Talk:Indonesia

Indonesia 2000 census:88,22% Muslims

Well im a newbie here, but i want to correct one error that is circulating around wikipedia for some time now.I read statement here,from Cia and other so called media, where it says that Muslims are 86,1% of Indonesia population.Main article for Indonesia religion says that Muslims are 86,1% of Indonesia population.This is a bit funny, since during last census of 2000.Muslim population was exactly 88,22%

For further proof of this i will submit now few links.I can sincerely hope that mods and admins on this page will correct this error after those links.Thanks

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,USDOS,,IDN,,4cf2d09264,0.html

2.5.2. Indonesia: Based on census data, the Muslim population increased from 103,579,496 or 87.51% in 1971 to 177,528,772 or 88.22% in 2000.

[[1]] So if we calculate that Indonesia population now is 239 million, one year after census data.Make this round number and say its 240 million.Muslim population would be from 212-216 million.Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denizlin24 (talk • contribs) 11:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The population of Muslims in Indonesia is 92-94% the rest is made up mainly of indigenous tribal religions and bit of confucianism maybe by the chinese population. People who practice other religions in indonesia are indonesians, we dont have migrants as such. Apart from the local chinese population that does business and stuff. If you want to waste time on this website that is your choice but all of us are leaving, nobody is going to come back again and again to remove the vandalism from the article. IndonesianEconomy (talk) 00:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

IndonesianEconomy, I think we better take a look at the context. It is absolutely okay to present the precise data but do you think there is any significance of the data difference? Better share with us why you really want to present it very precisely. I mean, I have the sense that the moslem writers here want to keep increasing the percentage, but why? I hear somewhere that actually moslem are much less than 80% . And even if you count the moslem who just registered as moslem but not really practice it, there can be much less of moslem in Indonesia. I personally think the precise percentage of moslem in Indonesia is not that necessary. If you disagree, please give me your reason here.

Indonesia has a muslim population of roughly 91% with the remaining made up of christianity 4% followed by indigenous tribal religions, balinese indigenous tribal religion and balinese "buddhism/hinduism" 3% (balinese Indonesians dont refer to their religion as balinese "hinduism" since its a mixture of buddhism, hinduism and indigenous elemets and off late more and more balinese Indonesians are returning to their indigenous tribal religion in favor of other foreign religions) and buddhism/confucianism 2-3%. I am assuming by your usage of the word "moslem" that you are affiliated with fanatic groups? Either way this article makes no difference to Indonesians or realities on the ground. The Indonesian government does not allow any other ethnic group citizenship in Indonesia, the only exception is the Chinese population. This is more of an example of Indonesian development http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMRzVNQBzlA MetalJackal (talk) 13:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Take note Youtube is not reliable sources please read WP:RS.Ald™ ¬_¬™

census 2013 religion in Indonesian ,Islam 84%, Christian 12%, 4-5% consists of other religions in Indonesia, including Confucian. Ardy Tri Sucipto — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.219.226.185 (talk) 10:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Indonesiaraya.ogg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Indonesiaraya.ogg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

put up anthem box

sincean anthem is high importance the anthem box should be re-added(allot of other countries have them)philpm930Philpm930 (talk) 02:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Just ask

What reason for protect page Indonesia? Thanks. Mbak Dede (talk) 09:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Long history of persistent vandalism from anonymous users, featured article. Materialscientist (talk) 09:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thanks. Mbak Dede (talk) 10:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It's semi-protected which means that established users like yourself can still use it - just in case you don't realise. :-) --Merbabu (talk) 10:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

i wold like to be an editor who fight vandalism on country pages how do i do that?Philpm930 (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I was just seen link spamming on the page (Twitter and Wikia) from 25 March 2012-13 April 2012. Whether it is a kind of vandalism? Thanks. Mbak Dede (talk) 13:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Sports

I've removed the recently added sports section. We already have information about sports in Culture, and this was duplicating the topic. The job of this article is to provide a concise overview of Indonesia. Detail about how sporting points are distributed by provinces in undue. CMD (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree. Adding a separate sports section seems a little unnecessary in most articles. And in this case, the new info, did seem a little repetitive. If there really is something new that was added and it is significant, perhaps that can be added into the existing section. regards --Merbabu (talk) 06:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Indonesian diversity

I think it is important to state the numbers of ethnic groups and languages in Indonesia (300 ethnic groups and 700 languages, well referenced) in the summary lead. It give a hint to the reader about how diverse Indonesia is, as well as links to Indonesian ethno-lingual articles. I have found quite alot of articles about Indonesia having introduction (lead) like this, mentioning about high degree of Indonesian diversity (its people, language, nature) complete with numbers, so why not wikipedia? However an editor constantly revert this addition. So guys what do you think? I think we should keep this info.Gunkarta (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It's referenced in the main article, so if that is included in the lead it wouldn't need the references duplicated. (For reference, the different texts can be seen here.) As for the change in the text, the text including the figures ends up first noting there are different ethnic, linguistic, and religious groups, and then goes on to note this a second time with figures for ethnicity and linguistics, but not religion. It's stunted, and interrupts the idea running through the first half of that paragraph, which was that there is diversity in a whole range of ways, but also a common identity. Trying to throw in some impressive figures should not trump prose quality. CMD (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

FOr what it's worth, I tend to agree with Chipmunk on this one. Although, the link to the ethnic groups article that Gunkarta added could go in the lead. IMO --Merbabu (talk) 11:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay..., I can understand your points and can accept that, the numbers stays in Demographic section, but the links to Indonesian ethnics, language and religion article is better provided in the lead.Gunkarta (talk) 12:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

(After edit conflict with Gunkarta) ::OK, on second thoughts, perhaps the addition of "300" or "hundreds" is not that bad. Plus the link. So I did this. I removed the religious part because Indonesia's religious diversity is fairly normal compared to its ethnic and linguistic diversity. Indonesia's religious diversity is no more pronounced than say, Australia, the US, Fiji, or Malaysia - indeed, it's arguably less diverse than some or all of those. --Merbabu (talk) 12:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

That's better. cheers!Gunkarta (talk) 12:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I split the pipelink to include the Languages of Indonesia link Gunkarta originally inserted, as well as some other minor c/e, which probably should be double checked. CMD (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Indonesian Ethnicity

Hi, Sir, I am a new person in editing article in wikipedia. I just want to ask something, why there is no Tionghoa in Indonesia Ethnic Groups, while it's actually the largest population of Chinese overseas in the world. Since this maybe a pretty sensitive issue, I think not including maybe some kind of insult for the Tionghoa people.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.241.247.220 (talk) 00:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Can i assume this as a joke? Ald™ ¬_¬™

From the Demographics section:

"Chinese Indonesians are an influential ethnic minority comprising 3–4% of the population.[145] Much of the country's privately owned commerce and wealth is Chinese-Indonesian-controlled,[146][147] which has contributed to considerable resentment, and even anti-Chinese violence.[148][149][150]"

There is, however, no mention of the Chinese in the info box (not that I like info boxes, but that's just me). --Merbabu (talk) 08:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

East Timor

Surely East Timor should be mentioned in the History as should the insurgency in West Papua. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.213.81 (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

How about an "Indonesians" article?

I know "Indonesians" are a nationality, not an ethnic group. Wikipedia has articles on other "national" groups such as Americans and British or even Indians, why not make one for Indonesians/Malaysians as well? PacificWarrior101 (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

• There's several choices at Indonesian people. Demographics of Indonesia seems to most closely match your proposed article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 December 2012

Hi,

I have an edit request for this article...It's about how Indonesia got its independence from. It's written that Indonesia got independence from netherlands. I'm sorry but it's not entirely correct, "from netherlands" could bring public opinion that netherlands give the freedom willingly. The fact is, Indonesia did struggle to get its independence. That's why, when Ir. Soekarno declared the Independence at August 17th 1945 (and that time Indonesia colonized by Japan), Netherlands couldn't accept that decision and decided to go back to Indonesia (assisted by england) and fought the Indonesians. There are at least two major battles between Indonesia vs Netherlands after the declaration of independence (august 17th)

that's why I think the word "from Netherlands" should be replaced by "result of struggle againts Netherlands"

hope you consider this request, many thanks!

Livindaye (talk) 08:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

They were still recognised as being independent from the Netherlands, struggle or not. The statement that any country became independent "from X" gives no implications as to how they became independent from X, only that they were. Argentina became independent from Spain. Singapore became independent from Malaysia. Both very different situations, both correct statements. CMD (talk) 08:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 January 2013

Please reevaluate sentence: "Against the US dollar the rupiah dropped from about Rp 2,600 in late 2997 to a low point of around Rp 17,000 some months later and the economy shrank by a remarkable 13.7%." Located in the economy section. Ty

24.19.29.70 (talk) 05:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Done I changed 2997 to 1997 which I believe fixes this statement. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 04:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Demographics

The demographics of Indonesia is not up to date. Most of them are based on 2000's census. For example, in this page, it's said that there are around 300 ethnic groups in Indonesia, while based on 2010's census conducted by BPS (Badan Pusat Statistik), there are around 1,128 ethnic groups in Indonesia. The result can be obtained from BPS (go get it, so-called editors), and Jawa Pos had already published it:

http://www.jpnn.com/index.php?mib=berita.detail&id=57455 (in Bahasa Indonesia)

Go read it (if you couldn't read Bahasa Indonesia then it's better for you not to write any article about Indonesia). If I'm the one who changes the demographics, probably you'll just erase my new input (based on past experiences that I saw when other people tried to change info in this Indonesia page), thus I leave it to you. If you say that BPS and Jawa Pos aren't credible sources, then I begin to wonder the credibility of this Wikipedia. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.254.84.178 (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Article map

How is it possible that the large map in the "Administrative divisions" section has no link to it's own image page or any attribution at all? How will one know if it's a copyright violation or not? Wordreader (talk) 16:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Culture

For a country with such a long, rich, and beautiful cultural heritage, I am surprised to see such an abbreviated "Culture" section. Is there a way for you to find and recruit someone with a knowledge of the Indonesian arts (architecture, dance, literature, decorative images, music, etc) to contribute or at least advise? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The long, rich, and beautiful cultural heritage of Indonesia is described at Culture of Indonesia, as indicated at the top of that section in this article. Please look through that page for more info, regards, CMD (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Ref

56% see themsevles as simply Muslims. I'm not sure by what you mean its not in the source. Also, Pew is a better source than the one you're relying on. Pass a Method talk 00:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Population WTF

Honestly, I have to admit that I have never been good with basic math and/or spelling... BUT, WTF! According to Wiki, Indonesia land size is 735,358 square miles. OR 3882690240 square feet. IF THE POPULATION OF INDONESIA (2013) IS 237424365. THAT EQUALS 1.6 FEET PER PERSON??? I really hope that i am wrong. 216.232.96.176 (talk) 13:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• Huh? Your math is quite off, I should think. Even if your numbers were correct in the equation, that would be more than 1.6 square feet per person (16 square feet and change)... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

You can look in Wikepedia's Manual of Style (WP:MOS), specifically, WP:CONVERT, and try a few conversions to see how they come out. Use "Show Preview" just to see the math, and then click "Cancel".CorinneSD (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2013

Please delet this photo {{Wide image|Free West Papua Protest Melbourne August 2012.jpg|800px|Free West Papua Protest Melbourne August 2012}} {{clear}} This is a photo whit no relation to the Indonesian history, it is a photo of people in Melbourne giving support to the OPM or known as Free Papua Movement. This photo would be better placed in West Papua (Region) section, not Indonesia. Nufix (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done, and the user who added it has been formally cautioned not to do it again. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 15:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

"Harmonious relations"

Presently, the article presents the view that "relations between different ethnic and religious groups are largely harmonious, although sectarian discontent and violence have persisted". This statement is confusing, and seems to suggest that the presence of large numbers of armed ethnically-based militias (for example, in New Guinea and, until recently, Aceh) which are engaged in military conflict with the Indonesian government, llegislation meant to disadvantage ethnic groups, discrimination against religious minorities and possible genocide does not preclude "harmonious relations between different ethnic and religious groups". My attempts to partly balance this (with sources) were deleted on the grounds of bad wording. If no one objects, I'll probably change this soon. Rwenonah (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

'comment' - please do not. This is a single article that shouldnt be played with. Indonesian culture and history has a range of paradoxical and contradictory elements in it - to try to summarise or make sense in an already far too big article article is probably not the place for such an exercise.

Historical and contemporary events that provide the exception from the rule could be taqken from any year since the 1940's - to now - that is any year in that period - could be seen to have elements of parts of Indonesia in both condition - separatist activities or civil unrest in one part - and unusually harmonious relations between ethnic groups in other parts.

To balance (with sources) this article is not needed. The acceptable level of detail gets hammered away towards over detailed POV pushing in subsidiary articles, we do not need to have an issue here in this article which has invariably glaring exceptions to the rule thrown in. Thanks if you just leave alone. satusuro 15:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

So you're saying we don't want it to make sense? Or summarize? If the article is far too big, summarizing would seem logical, and we obviously want the article to make sense. And as I pointed out above, "harmonious relations" don't seem to be "the rule" you mention. I also have sources which say that "regioanl rebellions and separatist movements have been one of the reoccurring features of post-independence politics".Rwenonah (talk) 22:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Proving a point on large articles is a pointless venture. You can probably find, if you tried a reference hard enough a comment that will support your way of looking at Indonesian history, and I could find the opposite, The issue at hand is that there have been patches of regional conflict and also harmony in most parts of the archipelago for the last 70 years, so what? Youre bracing at the bit to put something in to make sense.

If imposing your sense of sense is so driven, try using just one quote by qualifying "regional rebellions and separatist movements have been one of the reoccurring features of post-independence politics" with according to some writers and dont go overboard in trying to clarify by adding much else than that.

If you are on a mission to prove something about Indonesian politics or society over the last 70 years this is the last article you should be trying to make your edit at. Main subject articles about countries so complex as Indonesia always fail to even introduce the aspects of history and regional variation that require further detail. satusuro 02:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

What point am I supposed to be trying to prove? This is about facts. Are relations "largely harmonious" or not? I have presented a source that says they are not, supported, as I will demonstrate blow, by the source for the "harmonious" sentence. Of course I want the article to make sense, as I said above. Presently, it doesn't make sense, since it uses one source to supposedly prove that "relations between different ethnic and religious groups are largely harmonious." By your own rules, this should be a quote saying that "according to some writers, relations between different...". I, personally, find that using quotes all the time makes for confusing reading, and "some writers" is probably weasel words. Additionally, a quick-read through of your source is has demonstrated that it seems to be about inter-ethnic and religious strife, not harmony. It goes into considerable detail on Suharto's discriminatory policies, and religious conflicts. I haven't actually been able to find a part of the article which support the sentence in question. Indeed, however, I find it a useful source, as it demonstrates quite the opposite of what it sources in the article. Some quotes: "since 1999, the nation has witnessed an explosion of ethnic and religious violence.." "the violence has had a corrosive impact on Indonesia's own fragile efforts at democratic reform..." "the violence has been directed by anti-reform elements in the now deeply divided military...".

Rwenonah (talk) 14:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

you are to be commended for being so polite, from my perecpetive of your insistence in putting something in an inappropriate article about what you see as ongoing violence in Indonesia. This is nothing about facts at all, most interpretation of evidence about Indonesian history can easily slip into generalisations either way of 'harmonious' or 'violent' from selected reading of material.. the agendas of writers can be illuminating if they want to observe the issues of the indonesian military for a start.... again as I say this is not the article to expand on this.

• As to my source I never edit articles like this one on the basis that it attracts flies to the smell of being able to make claims for countries that can be very easily misleading among other things, having lived in the country I would never sustain a simple explanation for what my research resulted in - the complexities of the country do not beg for simple explanations. I am neither defending any one source against another, if you enjoy this sort of interaction, you probably would enjoy the inticacies of the composition of Indonesian_killings_of_1965–66 and what constitutes the veracity of some sources against others, and the general trend (or agendas to prove something to see conspiracies at a grand scale in some sources....

• As to my rules - all I ask for is for you, if you insist on editing here - don't pile it up if you are so keen to make out that Indonesia is a violent place - your last set of items about violence show that such a venture you are proposing really doesnt belong in this article - there are many other sub articles where such an exercise in your point that you first ask for, and then provide the evidence in your last sentence would be more appropriate. Have a safe christmas. satusuro 15:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

This isn't about "what" I see or "your research". It is about facts. Are relations between different ethnic and religious groups in Indonesia largely harmonious, or not? I have two sources saying the opposite, and there are many examples of conflicts which prove the false ness of that statement. Therefore, the sentence is false and should be removed from the article.

I'm really not sure what you mean what you say that you don't edit articles like this one, as you've done so multiple times over the past few days. If you aren't defending the source in the article, I assume you agree that it doesn't support the sentence in question. If that is so, the statement is unsourced and should be either removed or modified to reflect the source's actual statements.

Again, I'm not sure what you mean about my point. I am attempting to fix a wrongly-sourced, false statement in the article. The supposed "proof" of my "point" you claim I offered in the last sentence were quotes from your source which clearly prove that the source does not support the sentence it supposedly validates in the article. And so, it should be removed or modified. Rwenonah (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not try to defend Indonesia or whatsoever, however I think we must avoid to over generalize or simply paint black or white when dealing with a nation as complex as Indonesia. The country is far too vast and diverse to simply called it as "violent" or "harmonious". For a nation like Indonesia paradox is common, and to try to describe Indonesian ethnic and religious relations as violent or disharmonious is not represent the fact of whole Indonesia and not do us justice. Sure Indonesia has its own share of problems, but as a citizen here I think the ethno-religio relations are largely harmonious. I think this is largely because most of Indonesians agreed on diversity and pluralism policy adopted in Pancasila. Paradox do exist here, for example although there are some elements of Indonesians that went to extremism such as Islamist terrorism, yet other might went other direction to democracy, secularism and moderation, and these opposing elements are struggling. I think despite the alarming existence of religious-based terrorism, majority of Indonesians practice moderation. I do agree with satusuro that some sub-section or separate specific articles could describe the issues more detail, complete and throughly. For example if you like to address separation issues in Aceh or Papua, or Terrorism in Indonesia, there are specific articles dealing with these subjects. But if you went too much on refusing the complexity that often seems as paradoxical facts of Indonesia, and insist to paint us as violent and disharmonious society, then you condemn Indonesia to descends to the level of Afghanistan, Egypt, Syria or Iraq, and that is not true. I think it is better to take the account of impartial foreigners or observer that had spent times living in Indonesia to understand the complexity of Indonesian society and felt firsthand weather harmonious or not the inter-ethnic and inter-religion relations in Indonesia is.Gunkarta (talk) 16:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

As an impartial foreigner, I would like to inject a few points here:

Rwenonah, here is your original comment, above:

Presently, the article presents the view that "relations between different ethnic and religious groups are largely harmonious, although sectarian discontent and violence have persisted". This statement is confusing, and seems to suggest that the presence of large numbers of armed ethnically-based militias (for example, in New Guinea and, until recently, Aceh) which are engaged in military conflict with the Indonesian government, legislation meant to disadvantage ethnic groups, discrimination against religious minorities and possible genocide does not preclude "harmonious relations between different ethnic and religious groups". My attempts to partly balance this (with sources) were deleted on the grounds of bad wording. If no one objects, I'll probably change this soon.

Unfortunately, your comment is confusing. First of all, you may find the statement in quotes confusing because, actually, the adverbial clause at the end, "although sectarian discontent and violence have persisted", is not really necessary. The main clause, "relations between different ethnic and religious groups are largely harmonious", is enough. The adverb "largely" in "largely harmonious", implies that relations between different ethnic and religious groups are not completely harmonious – there is some disharmony, or conflict. The adverbial clause beginning with "although" is extra, providing a few details to explain the disharmony. It is a balanced sentence that summarizes the overall situation in Indonesia in the last few years, up to the present.

Your second sentence, in which you say that the quoted sentence "seems to suggest that..." is grammatically incorrect, and therefore confusing. The subject of the noun clause beginning with "that", "the presence of large numbers of armed ethnically-based militias...", is missing a verb. Where is the verb? "The presence of large numbers of armed ethnically-based militias" does what? If the verb is "does not preclude", then you have too many disconnected words between the subject and the verb. Let us assume for a moment that "does not preclude" is the verb. Then your statement, without the intervening words, is "the presence of large numbers of armed ethnically-based militias...does not preclude 'harmonious relations between different ethnic and religious groups'". Well, except for the insertion of "large numbers of", which is your addition – it's not in the sentence – that is exactly what the quoted sentence is saying: despite a certain number of armed, ethnically-based militias, relations between ethnic and religious groups are generally harmonious. (If you prefer "generally" to "largely", I think that would probably be acceptable, but there is only a small difference between those two adverbs.) It is not clear why you object to this sentence, why you feel you need to balance an already balanced statement, nor how your source adds more balance. Perhaps you just object to that phrase, "largely harmonious". But surely you don't believe that relations between ethnic and religious groups in Indonesia have been nothing but a long series of conflicts? It would be constructive if you could suggest an alternate wording that you feel is more accurate. Perhaps a simple change of adverb would satisfy you: "have at times been harmonious", "have sometimes been harmonious", or perhaps an entire re-wording of the sentence would work better. As the other editors have said, when speaking about relations between various groups in a large, complex country such as Indonesia, it is both inaccurate and unrealistic to paint these relations as one thing or another. It is more accurate to summarize the complex, changing relationships. Also, as the other editors say, there are other articles, or perhaps other places in this article, where one can read about these relationships in more detail.

Regarding the other editors, unfortunately, your comments are not exactly clear, either (actually they are less clear than Rwenonah's). It would have been more helpful simply to point out that the original statement is already a balanced statement and that there are other articles (or perhaps other places in this article?) where one can read about these relations in more detail, and to supply the names of the other articles (or sections in this article), or even to ask Rwenonah how he (or she) would prefer the sentence to be worded. You are all letting your emotions cloud your writing. The mass of unnecessary words and unclear statements creates confusion and leads to bad feelings.CorinneSD (talk) 17:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I object to this sentence chiefly because, as I have pointed out, it is unsourced and confusing. The sources says quite the opposite from the sentence. Also, this is in the "History" section. It is unclear what time period this statement is referring to, whether it is the "darkest hour" Gunkarta mentioned, or modern times. As I have said, this statement is flawed in several ways. A better sentence would be "Relations between different ethnic and religious groups in Indonesia have varied over time, with sectarian violence and discontent coming to a head under the Sukarno government but subsiding following the creation of a democratic government." This removes the confusing elements and better represents the historical changes of such things.

I in no way meant to paint Indonesia as a violent society, and I apologize if it seemed like I was trying to do so. My objections to this statement were simply premised off of what I believe to be confusing and contradictory elements within the sentence (which CorinneSD clarified above). However, I still think the sentence I suggested above would be a better option. Rwenonah (talk) 18:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

It is a well-constructed sentence, and it does show change over time. I don't know what other editors think, but I would like to point out that, if this sentence is substituted for the other one, it will follow the following sentence:

Political and economic instability, social unrest, corruption, and terrorism slowed progress; however, in the last five years the economy has performed strongly.

The last phrase of this sentence, "in the last five years the economy has performed strongly", brings the time focus right up to the present. Then your sentence goes back in time with "have varied over time" and the reference to the Sukarno government, which was a while ago. Something would need to be done to smooth out the jump in time – either a minor change in one of these sentences, or a transitional phrase at the beginning of your sentence. Also, even though the creation of a democratic government was mentioned two or three sentences back, I think it would add clarity to again mention the year in which a democratic government was created: "...following the creation of a democratic government in 2004" (or "in the years since the creation of a democratic government in 2004").

After re-reading your sentence, I think "have varied over time" doesn't really say much; it's not very informative. I think you could be slightly more specific. From...........to......., there were periods of ....... which came to a head during.......... This sectarian violence has largely subsided since the creation of a democratic government in 2004.

(Another possibility is the following: if you look at the two sentences, it appears that the first half of your sentence is very similar to the information in the first half of the previous sentence that I quoted above. Since both sentences generally show a before and after, you could try to combine the two sentences and cut out a few words.)CorinneSD (talk) 02:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Currency

Indonesia currency has changed to more than Rp.12,000 per US Dollar for several months. The article still mentions the currency from Rp.8,000 to Rp.10,000. It will mislead the readers. Thank you.Gsarwa (talk) 05:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Largest islands in lead

I find it strange that New Guinea, Borneo, Sumatra, and Java are not mentioned in the lead section. Maybe they can be added to the sentence "Indonesia is an archipelago comprising approximately 17,508 islands."? – Editør (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Wringintelu, Jawa Timur, Indonesia

8.37.225.118 (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2014

The list of countries that Indonesia shares a border with should include Brunei. 210.48.49.74 (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

No it shouldn't, as they share no border. CMD (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Sunni vs. non-denominational

This article says that a majority of Indonesian Muslims are non-denominational. This disagrees with Islam in Indonesia, which says a majority are Sunni. A quick Google search turns up a lot more support for a majority being Sunni. But one of the references given here does indeed say that 56% identify as non-denominational, with just 26% identifying as Sunni. But even this reference is hard to know what to do with, because it comes from Pew Research, who just a year before had reported the dramatically different result that 99% of Indonesian Muslims were Sunni. Anyone know how to reconcile this? Perhaps a lot of Indonesian Muslims are members of Sunni mosques but don't personally identify as Sunni? --Allen (talk) 03:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2014

I want to add some details about list of big cities in indonesia. 1. Jakarta (Jakarta Special Capital Region) 9.607.787 2. Surabaya (East Java) 2.765.487 3. Bandung (West Java) 2.394.873 4. Bekasi (West Java) 2.334.871 5. Medan (North Sumatera) 2.097.610 6. Tangerang (Banten) 1.798.601 7. Depok (West Java) 1.738.570 8. Semarang (Central Java) 1.763.475 9. Palembang (South Sumatera) 1.555.984 10. Makassar (South Sulawesi) 1.338.663 11. South Tangerang (Banten) 1.290.322 12. Batam (Riau Islands) 1.153.860

source : Wikipedia Bahasa Indonesia

Thank you.

Arrymrcool (talk) 13:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

This has been suggested before, but rejected. It's not clear how such a table or list is that helpful - the four largest cities are already mentioned. Perhaps it could go in another article such as Demographics of Indonesia. Also, please note that Wikipedia itself is not considered a valid source. --Merbabu (talk) 01:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Number of Indonesian Islands

It's mentioned on this article "Indonesia is an archipelago comprising 13,466 islands." Please correct it with the following information.

According to a 2002 survey by National Institute of Aeronautics and Space (LAPAN), the Indonesian archipelago has 18,307 islands. According to the CIA factbook there are 17,000 islands.[1] 8,844 islands have been named according to estimates made by the Government of Indonesia, with 922 of those permanently inhabited. (Source: Wikipedia - List of Islands of Indonesia)

Indonesia comprises 17,508 - 18,306 islands and 8,844 that have been named according to estimates made by the Government of Indonesia, with 922 of those permanently inhabited. (Source: www.princeton.edu )

Indonesia, with over 18,000 counted islands, is by far the largest and most varied archipelago on Earth. (Source: http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/asia/id.htm ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indonesian1 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit request for Foreign Relations and Military

I would like to change the sentence

"Indonesia has received humanitarian and development aid since 1966, in particular from the United States, western Europe, Australia, and Japan."

to

"Indonesia has received humanitarian and development aid since 1966, in particular from the Asian Development Bank, World Bank, Japan and Australia."

supported by https://www.devex.com/news/indonesia-s-top-10-donors-responding-to-the-promise-of-transformation-78905

110.175.140.110 (talk) 10:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Education

I created a part education that got moved and edited. I am personally not convinced by the "education included in demographics" policy, but I know it is usual and I am new on this article, so I won't insist about that.

On another hand, I would like to re-add information about the curriculum of formal education. I think it is important to precise what we are refering to while saying "12 years of compulsory education". I honestly believe it would make sense. If you think the former version was too long regarding the summary style policy, I propose this new version :

"Indonesians are required to attend twelve years of school, corresponding to the whole primary and secondary education program.(same refs) Primary education lasts from 7 to 12, and secondary education from 13 to 18. Vocational Education program can be started at the senior secondary school (age 16). "

Your opinion ? KaptainIgloo (talk) 08:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I haven't much time right now, but your proposal above doesn't seem completely unreasonable. However, I am not sure that I would support a separate Education section. Let me have a closer look tomorrow morning. Also, I note that another editor, chipmunkdavis, remove some but not all of your new information. In the meantime, have you seen the Education in Indonesia article? --Merbabu (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi :) My main request is to put some information about the curriculum, the place doesn't really matter. Chipmunkdavis has deleted this part of my contribution( while moving it to "demographics"), arguing it was not respecting the Summary style policy. As a response, I have tried to propose a shorter version of that specific part... I won't add anything before having his opinion anyway, as I don't want to start an edit war.

The place of a paragraph about education is another question. In my opinion, Education is not really related to demographics and deserves its own part, considering how important it is (For many states, it is the biggest budget... and I'm not even talking about the social/cultural/economic impact of the education system on its country). I also like subdivisions as it makes the information easier to find. Anyway, I already started that debate and I realized it was really a matter of taste... so I don't insist much on it anymore^^ ((To answer to your question: yep, I've seen education in Indonesia. Most of my contribution came from there) )KaptainIgloo (talk) 13:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

When I edited, I was doing my best to try and balance concision in what is already one of the longer sections with covering the main points. It seems sensible to note that the twelve years are primary and secondary education. What's the significance of vocational education here? CMD (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)n jr-igopù

Well,it is an important part of the curriculum and it changes from a country to another. I find the information relevant while talking about the general properties of an education system. But I admit that my opinion might be biaised, as I have worked on the topic a while ago. One could just keep ""Indonesians are required to attend twelve years of school, corresponding to the whole primary and secondary education program(from 7 to 18 year old)... :(KaptainIgloo (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Something like "primary (7-12) and secondary (13-18)" would include all the information from your first two sentences, and it seems like acceptable prose style for a FA to me. I'm open to being convinced vocational school mention is important, as I'm sure Merbabu and others here are. If you're enthusiastic enough to be biased can you touch up Education in Indonesia a bit more? It says primary is 6-11. Clarification is required somewhere. CMD (talk) 13:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

About vocational Education: It is considered by UNESCO as one of the key of social/economic development, a powerful tool to tackle unemployment and poverty. As a consequence, many countries have deployed policies to improve vocational Education. Indonesia is no exception (source UNESCO-UNEVOC). That is why I like to mention Vocational Education. It is an acknowledged vital challenge for most Education systems in the world, now and for the years to come.

About the ages: here is my source(figure 1) (I like UNESCO :) ). education in Indonesia refers to another reliable document but I haven't found any information about ages in it. I'll try to go back to [education in Indonesia] some day... it has copied/pasted sentences of this source, and I'm affraid some info are wrongly attached to it. KaptainIgloo (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC) Opinions ?KaptainIgloo (talk) 19:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Drives on...

i'm not quite sure about the "drives on" means but indonesian drives on the right side. right side steering i mean

"Drives on" refers to the side of the road you drive on. CMD (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The article currently says the country drives on the left, and photos I have seen seem to indicate that if I remember properly. Can any Indonesians (or people who have been) confirm or deny this, since someone is claiming they drive on the right? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Cars meant for driving on the left have right side steering (or right hand drive, RHD), and vice versa, as the driver is meant to sit on the side closer to the middle of the road. CMD (talk) 10:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Vehicles in Indonesia are on the road on the left hand side, and the steering wheel inside the car is on the right hand side. satusuro 10:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Area of land

I think this article needs some information about the area of the land in Indonesia.

Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 03:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2014

Please change the first reference to East Timor to East Timor so that is linked. Please add a more in-depth discussion of Papua New Guinea, Timor, Aceh, and the war with Malaysia to the "foreign relations" section. In general, this Wikipedia article is woefully incomplete, and probably should not be locked to editing. 149.171.146.53 (talk) 06:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Already done the first mention of East Timor is already wikilinked. The second part of this request is too broad. See WP:SEMI, this article was locked due to excessive vandalism from IP editors, all you need to do to edit it yourself is have an account that is 4 days old and has 10 edits. Cannolis (talk) 10:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should this article be unlocked?

I started this RfC, and the subject line says it all. My argument is in favor, and is as follows: this is one of the most important, diverse countries in the world, and one of the most controversial in nature and history. You cannot simply lock it because of the actions of a few spammers several years ago. That is simply censorship, and a form not befitting Wikipedia. In its current form this article is completely inadequate. The length of the Wikipedia article on Papua New Guinea is roughly 7200 words long; by my count the total word count for Indonesia comes to 6,386. That is simply horseshit by modern standards of Wikipedia. As the article thankfully says, there are 300 ethnic groups, speaking more than 700 distinct, living languages in Indonesia. It is an archipelago of more than 18,000 islands. I calculate that at 1/3 of a word for each island. Disgusting. Granted only about 6,000 are inhabited, and only about 1,000 permanently so, but as far as I know that's still way more than any other country in the world.

I realize that there is also a separate article on Indonesian history. Let me point out that there is also a separate article on U.S. History. The part of the "History" section within the the main U.S. article, which spans only the time since European contact, is ~2,700 words long. The entire "History" section of the "Indonesia" article is only 913 words long. The part of that section which spans 2,700 years of well-recorded history in Indonesia contains only 672 words, vs. the ~400 year history of the post-European-contact-U.S.A. And incidentally, the English is terrible, and contains a HUGE mistake, substituting Sukarno for Suharto. It also makes no real mention of the slaughter of 1965-1966, or of the CIA (who likely backed and triggered the slaughter) report calling it "one of the worst mass murders of the 20th century, along with the Soviet purges of the 1930s, the Nazi mass murders during the Second World War, and the Maoist bloodbath of the early 1950s" (see Wikipedia article on Indonesian killings of 1965–66). The pre-history of Indonesia is quite a bit longer than the U.S. prehistory as well, but is about the same number of words, and makes no mention of Homo floresiensis. There is no mention of the genocide-like travesties committed in Timor Timur (Timor-Leste) and New Guinea, facts already mentioned by two different users on this talk page, but subsequently ignored.

While there a mention and link to the Wallace Line, there is is little elaboration on this extremely important feature. There is no mention or even links to Danau Kelimutu, or to the the Komodo dragon, even though there are articles on both of those subjects.

Neither is there any mention, in the tragically short description of Indonesian Culture, of the Minangkabau people. Nor, in the linked but poorly written "Indonesian Culture" article, is there any mention the Matriarchal Society of the Minangkabau, strange since the Wikipedia Matriarchal/Matrilineal societies list comprises only 39 groups throughout history. There is no direct link to the "Indonesian Cuisine" article, and in the "Indonesian Culture", Indonesian cuisine is described by someone who pretty clearly knows almost nothing about Indonesian cuisine, which, according to first sentence of the "Indonesian Cuisine" article, "...is one of the most vibrant and colourful cuisines in the world, full of intense flavour." To be honest I would have to say the "Indonesian Cuisine" article has a lot more relevant, practical, and honest information about Indonesia than does the "Indonesia"article. Someone actually decided to delete the words "religiously diverse" from the ways that Indonesia is diverse. Just so we're all aware, while the ethnic and cultural diversities of Indonesia may be more interesting to many, there is certainly no other country in the world that has so many major religions, independently flourishing under one roof. Granted that is a bit of a subjective statement, but it's true. In addition to the six state-recognized religions (Christianity x2, Islam, Confucianism, Buddhism, and Hinduism), there are also members of the Jewish faith, and several animistic belief systems. A lack of understanding on the latter issue may partly stem from the fact that "Because the government do not recognize animism indigenous tribal belief systems as official religion, as a result followers of various native animistic religions such as Dayak Kaharingan have identified themselves as Hindu in order to avoid pressure to convert to Islam or Christianity." (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Indonesia , "Other religions and beliefs"). But all this is completely immaterial to the concept of Indonesian religious diversity: in this world of globalization, it's hard to find a country without several different religious beliefs floating around. The point is in fact that several different religions have co-existed (not always peacefully, even today) in the area that is known as Indonesia for thousands of years.

Again, almost all of this information can be found somewhere on Wikipedia, but to force the casual or even fairly intrepid-if-uninformed reader to dig so hard for it is, again, indirect censorship. While this is one of my first visits to this page, and my first attempt to edit even the Talk page, from reading the Talk page of this article, I feel that the "dominant" established users on this page are censoring the article. The people who are editing this article are not qualified to do so, and apparently not pro-active enough to actually read the information others have put forth. So unlock it and give the rest of us a chance. Tear down this ****ing wall. Apologies, but I am very frustrated and disappointed with this article.

~T — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.171.146.53 (talk) 09:33, 23 November 2014‎ (UTC)

“… one of the most controversial …” That right there is a very good reason for protection. By the way, a request for comment is meant to be short and neutral, and the RFC bot didn’t pick up on it because you never signed it with ~~~~. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 13:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

==

149.171.145.145 (talk) 08:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

A few Papuan Languages?????

From the article:

"More than 700 living languages are spoken in Indonesia.[179] Most belong to the Austronesian language family, with a few Papuan languages also spoken."

A few lines later we have: "On the other hand, Papua has over 270 indigenous Papuan and Austronesian languages,[181] in a region of about 2.7 million people."

Granted, there are Austronesian languages spoken in New Guinea on both sides of the border, but the overwhelming majority is Papuan. So how do 270 indigenous languages, most of the Papuan, translate to "a few"????? Would someone rectify this on behalf of the Papuans, who don't seem to be having a jolly good time under Indonesian rule? All the best 85.220.22.139 (talk) 21:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Just an addendum. Have a look at the language map of Trans–New Guinea languages. Everything not marked especially as Austronesian is Papuan. Real numbers are regrattably hard to come by, but according to this there are 44 uncontacted peoples in the Indonesian occupied part of New Guinea. They may safely be assumed to be Papuan. All the best 85.220.22.139 (talk) 22:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)