User talk:C6h12o2

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, C6h12o2, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Satu Suro 12:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tourism in Indonesia

Please note adding information in the lead paragraph like that is not in accordance with WP:MOS and is also relevant to WP:NOT

Also you need to get a handle on the fact that wikipedia does not give advice - and reference to other wikis in the body of text is innapropriate - cheers Satu Suro 12:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}}

Thank you for the welcoming note. Perhaps you can give me your opinion on how to solve this issue of style. The title of the article is "Tourism in Indonesia". Some people may be looking for the more academic issues such as the effects of terrorism on tourism, or the annual rate of growth of tourism, etc. These rightly belong in Wikipedia. However, a vast majority are going to be looking for more specific details about places to go, things to do, and the other logistical issues of tourism. I am guessing you do not want this kind of information cluttering Wikipedia; yet it seems unfair to the reader to bury this important link at the bottom of the page or down in some footnote.

Logically, there should be something equivalent to a sidebar in a magazine article where the reader's eye quickly recognizes the information he/she is looking for is located elsewhere. Any suggestions?

C6h12o2 (talk) 05:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You raise some good points. Now, as Wikipedia is open to editing articles by anyone, you are free to change or alter text as you see fit in following our policies and guidelines. If you are not sure how to proceed with editing a particular article to what you'd like, you should visit the article's talk page (in this case, Talk:Tourism in Indonesia) and posting at the bottom of the page. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and surely more than on person (or at least one) will assist you with your edits that may have familiarity with the topic. Happy editing to you. Keegan (talk) 06:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth noting that Wikitravel on Indonesia is already linked on the Tourism_in_Indonesia page, in the External links section, a section that most articles have tthat points to other, relevant pages on the Internet.—C45207 | Talk 06:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on the Lombok article

I am sorry but I have undone your recent edits on the Lombok article. It is wonderful to see someone taking an interest in the article and trying to develop it and I felt rather upset at having to undo your recent work. I hope my notes below may assist you in understanding why I have done this. You may note I also undid two other recent edits by an anonymous editor as they appeared to be somewhat touting land development opportunities rather than addressing land development issues in Lombok from an objective viewpoint. These edits also introduced a couple of real estate promotion sites, strangely these were also dead links. They also added information about agriculture that was already covered in the article. In regard to your edits. To try and be clear about the reasons I undid your edits I have bullet pointed in the hope it may assist with clarity.

In regard to your twice editing BRIT En to US En. For WP guidelines on the use of english language please see [Wikipedia:Manual of Style] 15.11 National varieties of English
In regard to the 'content' of your edits. Content needs to relate to the actual article.

For example your comments on agamaization in Indonesia:

You removed text that was referenced by an academic article describing issues particular to Lombok and replaced it with un-referenced subjective material relating to Suharto's more generalised reasons for promoting agamaization. We are dealing with Lombok here, not the Rebublic of Indonesia nor the broader principals or motivations of Pancasila

Although I personally agree with your statement about Suharto using agamaization as a tool to repress communism this was not really the main issue going on in Lombok with the Boda people or the followers of Waktu Telu. It may have been more about repressing animistic and tribal practices that offered challenge to the main tenets of Pancasila. There were PKI members in north Lombok. However agamaization was engaging what was considered to be a body of quite primitive peoples who were acting 'off the map' of Pancasila. Also agamaization was not just about repressing communism, there were other motivations at play across Indonesia at the time both in regard to agamaization and to the the repression of PKI.

The emphasis of agamaization in especially the more remote areas of north Lombok seems to have been a litttle different to that in many other parts of the RI.

from SVEN CEDERROTH, From Ancestor Worship to Monotheism, Politics of Religion in Lombok, Temenos 32 (1996), 7-36.

"With the rise to power of the New Order regime after the 1965 coup d'état and the following massacres

of communist sympathizers, a new element was added that further strengthened the associations

mentioned above. The communists were identified as atheists, thus people without agama. Through a

kind of guilt by association logic, those holding on to indigenous religions thereby also came to be

regarded with suspicion, and were collectively seen as potentially subversive elements, rejecting the

nation. Such associations were furthermore strengthened by the fact that during the first half of the

1960s the communists had consciously acted as defenders of local customs, thereby attracting many

tradition-bound people. When I spoke with the ex-communists in Bayan, it became clear that they had

seen the Communist Party mainly as defenders of the wetu telu traditions, and that this had been their

main reason for joining the party."

There are more possibly appropriate articles to describe the wider use of agamaization as a political and social modification tool in suppressing communism. Those articles cover the principals of [Pancasila (politics)] and the history of Indonesia. You would then link to that from the Lombok article. In any case due to the 'encyclopaedic' principles of WP a statement such as this needs to be given a citation reference. I would suggest one from a knowledgeable or academic source would be required for such an comment. A published article, academic paper or similar would be appropriate otherwise your text will be considered to be conjecture. There are plenty of good sources that describe the antics of the Suharto regime in detail including good analysis of the possible motivations and background players. I am not saying that repression of the PKI should not be mentioned, just that it could be done in a better way in the context of this article. Indeed I think the Lombok article should have some mention of this in a history or political section.

You added content pertaining to the tradition of Murisan (first cutting of a babies hair) from your edit "Babies cannot be taken outside the house until a ritualistic first hair cutting ceremony (luris) is conducted to protect against spirits....". What part of Lombok is this occurring, I have never heard of this hair cutting being done before the baby can leave the house. Sasak babies are not restricted to the house until they have their first hair cut. There is a generalised practice of keeping babies close to home when they are very young and this clearly has roots in primitive superstition and traditions motivating desires to protect their children from misfortune of any kind. The first haircut is ritualised and its timing generally depends on more on convenience and access to sufficient funds to perform the traditional party.

Unfortunately some of your other edits were a bit clumsy and I suggest that you might look over the histories of those edits so you can see this for yourself. If you delete, modify or alter the work of other editors it is important to ensure the result is grammatically correct and still makes sense. I have made some quite embarrassing slips myself when editing even my own work both here and on other Wiki's so I can speak with some awareness of this. You might like to review the histories, extract your text and review it off line. Might I suggest that maybe you edit the article on your own discussion page or in one of the sandboxes available on WP so you can come back to the edits after an hour or so and read them again before uploading. Once you are satisfied you have it right it may be a good idea to upload it to the articles discussion page first to ensure that problems do not arise in the article. Please do not get the idea that I am trying to put you off, indeed the opposite is the case, just move slowly at first and try and ensure that you are do not deleting content without giving good consideration to why you are doing that. If you simply think there is too much content on a particular aspect then work on clarifying it or break it down into sub-sections, then add in the content you wish to put into the article. Please ensure though that you can reference it to published work of a credible nature. If you actually disagree with it then do not just delete it, especially if it is referenced to an appropriate source. It is better to raise you conflct on the discussion page. An article can present conflicting opinions, it is just a matter of writing them up as such and ensuring that those opinions are appropriate to an encyclopaedic article. It is just the nature of WP, it does not accept your opinion in an article, you must be as objective as possible. The idea is that the article grows and becomes more informative and credible.
You have edited out a lot of the text that describes both followers of Waktu Telu and the Boda people, sometimes referred to as Bodha and often by the Sasak people as Buda. The Buda emphasis apparently arose from the habit of arbitrarily assigning Boda people to the Buddhist religion so as to assign the people involved an 'officially' recognised religion.
I think your assertion that both Waktu Telu and Boda people no longer exist needs some re-examination as you may find some Sasak people that do not entirely agree with you on that.

Perhaps you might like to elaborate on the content you wish to add to the article on the articles discussion page first. I am happy to try and assist.Felix505 (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citations and References

Over the years I have discovered that many articles published on the Internet, or in newspapers have been written by "journalists" who need to find a story to fill a quota or meet a deadline. Just because they appear in print and a reference can be cited does not make them either reliable or accurate. The personal knowledge of an expat living in a particular area with particular expertise quite often may be more accurate than a referenced article.

If that is a consensus, then I believe there should be a way of referencing "personal knowledge". The strongest way to use such a technique would be to have a biographic information page located somewhere that lends credence to an author's statement on Wikipedia as a credible, but unpublished source. To exclude this information, in deference to giving credibility to a published, non-peer reviewed, blog or newspaper article seems illogical.

If anyone knows if such a system exists, and the format for referencing such "personal knowledge" has been standardized, please give me the information. C6h12o2 (talk) 15:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]