japan. 36.80.224.133 (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

It is unclear what changes you wish to make. Please consider restating in a "change X to Y" format. CMD (talk) 05:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Is it the "Independence from the Netherlands" from the infobox that you wish to change? To include Japan, in addition to the Dutch? AdaCiccone (talk) 05:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Sample islands in the first lead paragraph

The sentence "It consists of more than seventeen thousand islands, including Sumatra, Java, Sulawesi, parts of Borneo (Kalimantan), and Western New Guinea" has undergone a couple of changes recently, and I think it'd be good to reach a consistent wording. I don't think there's going to be much issue about mentioning the total number, but for the individual selection of five examples, this seems based off an unsourced statement in the Geography section. A cutoff of five is common in English, but I think it'd be good to have a source which also does this. If it is cut off at five, then there should be consistency in the mention of Borneo and New Guinea. They could both be mentioned by themselves with "part(s) of", with or without the Indonesian area mentioned in brackets following, but it is odd to have a bracket for one but not the other. My preference would be to not include the brackets, as "part of" conveys the same information and the brackets break up the flow. CMD (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The cut-off after five (by size) makes sense, because after mentioning these large and well-known ones, we would have a number of lesser-known islands (Halmahera, Bangka, Sumba, Seram etc.) before we actually get to the very well-known island of Bali. A long list all the way down to Bali is obivously too long; a shorter list that includes e.g. Seram, but not Bali, will invite drive-by insertions of the latter because of its undeniably higher notability. Alternatively we could talk about the five largest islands (land masses), plus mention Bali as the most well-known of the 17k+ smaller islands.
I don't think that we have to follow a specific source, editorial judgement and consensus are IMO sufficient here. And yeah, "including Sumatra, Java, Sulawesi, and parts of Borneo and New Guinea" is nice'n'simple. –Austronesier (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree. Previous version is more concise. Anyway, I placed a source from the US Embassy; it happens to have a nearly identical sentence. Please take a look. AdaCiccone (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Sumatra first makes sense in this situation. I removed the brackets from the lead as well, I'm not sure their meaning would be understood by all readers in addition to the above. CMD (talk) 02:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indonesia/Archive_1&oldid=1142764692"