Talk:Indonesia

Featured article review

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 1:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC) [1].

---

Indonesia

Indonesia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Review commentary

I am nominating this featured article for review because......unfortunately, this article has slipped from featured quality over the past decade. Last review back in 2008 Wikipedia:Featured article review/Indonesia/archive1

Dead sources

Ref formatting all over.

Many one or two sentence paragraphs.

Duplicate reference and cite errors.

Sections with few refs. (like Architecture)

Odd image placement with text sandwiching.

Huge icons. Done Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 14:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Different styles of English.

Out dated info from 2006.

......list goes on....... Lots to fix.....needs a big overhaul ...Not even GA level at this point in my view. --Moxy (talk) 06:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. This is the version from the 2008 FAR. It is a thorough yet concise appraisal of the subject. The current version is filled with boosterism, and has bloated to more than twice the size. Ditching the current article and working on the 2008 version instead may be the most efficient way to bring the article back up to par. CMD (talk) 07:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I would worry that might replace up to date material with out of date material. It would be easy to compare the two versions and move down the article and relegate material to daughter articles or remove it. The article stands at 71 kb of prose, which is significantly larger than the 50 kb prose we recommend maximum article size at. I'd normally insist that discussion have taken place on the talk page first but the size and breadth of the article mean that coming to FAR is inevitable and anyway FAR is probably the best place for a thorough overhaul (that is needed) to be properly assessed and reviewed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting just dumping the 2008 one back into the live version, but that working from that base and updating that may produce a quicker and better result than working from the current article and trying to trim down on the excesses in prose and tone. Sorry for the confusion. CMD (talk) 13:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Chris will want to see this, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 13:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: no, my bad. I should have realised that was what you meant. Still, we agree on that pathway anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• I've tried maintaining the article before. Ultra-nationalists always seem to find their way back to "fluff up" the article. I agree with Chipmunk: starting from the 2008 version will likely be easier.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Agreed. Needs a thorough overhaul. Mr Stephen (talk) 11:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
• Agree. I have noticed this trend of fluff up/whitewashing on a number of country articles (most recently Saudi Arabia) and there is only so much we can do. I would be OK with starting from the 2008 base, comparing with the present version and adding content. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• I have copied the 2008 version to User:Chipmunkdavis/Indonesia (minus interwikis and category application), which is easier to look at than a page in history. It's there as a reference or as a draft page. I don't have time to work on it myself at the moment, but others can feel free to do what they want on that page. I don't know how long this stays open before the process moves to delisting, but it would be nice to save what was one of the best country articles. CMD (talk) 05:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Issues raised in the review section include coverage, referencing, and style. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delist. Fails 1e (stability). Article undergoes major changes on a regular basis, such as the addition[2][3][4][5] and removal[6] of substantial pieces of content (examples from the last 30 days of changes not performed as part of the review process). The article is more than twice as large as it was when promoted and reverting to an earlier revision could lead to reinsertion of outdated material and removal of relevant content, nor would it address the reason(s) why the page is under constant revision. DrKay (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delist. Significant attention is needed to changes since nomination, and such work is not occurring. --Laser brain (talk) 14:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delist for reasons above. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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)

WP:OWN on this article

I see User:AdaCiccone is trying to control and to hinder any improvement in this article through a lot / tens of reverts (article history), by doing so he is committing WP:OWN that is not encouraged in building this Wikipedia. (NouVa (talk) 01:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC))

"The information needs to be updated". For the record NouVa, I don't disagree with the fact that information needs to be updated, but here's what I think.

Country articles are necessarily a summary. I have seen over the years, many editors here add / update what they consider "improvement", but what I actually think ruins the article's already existing tone, brief summary, conciseness and comprehensiveness. Since 2017, I've been editing this article based on the 2008 Featured Article version and the 2017 Featured Article review, where I think any information should be kept as brief and comprehensive as possible. By reverting your edit yesterday, I am simply defending this established structure. It is sad seeing a lot of editors ignoring the existence of numerous Indonesia's sub articles, on which I think that any overly detailed information should be put.

When you updated (and added contents) on that paragraph, I'm afraid that you do not consider the conciseness and the comprehensiveness of the whole "History" section. In addition, you are committing WP:RECENT by going into recent details about the Joko Widodo presidency, which, I think is better if put here: Post-Suharto era in Indonesia, because that article primarily focuses on Indonesia's post-1998 history.

TL;DR version: Not literally every new information should be put on the country's main article. There are reasons why Indonesia's sub articles exist.

AdaCiccone (talk) 03:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Of course that "Not literally every new information should be put on the country's main article" but when you see the latest information on a country is talking about 2014 event, while today is 2020, so it needs to be renewed.
Also, rephrasing a referenced content addition is better than reverting the whole information because, at some point, it can be useful for the readers. (NouVa (talk) 06:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC))

Much of the new information (protests that, by the looks, have effectively zero long-term impact) does not belong on the top article, and frankly I don't think the old does either. The old is about how Jokowi was "the first president outside the elite" - does the article on the US mention a comparable president? This is effectively promotional. Juxlos (talk) 07:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

On that matter, a History of Indonesia (1998–present) article would probably be useful. Juxlos (talk) 07:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Post-Suharto era in Indonesia fills that function. CMD (talk) 07:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean brutal protests have "zero long-term impact"? in fact, the protests were informed globally across mainstream news channels and received much international attention about the events. Moreover, the recent news is necessary for better content. Wikipedia belongs to any contributive users, not owned personally. The edit is not vandalism, and more preferable to make an edit that retains at least some elements for improvement instead of obstructing it. Please consider WP:ONLYREVERT (NouVa (talk) 07:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC))

This article is about Indonesia as a whole. There are plenty of events between 1998 and today that has had more impact - the Maluku sectarian conflict permanently shifted the demographics and mindset over the region, the local elections of 2005 marked a transition to regional autonomy, the December 2016 Jakarta protests marked a rise in political Islamism, the 2019 Papua protests is still basically ongoing and practically revitalized the Papuan independence movement, the Bali bombings resulted in a much strengthened security force. The only reason the current "brutal protests" have relevance is because they're about a year old - come 2023, they will not be of much relevance to the reader. The "Modern era" section has to cover the entirety of 1966 - 2020. Including protests that result in... no changes (no laws revoked, no elections overturned, no concessions given, no major civil unrest started) is a clear case of WP:RECENTISM. Just because nobody owns the article, doesn't mean that your edits must be an improvement. Juxlos (talk) 10:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Papua protests of independent movement is slightly covered in picture Indonesia#Issues section, Bali bombings was implied partly on Terrorism in Indonesia link in Indonesia#Modern_era while Maluku sectarian conflict and December 2016 Jakarta protests can be included in Religion section.

You said "There are plenty of events between 1998 and today that has had more impact...", Logically, they should have been included in this article. Talking about major protests that destabilizing the country, the protesters came to oppose "significance changes" to weaken corruption eradication efforts (in KPK bill protests resulted in deaths of civilians) and successfully terminate criminal code revision, and changes which deteriorating labor rights of millions of Indonesian workers (related to Job Creation Law protests attended by thousands of labors, students, amid a global pandemic) is this common issue could happen everyday? that's very rare phenomenon. When the brutal protests happened with a number of people injured [7], even killed [8] and thousands were arrested [9] as form of blatant human rights violation and the events reported as breaking news on various mainstream news outlets worldwide (WP:SIGCOV), Are those events not notable? As comparison, just imagine when Western media covering chaotic and massive protests in various countries on Arab Spring, a number of leaders of those countries were forcefully to step down or even the events turn into 'civil wars' killing thousands of innocents. (NouVa (talk) 03:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC))

If you don't mind, I just indented your comment. :D

Yes, the events you described above are indeed notable, but that's not what I'm arguing here. Just because an event is notable does not mean it automatically warrants a place on the main article. This, especially if left un-monitored, would set a bad precedent. Every editor is going to think that it is okay to add anything 'notable.' It would be like just throwing stuff on the main with little regard for a neat structure in paragraphs, proper weight etc. What I'm arguing here is two things: (1) Show some care for the sub-articles. Some are neglected and have much room for improvement. (2) The need for minimal disruption to the main's already established tone and neat structure (which can be maintained by having more attention to, yes, the subs). The tendency of some editors here who always put everything on the main clearly does not help, in the case of both points of my argument.

You can see that the entire 'History" section only has nine paragraphs. It does not talk at length about the specifics because the subs have already done it. I don't understand why do you feel the need to put such detailed info on the main while the subs can obviously do the job. The importance of the information you submitted does not diminish when it is put on a sub. AdaCiccone (talk) 07:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the subarticles, History of Indonesia currently does not cover the 2020 protests, and Post-Suharto era in Indonesia gives it one sentence. It would be easier to discuss how to balance content on this article if there was more information on these subarticles (presumably more in the Post-Suharto article than the overall article) which would help visualise how it looks next to other events and details that do or do not appear on this page. CMD (talk) 08:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

(Arbitrary break)

Just for comparison:

• One of the biggest mass killings in the 20th century:
  

The army, led by Major General Suharto, countered by instigating a violent anti-communist purge that killed between 500,000 and one million people. – 22 words

• Deomstrations and riots during the second Jokowi period (proposed text):
  

Widodo was re-elected in 2019 for a second five-year term, followed by May brutal crackdown that killed at least 8 protesters on demonstration rejecting the the re-election. Several controversial bills from anti-corruption, criminal code revision to job creation law were provoking series of massive protests and riots across the country. – 50 words

If this is doesn't create WP:undue weight, I don't know what else could. At the risk of repeating the point of the preceding comments: a condensed overview should not be inflated by recentism. –Austronesier (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: However, there are a lot major events in Indonesia after 2004 that attract worldwide attention. Therefore, it is much wiser to preserve several points in a few sentences about the events instead of totally removing them. (NouVa (talk) 02:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC))

@NouVa: The number of major events is not the point here. There are many of course, but not all of them warrants a place on the main (or is it in your view that all of them should be put on the main?). As I've said, subs can cover them too. Make good use of them instead of the main. AdaCiccone (talk) 09:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, the question is not whether events are important, but the weight of their importance within the entire scope of Indonesian history. CMD (talk) 09:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@NouVa: We do not include every single event in Indonesian history in the Indonesia article - that's what the <year> in Indonesia articles are for. Much less are events like the 2020 protests that did not cause any political changes or any deaths - its chief claim to fame is being the local media topic of the month and "worldwide attention" is compulsory reporting by BBC, Reuters, or AP, making the third-page news internationally for large newspapers maybe for two days and forgotten afterwards. It's not even the biggest news of 2020. Juxlos (talk) 14:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@AdaCiccone: When you read the Indonesia article in modern history section that the latest thing is talking about a 2004 event, while now is 2020, is it quite outdated while mentioning the latest major event of modern history which happening 16 years ago? I mean, is there no any significant event in Indonesia in the last 16 years?
I don't say that all of the events should be put on the main but pertaining some points of them would be better than leave it as it is now.

@Juxlos: Who said that the protests that did not cause any political changes or any deaths? have you read this or this, this ? If you read Portal:Current events; there were 2016 Jakarta bombing, 2018 Palu earthquake, 2020 protests, etc. placed among the top Current events of for weeks. (NouVa (talk) 07:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC))

Yes, and? If you include all of these events, you will be looking at a modern history section as long as the rest of the article. This isn't a matter of "this event isn't notable", it's "is this event major enough to compare to things like the Proclamation of Indonesian independence, the Dutch East Indies campaign, the fall of Suharto, the 30 September movement or the Java War?", all of which are included without controversy. Ask yourself this: in a hundred years, will anyone put these events in history books, or will they be barely a footnote in history? If it's the latter, putting them in the headline article about Indonesia is recentism. Juxlos (talk) 07:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

If you ask me "in a hundred years, will anyone put these events in history books, or will they be barely a footnote in history?" I cannot foretell whether it will happen or not. But one thing for sure that the professional academicians and historians would not omit in their books about Indonesia that a lot of disastrous events and instabilities happening in the country between 2004-2020, not vice versa. (NouVa (talk) 08:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC))

The History section in this article is not comparable to a book, it is a very short summary. A better question is, what would the professional academics and historians include in the blurb of their books? What would the key events they mention in their short about this book summaries be? CMD (talk) 08:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

If those professional academicians and historians use Wikipedia (that's a big if, by the way) to aid their Indonesia-related research, I doubt they would be so stupid that they somehow miss the many numbers of the sub-articles, whose job are to expand and detail what's on the larger, main articles, which is essentially a summary, or at least how Wikipedia works. This is exactly what you should do. Put whatever events you want in the 2004-20 period on the subs, not the main. The 'Modern era' section is adequate already that additions of relatively recent events would bring tone inconsistency when the History section is read as a whole. AdaCiccone (talk) 08:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Of course a wikipedia article is not comparable to a book, and I did never say professional academicians and historians will use Wikipedia as single sources for their researches, while you might fail to notice that a lot of "journalists, newspapers, television headlines, international media" had the records and evidences covering all those events in the country. I agree that main article consists of only summary to link sub-articles which are more detail. But, did you see any summary or links of major events after tsunami in 2004? do you think that nothing significant happened after that year?

Needless to say, this discussion may not be pretty effective to consensus, thus I filed this case to dispute resolution for the better... (NouVa (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC))

There is some recent history, for example the 2019 elections, in the Government and Politics section. If that section was shifted to be after History, that would better present the flow from important events in History to the current political situation. CMD (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I guess that would not be in accordance with the structure of other country articles, unless of course, there is a Wikipedia-wide consensus or policy stating that the structure is best left to each country's talk page and the consensus of editors there. AdaCiccone (talk) 04:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Different country pages use different structures. Rwanda is an example of the History section leading directly to the Politics and government section which includes recent political history in the first paragraph. CMD (talk) 05:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

RFC on contemporary events addition on Post-World War II section

While Indonesia has a lot of events in the last decade, Should the latest info of the country only talking around 2004 tsunami (17 years ago) event, or should it be renewed? NouVa (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• Per above, events should be considered and added based on their due weight within WP:Summary style. CMD (talk) 01:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• NouVa should feel free to propose anything, but I think the "History" implies "long ago" and this section is presented as summarizing parts of the History of Indonesia. The article might do well to have a recent events section, or to include recent events in other subsections as appropriate. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• The current paragraph is not limited to information till 2004. Example, "however, the economy has performed strongly in the last 15 years" is actually talking about the period till now. I can agree with adding more information, but everything has to be added by due weight. Please note that a major incident like the 2004 Tsunami had been summarised in half a sentence. So only significant changes/facts should be added and the facts should be properly summarised. Some possible things to add - religious conflict (Ahok's blasphemy case?), economic development in 2015-2020 (startup scene) and plans to move the capital.--DreamLinker (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2021 (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:

• Pacific Islands Forum Logo.svg

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