Talk:Indonesia/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions about Indonesia. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Please Update the Economy section

New data is available ( year of 2008 )

GDP (nominal) = USD 511 billion [1]

GDP (PPP) = USD 909 billion [2]

GDP per capita (PPP) : USD 3,979 [3]

GDP per capita (nominal) = USD 2,238 [4]

Export (2008) = USD 136.76 billion [5]

Import (2008) = USD 128.79 billion [6]

Newest Corruption Perception Index Ranking = 111th of 180 countries [7]

Thanks Bkusmono (talk) 03:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone put Indonesia will be a developed country, which is absolute rubbish. I changed that false information and said the following: "Indonesia is one of the worlds poorest countries and is one of the largest economies in Southeast Asia". It reflects the fact that Indonesia is still a Third World country and still one of the poorest in world despite it having a relatively large GDP.Pryde 01 (talk) 08:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not rubbish. I think you should read more about Indonesian economy. I am afraid your comment is only because you came to Indonesia and found that there's still a lot of poor people in the street, but never saw Indonesian economy in general, broader sense. It's generalization, you should do more research. Try reading about BRIC countries: Several of the more developed of the N-11 countries, in particular Turkey, Mexico, Nigeria and Indonesia, are seen as the most likely contenders to join the BRICs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRIC

Also see about Top Ten Largest Economies in the World in 2050: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Top_five_largest_economies_in_2050.jpg Indonesian is predicted in number 7.

See list of Emerging Markets: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_market#Among_the_lists If we see the lists, there are only 3 countries always appear in every list (Next Eleven/BRIC, CIVETS, FTSE, MSCI, The Economist, S&P, Dow Jones). They are Indonesia, Turkey, and Egypt. Indonesia and Turkey, which have been categorized as four emerging markets.

Based on Size and Incremental GDP Gross Domestic Product (USD PPP 2010 Trillion, Constant Prices): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EAGLEs,_Emerging_and_Growth_Leading_Economies Indonesian has the 4th highest Incremental GDP and a part of EAGLEs, the key emerging economies that are expected to lead global growth in the next decade.

My suggestion, articles in Wikipedia should be more... Neutral. Not based on personal opinions like Pryde 01 did. So IMHO the sentence Indonesia will be a developed country is economically correct. It's just a prediction by economists. Nobody says that Indonesia is already a developed country, it says it WILL BE a developed country. A prediction by economists. But that's just what I think. And it's not me who wrote that `Indonesia will be a developed country` though. I am just giving a comment to discuss. That's what I want to say. Thank you very much. Yofan Pratama P (talk) 07:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

On the list of languages the first "Bahasa Indonesia" link directs to some Asian template, not an articale about Indonesia. The one normally positioned in alphabetical order is OK, the first link should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.205.81.66 (talk) 22:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, but I don't know how to fix it. HELP! Davidelit (talk) 13:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It has been fixed (I did not fix it, yet just posting here to let everyone know that this problem has been fixed). Thanks Kangxi Emperor 康熙帝 (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

More on Stats: Population, etc.

Projections that extend a shorter distance into the future are more reliable and, IMO, have the appeal of immediacy. However, I left both the 2020 and 2050 figures in the text. Why don't we leave them both there for a few days (or at least more than the proverbial 41 minutes) and see if more than 3-5 WP editors comment on which is preferable.

I'm glad there's tentative consensus for omitting growth rate because the ESA (UN) did not project based on constant growth rate. In fact, their 2004 report that projects thru 2300 estimates Indonesia leveling off at under 300M around 2055 (later than China levels off).

I agree that comparisons with Pakistan and Nigeria (both likely to surpass in this century) would be better for Demographics page, but I don't have time this week. Someone else give it a shot? Martindo (talk) 02:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You are a bunch of morons, when you were presented with good evidence about the diverse origins of the modern Indonesian people from several, you chose to revert to the myopic and erroneous view of one Western scholar at odds with DNA evidence. Then you semiu-protected the page. The article as it stands, is totally inaccurate about the Austronesians displacing the Melanesians. This never happened, they were absorbed by the Melanesians, so almost all modern Indonesians are a mix of both. So get it right and stop being pansies!!!12:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.70.51.101 (talk)

Peaceful/Harmonius/Tolerant versus Sectarian/Ethnic/Regional issues

I've move this here from the notice board - article discussions should be on the talk page - the original post I've kept on the board and advised people to visit here --Merbabu (talk) 07:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi long time no speak here - we have an issue at the main Indonesian article - which suggests that the issue of generalizations in lead paragraphs might or might not have any semblance of truth in either a contemporary or a historical sense.

I would be very interested in any long standing editors comments on this as to whether such comments should or not be in lead paragraphs - and to whether the impossibility of summarising 50 years of regional conflicts and ethnic issues actually negates any mention in the first place? Satu Suro 03:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to mention specific examples rather than generalizing. As I read the last paragraph, it makes me think that we're trying to sum up the entire history into one or two lines, which doesn't work quite that well. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, but we should find a better way to do it instead of sounding like editorializing. There are also unnecessary repetitions when written in its current form, such as the mentions of a majority Muslim population and Dutch colonialism. I do somewhat agree with the recent editor that the instability caused by most (not all) of these conflicts are largely localized and have yet to substantially change politics on a national level. Perhaps look at the Turkey and India articles. Arsonal (talk) 05:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Leads are a difficult place, the purpose of which is to sum up an article while that can be easy for some subjects when one tackles subject matter that is as diverse as a country it becomes a real challenge. IMHO the leads needs to provide sufficient information that a reader with a very vague knowledge can confirm that they are that subject they wanted to be. So what does that mean opening paragraph defines the subject what and where, second is historical context multiple kingdoms brought under one group during the colonial era to when it became independent. That really only leaves one paragraph to present the present situation and what sets the country apart from other countries. Indonesia is too diverse to distill its people down to one all encompassing description, theres no one singular religious/political perspective that describes it aka Malaysia, Japan, China even within the article its difficult to use generalisation and broad brush descriptions there is no way the lead could(should) have anything near localised issues. Gnan garra 07:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be the sentence we're discussing:

However, sectarian tensions and separatism have led to violent confrontations that have undermined political and economic stability.

While initially reluctant to change it, I can see the problems with it. Perhaps just remove it, rather than try and counter balance it?--Merbabu (talk) 07:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

First things - this has ramifications throughout project and I personally I have aversions to be locked into discussions at a large 'main' article talk page - as few editors venture into the area unless they are involved in discussions specifically about the way a subject is being treated.

I believe that any assertions - either that a country is x or b or y - regardless of the quality or connotation - needs qualification in the body of the article if the subject has been raised in the lead - the actual issue does not have a single article out there in the Indonesian project - and it was certainly a commonly accepted issue amongst historians of the old order that there was not one day of peace throughout the country - for the whole of the nation for the whole reign of Sukarno - there were separatist or regional conflicts and or law and order issues as a constant. I cannot make any specific claims for contemporary Indonesia - however I do not think the issue was one of sometimes or isolated events in early years of Indonesia as a nation. The problem is in such a general article as this one (and why I wanted to have conversation about this at the project page and not here) the issue of the problems maybe needs a separate article to give either a timeline of separatist movements activity and other issues of conflict - to have effect of either refuting the generalization or showing a good outline of the events that make the assertion a valid one.

Thanks to those who have joined in - at least the conversation so far seems to be going somewhere Satu Suro 07:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I read this as an article-specific issue - indeed, the parts of the lead we are discussing have been tinkered with on the page suggesting it's article specific. Perhaps if we resolve something here, it can be carried across to other articles. I think it would be much harder the other way around. --Merbabu (talk) 07:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree its has a ripple effect on other Indonesian articles either way its cross posted so more eys can see, comment or ignore.. Anyway this area really does need some topic specific coverage suggest something like Secessionism in Western Australia and the way in which its covered in the Western Australia article as a subsection of politics, but as its not of primiary signficance it shouldnt be mentioned in the lead. I'd also be cautious of lumping separatism and sectarian tensions within the same context because while they do overlap they dont have the same goals or focus, neither do they share a joint history. Maybe its coverage should be under broader banner of Internal conflict in Indonesia or some such depending on how sources treat the subject of unrest. Gnan garra 15:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think the general structure of the lead is good, fits WP:LEAD very well, and has stood the time (2 years) very well with minimal change. The paragraphs as I see it:

Introduces the topic
A one-paragraph summary of its history
A one-paragraph summary of contemporary Indonesia.

This is a huge topic, and is the lynch pin article (the Queen Bee) for the thousands of articles on Indonesia topics. Apart from the sentence I mention in my post above, I don't see the need for any significant change, but I could convinced otherwise. --Merbabu (talk) 07:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

bahasa indonesia kurang diminati siswa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.162.34.72 (talk) 05:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

         DR. MIRA NILAMSARI AMD FROM INDONESIA

Indonesia has the best one from Scientist of health in 2002. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.247.8.150 (talk) 11:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The sources I've seen blame an image problem.

http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15816626 Meanwhile their country, a largely peaceable place with few terrorist attacks since the Bali bombing of 2002, is deemed unstable—and with a negative Muslim identity to boot. Australia, for all the improvement in relations in recent years, nevertheless advises nationals to “reconsider your need to travel to Indonesia”. Total Australian investment in Indonesia is less than it was in 1996. An Indonesian cabinet minister says that his country needs to change perceptions by aping India’s “Incredible India” promotion that took Davos and the business world by storm in 2006.

So can this be added in? Hcobb (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

yang dimaksud dengan purna jual —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.247.33.143 (talk) 03:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Please check Statistics Indonesia (www.bps.go.id) for latest economic statistics. That's the government official site. Poverty rate is down to 14.15% in 2009. Unemployment is down to 7.41% in February 2010, from 9.86% in 2004. Contrary to the The Economist article you quoted, the data show that the annual growth did put a dent to poverty rate and unemployment rate. The GDP per capita in 2009 is Rp 23.4 million. That's USD 2,500 at Rp 9,300 per USD exchange rate. I was surprised to see that there were no mention of continuous political stability and economic growth Indonesians enjoy since 2004. If 6 years of crisis (1998 to 2004) is worth mentioning, I'm sure 6 years of uninterrupted growth and stability is worth mentioning, too. The last paragraph of Economy section gives impression that Indonesia never comes out of the 1998 crisis where in fact, today it has become the global FDI darling. Didudu (talk) 09:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

still, about the top paragraph

first i want to say that i am here not to make destruction, i just want to discuss with you all about the *tense* "has since been turbulent" in the top paragraph and *poverty remains widespread* as well

as Indonesia has shown progress in recent years, with the decrease of poverty rate, better transparency than ten years ago (when so many bureaucrats doing corruption have been arrested and investigated)and now separatism is rare, and since separatist movement only occurs in Papua with average thousands people, they cannot represent hundred million of Indonesians who can live peacefully and share their different culture & religions, the last, natural disaster, please don't refer Indonesia to this, all states must suffer natural disaster, whether it is less or much, i don't want people will reconsider to visit Indonesia just for seeing that words, but you can still write it below (geography section)

i hope you understand my wish, top paragraph is very sensitive thing, as an Indonesian, I'm hurt each time when reading it. the writer should respect the improvement Indonesia has recently made. so, i hope you can write it with different words that are more suitable to describe Indonesia in present.

Thank you, Regard, Assalamualaikum --Mikael07 (talk) 10:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Last time when you got banned, you told us you were from South America. Now you're Indonesian? --Merbabu (talk) 10:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

yes, i am Indonesian... i realize i shouldn't do that, since it caused many problems, i wish you dont have any problems with that, i can friend you in real life to give you proof,

do you want to revise the writing in the top paragraph, please, --Mikael07 (talk) 10:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

No. Many people spent a lot of time with you last time on this issue. Please don't ask again. --Merbabu (talk) 10:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

i promise i leave this site and never come back anymore, i ask you because you are the person who maintain the Indonesian page for years, i am not going to revise it, but you, you dont have to change all the sentences, just the sensitive words like what i have written above, please --Mikael07 (talk) 10:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Merbabu, I don't know what he (Mikael07) did last time, and it's your right to ignore him if he made a mess last time. I just want to second his opinion that too much emphasis is given to poverty, corruption, and natural disaster in Indonesia. India and Bangladesh has more poverty, corruption, and natural disaster than Indonesia, but none in their articles it is given such prominent highlights. Poverty remains widespread in Indonesia? So is in other 120 countries (see articles on Poverty). Do they highlight it in the first paragraph of the country article? I also don't know how you (or the other editor) conveniently quoted some outdated data to support the general tone that Indonesia is chaotic and miserable (the Economy section, for example). Please see my note above this string of message, directing you to the latest statistics about Indonesia (www.bps.gov.id). We are not talking nonsense here. The latest statistics shows that Indonesia has 6 years of uninterrupted growth and stability. You just choose to ignore it. Like I said, I don't know who Mikael07 is, but I fully understand his frustration. Didudu (talk) 03:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Didudu – if it is confirmed that you are Mikael07, then it is likely that Mikael07 and you will be blocked for a long time on wikipedia – perhaps indefinitely. I am sure you can understand suspicions that you are the one character – ie, you have made only two edits at the same time Mikael returns for sockpuppetry.

Assuming you are not the same person, then I suggest the Economy section can be updated a bit, but not the lead. Either way, I do not support any such change without other established editors have provided comment. You will need to show some patience. Also, please don’t make comparisons with other countries. They are irrelevant, and not necessarily better than the Indonesia article. regards --Merbabu (talk) 05:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Merbabu, DO check. Your apology is accepted in advance. Didudu (talk) 06:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

No need to apologise even if I'm wrong because it's a fair assumption and would be a very strong coincidence. see WP:SOCK & WP:DUCK. --Merbabu (talk) 07:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Merbabu, no, i am not Didudu, i wont make the same mistakes again, but if there some people ask the same things, I think the subject really needs to discuss, and people who ask about the same subject doesn't mean they are the same person.. i told you, i can friend you in real life (giving you my facebook account for example) so, you can recognize me and i can guarantee you that i wont make any disputes on this... come on Merbabu, i and Indonesian page really depend on you, --Mikael07 (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you really sure with your poor grasp of english and writing - that you should be contributing to wikipedia en? Satu Suro 00:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

that's why i ask Merbabu to open this discussion, why do this become the judgment for me? i just hope that we can talk about some changes in the top paragraph, i mean we don't have to change the meaning of the paragraph, but we can change some sensitive words, like natural disaster, it's not fair to refer Indonesia to it, and poverty, i think we can change it with income inequality because indeed, that's the issue of contemporary in Indonesia --Mikael07 (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

But Wikipedia isn't about being fair, it's about being factual. It contains many facts that some people don't like, but that's not a reason for censorship or bias. Davidelit (Talk) 01:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I really understand that, i mean for the word like natural disaster, why isn't it written in the geography section instead of putting it in the top paragraph, i never ask to change the meaning of the paragraph, i just want the words like natural disaster, or separatism are moved to the section that can explain about it, these words (natural disaster & separatism) cannot represent the large nation like Indonesia, and they (natural disaster & separatism) are not characteristic of Indonesia, this may lead to misunderstanding to the readers reading it.

Just that, i dont ask for more, promise ! --Mikael07 (talk) 01:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

the Indonesian archipelago has historically (always) had a problem with both natural disasters and separatism - throughout the physical and historical range of the nations borders - there is a real problem if one editor(a) who in their edit history misrepresent their own identity to (b) try to argue that a lead paragraph in an online encyclopedia be changed because it doesnt feel good - as to what represent a large nation of Indonesia with in a lead paragraph.

If it had been an experienced editor to whom heaps of WP:AGF was due - it would be another matter. In this case there are parts of Mikael's request that may appear reasonable - if in fact the issues were explained adequately, but I have my doubts, and wonder by the same token that all other country articles in wikipedia are in denial in their lead paragraphs as to their problems as well. Lead paragraphs are in fact summaries of the articles that follow - and to ask to remove such assertions in a summary is tantamount to asking for the tone of an article to be changed - I can think of at least 15 articles that are in the Indonesian project that need much more than tone to be cleaned up - this request smells (ie has the nafas) of WP:UNDUE - specially when experienced editors have to cope with this type of issue Satu Suro 02:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

thanks, i do really understand why an/some editor(s) may disagree with me, because may be they think what they have written is factual and what Merbabu said above "don't make comparison between Indonesian article and other countries" is indeed understandable since each editor has his/her own writing-style and the writers and editors who have established and maintained Indonesian page may not be the same persons with those maintaining other countries' articles, but why do i complain?, because i place myself as a reader, a reader don't only read one article in wikipedia, but they must read a lot of articles, and when they find a biased article, they will make a comparison, e.g (when someone read Indian page, he/she will only find the top paragraph show its international relationship, its cultural explanation and economic view but in Indonesian page, the top paragraph shows its turbulence although India has even more turbulence with terrorism, separatism, and natural disaster than Indonesia), thus, It's not always about what we write, but what a reader will read, i am here to struggle the fairness in writing, i believe, the sources even sometimes bias the factual event in one particular time of a state. so, please, i depend on you all, since you all are people who have been maintaining this page for years,--Mikael07 (talk) 01:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand your claims of bias. You're talking about one sentence in a paragraph that states that Indonesia is an important trade region, had flourishing kingdoms at various points in history, and has undergone democratization. How could it be more balanced? One might get the impression that you are attempting to whitewash the intro to slant in favor of Indonesia; it would be a clear violation of point of view if we were to follow such a recommendation. As Merbabu said, comparison to another article is irrelevant. Any reader who tried to glean favoritism toward one country or another by comparing their Wikipedia entries' intro sections is reading way too much into the articles to be taken seriously. The purpose of the introduction is to summarize the most salient points in the article. To argue for a change in the introduction, you could argue that it misrepresents the article (which it does not) or that it does not sufficiently focus on the most salient points of the article (which, I assure you, it does). Political instability and natural disasters are among the most important features of the article. They are simply facts, not "good" or "bad" things, and only your own bias colors them as such. You can look at a history of political corruption as a negative, but you can also look at it as a challenge faced and met by a people who have thrown off the yoke of dictatorship in favor of democracy. The best representation of Indonesia is the truth. Altering the content of the article, or even the introduction, to make you *feel* better about it does not help your cause in any way. Feeeshboy (talk) 04:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

yes, i understand, i never ask anyway to change the whole top paragraph, i just want the words like *natural disaster* and *separatism* to be moved to the section that can explain about them... and yes, of course it biases because people reading Indonesian top paragraph will refer Indonesia to natural disaster in which most nations suffer it, and you are right Feeeshboy, natural disaster and political instability are important feature of an article, but it doesn't need to be shown in the top paragraph, things like natural disaster or separatism can be put in the section that will explain about it like what i have said, so i never have those words (natural disaster and separatism) deleted, but i ask them to be moved below, thank you, i appreciate your kind attention, thanks --Mikael07 (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

You are asking to remove certain elements from the introduction. They would not be moved anywhere, because they already exist in the body of the article, so you are indeed asking to delete them from the intro section. Despite being asked to explain how exactly these facts are "biased," you ignore these requests and continue to assert so without any reasoning to back up your argument. You haven't even stated whether you think these facts are biased in FAVOR of or AGAINST Indonesia. I'm assuming the latter, but I don't see any evidence to support your claim either way, and this article has been peer-reviewed by numerous experienced editors who have not found there to be any such bias. Political instability and natural disasters do NOT need to be explained away or contextualized, as if they are slanderous (which they are not). Anyone who desires more information on these aspects of Indonesia or who even wants to have informed opinion on them can read the body of the article and the many articles that are linked therein. It is not the responsibility of the introduction to contain and encapsulate the general impression that a reader should take from the article with the assumption that he or she will not read the body of the article. It is, as I have said, the function of the introduction to highlight the most salient points of the article. It would be remiss of the introduction to fail to mention such key issues as political instability and natural disasters. Indonesia has gone through CONSIDERABLE political strife since gaining its independence, and it is one of the two or three most tectonically and volcanically active areas in the world. The introduction NEEDS to state these things if it is to convey an accurate picture of the most salient points of the article and of the subject in general.

Now, several editors have tried to explain why the consensus disagrees with you, and we have shown you good faith in doing so (despite your history of being blocked for edit warring and sock puppetry). However, your repeated insistence of bias without the slightest bit of explanation or evidence is treading on that good faith, and causing at least this editor to question whether it is truly your aim to make this article unbiased, considering that your proposed edits WOULD bias this article by sanitizing it and would thus detract from its quality. If you wish to continue this discussion, you may by all means continue to do so, but do not expect that you will change any minds unless you have something new to say, such as a viable explanation of how you believe the article is biased. Feeeshboy (talk) 02:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Feeeshboy, whose provided 2 in-depth and articulate response. Mikael’s been shown a lot of patience, and as Feeeshboy’s suggested, unless he addresses some of the questions (and adequately) the issue should not be dragged on any further. That Mikael has now repeated his own argument a few times shows that the issue is now stale. --Merbabu (talk) 05:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Feeshboy and Merbabu, we should be objective and neutral on writing the article, not easily seduced to entertain our personal sentiments nor personal interest. As far as I can see in Indonesia, despite major economy development in past decade, the poverty is remains widespread. Infrastructure still lack and unadequate to cater this huge population. Just look at those beggars and traffic problems in the city. Separatism and terorism although now reduced in small scale and relatively contained; still alive and exist. Yes, it's a bitter truth. Yet and I'm proud to said that, unlike several wikipedians from other neighboring countries, regular Indonesian wikipedians are among the most honest, neutral, objective and truthful contibutors. We should keep that quality. (Gunkarta (talk) 10:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)).

thanks very much for you all, Merbabu, Gunkarta and Feeeshboy, although i believe that Indonesia doesn't have to be referred with separatism, separatism is now rare in Indonesia. but thanks... --Mikael07 (talk) 08:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Spelling of Sukarno

The caption of the picture of Sukarno/Soekarno should use a spelling which is consistent with the text . Although there could be an explanation in the text, it does not seem necessary on this page.

I suggest Sukarno.

On the Sukarno page, it states:

"Sukarno was born Kusno Sosrodihardjo ... .... "The spelling "Sukarno" is frequently used in English as it is based on the newer official spelling in Indonesia since 1947 but the older spelling Soekarno is still frequently used, mainly because he signed his name in the old spelling."

I know the difference between Sukarno and Suharto, 'cause I lived through the difference. However, it is confusing enough without injecting the spelling issue on this page.-- Komowkwa (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Protection

This article needs to be protected from anonymous edits. Ardiedan1995 (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

what are the significants of your family? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.212.34.94 (talk) 10:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

First Century Trade Voyages of Indonesia

Neither of the recently added sources confirm this claim. The problems with the Lonely Planet source are:

It mentions settlers, not "trade voyages". The implication is that these people slowly migrated over time, rather than in one single, lengthy journey from Indonesia to Africa.
It mentions the Indo-Malaysian people, not Indonesia specifically.

The problems with the second source are:

It does not mention trade voyages either
The Austronesian people are not Indonesia. Indeed, the source says their original source is Taiwan.
The crafts used were coast-hugging outrigger canoes. Putting this source next to a far larger, far more modern lanteen-rigged ship is misleading.

The second source does, I think, have some excellent information that would fit in well elsewhere in the article. But it simply doesn't support the claim being made here. Fell Gleaming^talk 21:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe I was the one to insert this caption. I don't remember the source but I will search for it again. Here's a non-authoritative source which provides similar info: http://www.borobudurshipexpedition.com/expedition-in-brief.htm (Caniago (talk) 07:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC))

Thanks Caniago. I've looked through that site; it does confirm such a ship being built in the 9th Century, but says nothing about First-century trade voyages to Africa. Fell Gleaming^talk 12:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

GDP, GDP per capita (nominal & PPP) and GDP by sector composition

in Economy section, i have recently replaced the numerals in Indonesia's Gross Domestic Product for 2008 in both its current price and Purchasing power parity with the 2009's report served by IMF, and GDP by sector composition as well. I have also included the sources, if editors have better suggestion, improvement or change, welcomes from me are yours. Thank you. Regard. --Mikael07 (talk) 11:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Well done, good job. Regard. (Gunkarta (talk) 11:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)).

I restored the sectors information which was sources from BPS statistics - the new 2009 figure is an estimate with no explanation on how it was derived. I restored the previous superior photo of the Jakarta skyline - no mention was made of this above, or in the edit summary, or why it was required to be changed. I removed all the additional and unnecessary wikilinks per WP:OVERLINK --Merbabu (talk) 12:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

thank you, merbabu, however, data in economy section should be renewed to 2009's numerals in either GDP and GDP per capita or GDP sector compositions, i would thank to merbabu if he fixes the sources taken by me, the 2005 and 2008's numerals are no longer relevant, and as i rarely be here, i really thank for once again if editors are willing to consider that, thank you regard :)--Mikael07 (talk) 04:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

mikael, I did not revert your update of the GDP and GDP per capita from 2008 to 2009 IMF figures. However, it seems you do not understand my point about the GDP by sector changes which I did revert. --Merbabu (talk) 05:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Sulavesia

Sorry, there are no sources about it. This is not neutral. Check up.--Dogfish Jim and the Dixoap (talk) 20:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Your note is not clear. Do you mean Sulawesi? --Merbabu (talk) 11:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Error in etymology?

In the Etymology section it is asserted that 'Indus' is Latin for 'island'. This did not sound right to me: I had never encountered any word other than 'insula' as Latin for 'island'. Checked several online dictionaries including the Lewis and Short, which is one of the "top two" Latin dictionaries; none lists 'island' as a meaning for Latin 'indus'. I do not have immediate access to the Oxford Latin dictionary, which might perhaps list an additional meaning, owing to its coverage of Latin during additional time periods.

The article cites as a reference a book published in 1996 which apparently itself perpetrated this apparent error. Or perhaps someone has mistakenly represented the content of that book, while preparing this article?

I am not likely to get to an Oxford dictionary anytime soon. Anyone who can do so, it would be appreciated if you mentioned here, whether the Oxford lists 'island' as a meaning of 'indus'. If not, I believe the Wikipedia article should be edited, excising the reference to 'indus' as Latin for 'island', notwithstanding the apparently erroneous content of the cited reference. Publius3 (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the section says that "island" is the translation of the Greek "nesos," not the Latin "Indus," which is a proper noun that refers to the Indus River and, more broadly, India/The Indies. Feeeshboy (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that was my book referenced. I will check later tonight. Remind me please if I don't! --Merbabu (talk) 22:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest that the writer, or some other editor, should reword the sentence to include the fact that the Latin term Indus' (whether used adjectivally, or as a proper noun) refers to the Indus river or more broadly India/The Indies --thereby removing any doubt about the intended meaning? It was silence about he meaning of 'Indus', coupled with a plainly stated meaning for 'nesos', that enabled a reading of the sentence that was not intended by the writer. Publius3 (talk) 21:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I made a start on George Windsor Earl, one of the sources gave some background to his conception of the term "Indu-nesian"; on this point it was unequivocal, it was a racially-based lumping with the peoples of India. The section sort of covers this, but leans a little to a geographic interpretation in its original usage. Secondly, Logan is described as a student, what little I discovered on Earl would make this slightly surprising, "Earl himself met or corresponded with leading ethnologists of the day such as Logan and Prichard ..." [8] The refs here are to the primary sources, their papers, do the secondary sources have more on this. cygnis insignis 20:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

First Europeans -- article probably incorrect

This article says "The first Europeans arrived in Indonesia in 1512, when Portuguese traders, led by Francisco Serrão, ..." However, Marco Polo is supposed to have visited Sumatra centuries earlier in 1292, as mentioned in the article Sumatra. It is my understanding that there were probably other European travellers who also visited before 1512.

At http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-6184.html they hedge their bets and say "The Portuguese were the first Europeans to come in significant numbers to the archipelago". Perhaps this article should do the same. 81.151.35.59 (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

PS: I have also just found http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=dmDYLxcPDPoC&pg=PA21 which says "Marco Polo and a few early missionary travellers aside, the first Europeans to visit Indonesia were the Portuguese". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.35.59 (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

An appallingly short article for such a large and populous country

I think the title says it all. Indonesia is the fourth most populous country in the world, the 15th largest economy and yet this article is barely 4700 words in length, about as long as the article for Macau and half the size of the article about the tiny island of Cyprus. I'm not asking anyone to do the job, but considering that articles about sovereign countries are about 10,000 words long on average, shouldn't this article be expanded, and dramatically?--LK (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

this article is a feature article and as such is judged one of wikipedia's best. It was worked by a number of editors. Every sentence was carefully considered and a lot of extraneous was removed. There are many sub articles linked here for further info. The other country articles are often over bloated with touch fluff. Country articles should be concise introductory style - see WP:SUMMARY. One of the most frustrating sections is the history part of The United States - the Indonesia version is much more helpful. Macau and Cyprus are inferior . --Merbabu (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, as a reader who knows next to nothing about Indonesia and is interested in learning more, I find the article severely lacking in detail, no less so if compared to other FAs like Germany or Turkey.--LK (talk) 23:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

"I want more detail" is a rather vague criticism. What exactly are u missing? Scanning thru the longer but inferior (and poorly referenced) Germany article, I don't get a quick overview per WP:SUMMARY. and the environment section for starters is 50% fluff. quality of info is a higher priority for me than quantity for quantities sake. If u want more detail, cluck on a link to a child article. --Merbabu (talk) 00:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Again I must agree with Merbabu, the good article is a concise and clear one, not necesarily a long one. This article provides good wikilinks to many main articles: the more specific subjects concerning Indonesia: Indonesian history, economy, culture, etc. (Gunkarta (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)).

Copyright Ilegal

The photograph of Mount Semeru is not copyright free. The National Geographic Society has all rights reserved.(http://nng.nikkeibp.co.jp/nng/magazine/0801/wallpaper/07.shtml) --IchLiebeChina (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The photo(Mount Semeru) on Indonesia#Geography is not copyright free. It should be deleted.--IchLiebeChina (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Administrative Divisions

"Papua, formerly known as Irian Jaya, now West Papua, was granted special autonomy status in 2001."

This sentence is little bit incorrect. It's improper since Irian Jaya was separated into Irian Jaya and Irian Jaya Barat (West Irian Jaya), and then renamed into Papua and Papua Barat (West Papua).

Timeline:

1963: Indonesian government named the province Irian Jaya.

2001: The province was granted special autonomy status.

2003: Separation of Irian Jaya province, it became Irian Jaya Timur (East Irian Jaya, later only called Irian Jaya since Central Irian Jaya was cancelled), Irian Jaya Tengah (Central Irian Jaya, cancelled), and Irian Jaya Barat (West Irian Jaya, it remains as a separated province until today).

200x: Irian Jaya (the eastern part of the region) was renamed Papua. I don't know when the exact date Irian Jaya (eastern part of the region) was renamed into Papua.

2007: Irian Jaya Barat (the western part of the region) was renamed Papua Barat (West Papua).

So the sentence IMHO should be:

"Papua, formerly known as Irian Jaya, was granted special autonomy status in 2001 and was separated into Papua and West Papua in February 2003."

Can we change the sentence? ?

Yofan Pratama P (talk) 01:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Done Ald™ ▀Ous™ 02:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yogyakarta Special Region or Special Region of Yogyakarta?

What's the fixed link for Yogyakarta province? Is it Yogyakarta Special Region or Special Region of Yogyakarta? It's formerly called Yogyakarta Special Region, but then the page was renamed into Special Region of Yogyakarta. Which one should we use? The fixed-name of the province in Indonesian is Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta, what's the correct name for the province in English? I propose that we should use one correct and permanent name for the province.

Yofan Pratama P (talk) 11:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

it'll redirect the page anyway. or you want it to be changed? Ald™ ▀Ous™ 12:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I know that it'll be redirected automatically, but I think we need a fixed link for each link. I mean, AFAIK if we want to write a scientific paper, we should use a constant name for every single object. Just one constant name for each object. That's why IMHO if we want to use the link Special Region of Yogyakarta, then we should use it in every article and we shouldn't use the link Yogyakarta (Special Region) anymore. That's what I mean as constant CMIIW. Yofan Pratama P (talk) 00:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 86.180.160.89, 13 June 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In "History" section, request to add underlined part below (obviously not with underline!), or any similar wording that says the same thing, as you see fit:

"The first Europeans – apart from Marco Polo and a few early missionaries – arrived in Indonesia in 1512, when Portuguese traders, led by Francisco Serrão, sought to monopolize the sources of nutmeg, cloves, and cubeb pepper in Maluku."

See e.g. http://www.lonelyplanet.com/indonesia/history

86.180.160.89 (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a valid point. It's true that the Portuguese were not the first Europeans to travel to Indonesia. Marco Polo, Niccolò de' Conti, and likely others got there before 1500. Rather than listing all or several of the exceptions, I think this would be clearer put as something like "The first regular contact between Europeans and the peoples of Indonesia began in 1512...." Barring any objections to that wording, I will make the change. Feeeshboy (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I too am reluctant to make statements with multiple exceptions. The fact is the Portuguese were the first Europeans with a significant and ongoing prescence. Those before were only a fleeting prescence. It would be best to re-word similar to Feeeshboy's suggestion and avoid bringing up comparatively trivial factoids. --Merbabu (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Ie, Marco Polo and the first missionaries were not significant to Indonesian history (apart from being the first). --Merbabu (talk) 11:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I have made the change. Feeeshboy (talk) 14:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)