Talk:Indonesia/Archive 10

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 8

Murdering thousands Chinese-indonesian

Why the history about Indonesia government killed , raped, tortured thousands Chinese-indonesians is not talked about in Wikipedia page ?! You just call that "anti-Chinese violence". http://www.colorq.org/HumanRights/article.aspx?d=Indonesia&x=Reward —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.71.158 (talk) 04:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the matter of the violence perpetrated against the Chinese, as well as the perception of the Chinese by the indigenous peoples that led to the attacks, should be explored in more detail. There are certainly enough documents about this. I have spoken to Chinese people in Jakarta and Semarang and the difference in their experiences is vast. Jakartan Chinese suffered far more than the Chinese in other cities and, as far as I can determine, the ethnic cleansing that occurred was limited to only a handful of cities.

It was extremely bloody in some areas. One friend of mine living in the Mangga Dua area (Jakarta) described how he and other neighbors blocked their street with vehicles and such, and fought off attackers. His family hid on the top floor of their shophouse. Other people didn't fare as well.

In contrast, Semarang seems to have been spared much of the cleansing that occurred in the nation's capitol.

Locals have the perception that the Chinese are sneaky, underhanded businesspeople who are all too willing to bribe and corrupt so they can do what they want. There are certainly Chinese businesspeople like that here (I've had the misfortune of teaching for some) but I cannot stereotype them in such a gross fashion. In fact, some of the nicest, most generous people I've met are Chinese. There are also Indonesians who can be described in either way, and I've NEVER been asked for a bribe by a Chinese person.

In addition, Chinese are much more savvy when it comes to doing business. Most of the locals seem a tad simplistic/naive/lazy when it comes to doing business, and many locals lack a long-term view or plan, despite the popularity of chess in this country.

As an example of their lack of foresight, I offer this example. An enterprizing Betawian laborer jumped over my fence while I was out teaching and cut the grass in my front yard. I noted it and assumed it was because I was living in a housing complex. Many days later, he arrived and we had a chat. I gave him food and drink and he said he wanted to cut my grass again and asked for Rp. 40,000 (about US$4) to do the front and back (my yards were quite small). I offered him these choices:

Cut my grass ONCE for that price,

OR

Cut my grass every month for Rp. 30,000.

He chose the one-time salary over a regular salary.

ReveurGAM (talk) 08:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

(minor formatting edit)ReveurGAM (talk) 08:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to just point out that we shouldn't generalize for a country as big as Indonesia. First, it can be argued that most of the slaughter happened in Jakarta which doesn't represent the whole country and therefore should be included in the page of Jakarta instead, but then again it can be argued in the other way that the tragedy is so severe that it should get attention in the main page of the country. Second, Betawis (the original inhabitants of Jakarta) don't represent all native Indonesians. Many other native Indonesians consider them very lazy as well, known for not working hard and selling their lands in Jakarta for huge sums of money (which is the reason why most people think they're lazy). So ReveurGAM, spare your one story about the Betawi laborer, because I can also tell you a story of a Chinese guy ripping me off as an example of their deceitfulness (for the sake of countering your example). (Of course, I don't think this way. I think some Chinese are deceitful and some are not just like native Indonesians, both of whom have ripped me off in the past.) And in addition, maybe you should get many other Chinese-Indonesian friends and from other cities too such as Surabaya, Medan, Pekan Baru, Semarang, Pontianak, Makassar, Palembang, Bandung and other cities, since it seems like you base your views about something on one or two stories. To the one who created this page: Are you sure it was the Indonesian government that caused the riot? Or was it some other group who wanted to topple them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.121.28.140 (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:Murdering thousands Chinese-indonesian

Maybe i guess you are right, it is better to shown that article on this page. But until now many people still find to know what matter with Chinese massacre few years ago. With another word, they are still don't know the truth of this case. Although we felt this case, i know it is a part of Indonesian history because i felt it when i was 6 years old (1998).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvin Ho Jiang Lim (talk • contribs) 13:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I have materials on the events of 1998, particularly in Jakarta. I am trying to find the time to work my way through them and add to the relevant articles. Davidelit (talk) 09:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.164.213.63 (talk) 07:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Project Noticeboard

Please check the noticeboard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indonesia for issues about tying in this article with the WikiProject Indonesia material - thank you Satu Suro 04:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

One of the 18 Megadiverse countries

I think it should be mentioned that Indonesia is one of the 18 countries identified as megadiverse by the UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre either in the beginning or in the ecology section. I'm new here:)114.121.28.140 (talk) 20:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to log in before. Now, I'm logged on. The Malaysian page includes this information (about it being one of the Megadiverse countries) in the beginning instead of in the ecology section.Senantiasa (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gamelan ensembles in the United States (2nd nomination). Badagnani (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

fr.wiki

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indon%C3%A9sie Reindra (talk) 01:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Why have posted that link here? Please explain. thanks .--Merbabu (talk) 07:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

For comparation, fr version is good as well, perhaps some of the content can be retranslated to the en version. Mr Merbabu, much featured-articles so long in content, e.g. India, Australia, United States, Japan, PRC; very colorful. Why article about Indonesia just like stagnant, light, somebody to add fastly will be going to unvaluable, it will be returned to older version? How bout standardized featured-articles? Reindra (talk) 13:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

United States, and PRC are not featured articles. Indeed, part of the reason the US is not a featured article is that it is so long. Australia is actually shorter. So there is no such thing as a "standard feature article length". I'm not sure what you me about "add fastly". --Merbabu (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I thank your explanation (and indeed you, Mr Merbabu). See you. Reindra (talk) 12:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought Reindra was referring to dryness in some of the presentation ("stagnation") and resistance to new edits ("returned to older versions"). See my comments on Culture, below. Martindo (talk) 00:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Population

List_of_countries_by_population seems to have a newer population number —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.142.13.26 (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Ecology section

This edit of mine was undone. Since ecology is a branch of science it is not an approp heading for a section that discusses biota (or natural history). Also, the environmental issues in the last paragraph are not very closely related to biota, hence the need for its own section. I would prefer to see a separate Environment section linked to a main article called Environment of Indonesia (currenty a redir) but such an article does not exist yet. Have a read of my discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Environment section needed for more info. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

there is no need to seperate out the two sections. They are closely enough related to stay together. Yes, they are distinct topics but given that this article covers all of the Indonesia topic, they are close enough given the broader context. Ie, language and religion have not been separated but compared to history and geography they are close enough. I can't really see a problem with the ecology heading. The term is used by the "ecology of Indonesia series" which is about the most extensive coverage provided for the biota, flora, fauna, biology, environmental issues, ecology of Indonesia. But any other suggestions are welcome as long as they keep the section together. --Merbabu (talk) 02:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I cannot find any Ecology of Indonesia series. If such a thing exists it would be incorrectly named. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

please try to be a little collaborative. Unexplained reverts and insinuating people are lying ("if such a thing exists") goes against the idea of consensus. Irrespective of the secondary problem of what to call a section, you have not addressed the disagreement with your wish to separate the sections. Rather, you have ignored the lack of consensus and appear to rely on edit warring. --Merbabu (talk) 03:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I was not insinuating that you where lying. I was questioning the existence of a series of ecology articles expecting a category or article titled Ecology of Indonesia. Such an article would be incorrectly named because ecology does not end at a political boundary. I am not ignoring consensus - the use of the word ecology has been discussed thoroughly in other parts of WP. That is why I reverted back to my edit. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Natural_history_of_Indonesia Satu Suro 03:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Natural history is not the same as ecology. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not the slightest interested in which definitions work or not - I am simply WP AGF indicating we happen to have a series of articles linked by that particular label which might link - anyways im off have fun Satu Suro 03:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Since we are writing an encyclopedia and we should try and aim for a high standard the definitions that we use are of the unmost importance. References material must be accurate and succinct - using the correct words helps to achieve this goal. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The Category:Environment of Indonesia needs a parent article. The parent article would be the basis of what was called the Ecology section of the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Alan on this: ecology is the study of how living things interact with their environment; therefore "Ecology" is an inappropriate section title giving the section scope. I have no opinion on whether the section should be split... except to note that difficulty coming up with a good title is sometimes a sign that the scope isn't quite right.

Would the following structure be an acceptable compromise:

==Environment==

===Biota===

===Condition===

This would leave room for other Environment subsections to be added later, such as "Geology", "Topography", "Biogeography", "Resources", "Management"....

Hesperian 03:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

An ==Environment== section would be a summary of a Environment of Indonesia article (when it is written). There is no need for any further subdivision within the level two heading. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Even as a summary of another article, I would expect an environment section to cover geology, climate, vegetation, flora, fauna and environmental condition/issues, at the very least. That is a fairly disparate set of topics to try to jam under a single heading without any subsection structure. Hesperian 04:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree the it is a lot of ground {pun!) to cover but having a section on the environment is better than nothing - which is the case with many country articles. Environment is shoved under Geography in some cases. I am grappling with this problem at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Environment section needed. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there is no need for sub-headings. This was discussed at FAC and the single level heading structure shows a high level of discipline and quality in information covered. Hesperian, when one also considers the Geography section, then we seem the most crucial of your listed topics concerned. If there are specific omissions, please bring them up. Remember, a country article is as broad as they come and cannot possibly cover every important issue - there are bound to be broad omissions that mist be supported in linked child articles. Alan has correcetly identified the environment sub-articles as lacking. i can say the same for the history articles - sub articles is where i think the focus should be.--Merbabu (talk) 04:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. My main concern here is that the "Ecology" section title be recognised as inappropriate. I note that Australia needs fixing too.... Hesperian 04:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's been changed to "biota". I don't have to have "ecology". cheers --Merbabu (talk) 04:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Expansion tag

I cant see that this tag is justified. It appears that it is a request for a general expansion rather than a result of specific ommissions bring identified. This article's length was arrived at following a long collaborative process including a fac process. if this section needs improving that is fine, but that doesn't mean an open invitation for every man and his dog to have a bash and undermine it's quality. Rather than a tag, why not mention here specific ommisions? --Merbabu (talk) 03:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The Environment section is more of an environmental issues section (it actually redirects to Environmental issues in Indonesia the absence of an Environment of Indonesia article). An environment section needs info on environmental law, protected areas, climate change conservation etc. I do share you concerns about article length but there is no hard and fast rule as to what it should be. Omission of important information should not not happen to simply achieve a certain article length. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I tend to believe these things are a little too detailed. Keep in mind, that these pressures to "just say a little more here" apply to all sections in this article which could easily double in size (as it was previously). But, until the information is provided then it is hard to comment on its importance to this article. Hence my concern for an expansion tag which is more an open invitation to anyone to add anything, rather than a targeted insertion of omitted information you may have judiciously identified. --Merbabu (talk) 04:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

PS, perhaps you could suggest the new items to be included. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 04:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Featured article review

It might be time for a Featured article review for this article. It no longer meets criteria 1.(a), (b) and (e). -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I’ve asked if you’d provide specific suggestions for your call for a general expansion – and said that it is hard to comment without seeing what you suggest. I guess this is your concern for criteria (b). As for criteria (e) – it’s hardly an edit war, and "unstable" it is not. And, criteria (a) – could you please elaborate? regards .--Merbabu (talk) 04:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Environment of Indonesia

I have started a skeleton of an article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Environment by country/Environment of Indonesia. Once it reaches, say Start class, it will be moved to article namespace. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

On a quick glance, this looks excellent. My advice would be – while consistency can be nice, it is better to make things suit the subject county at hand.

I was had a book (in English too!!) that summarised the Indonesian environmental legislative structure – but I threw it out in one of my less inspired cleanouts. It had the (very believable) assertion that it was one of the best environmental legislative structures in the world – it was just appallingly enforced - for all the normal third-world reasons. --Merbabu (talk) 05:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Coordinates

6°N-11°S and 95°E-141°E —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.78.115.104 (talk) 10:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Area

After East Timor born to be a nation, land and sea area of Indonesia was not 1.919.440 square km anymore. Reindra (talk) 05:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The case of Schapelle Corby

The international controversy caused by this marijuana case sentence (20 years in prison for an Australian girl) deserves a mention here. That case, from beginning to end, would shed some valuable light on how police and courts really function in Indonesia.Ykral (talk) 23:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This is an article on an entire country - her case is completely irrelevant to this article and minor in the context of a whole country. --Merbabu (talk) 23:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

She was caught smuggling drugs and jailed. Er... what light does that shed? Davidelit (talk) 07:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Culture section

I'm not sure who, when, why improving this section was removed from the To Do list. It is very disjointed, moving from architecture to football, and then different topics entirely. I'd insert paragraph breaks, but that would only reveal how choppy the content really is.

Would it make sense to excerpt representative bits from the Culture of Indonesia page and follow the same sequence of presentation used there? There must be a better way to organize this section. Suggestions? Martindo (talk) 00:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

this has always been the article's weakest section - at least in my opinion. But this is not from lack of trying. But, if one thinks about what is needed, then the result seems logical. There are big space restrictions on this article but the notion of culture is diverse, hence the 1 or 2 sentences about subjects as disparate as architecture and cuisine. As for your suggestion to excerpt representative bits from Culture of Indonesia - that sounds perfectly reasonable, but isn't that what is already presented here? The alternative here is to completely rethink the notion of culture and dream up something completely different, but I'm not sure about that.

Nevertheless, I've had a go at re-jigging the order of the section and shortened the paragraphs (for better or worse). --Merbabu (talk) 10:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Well done, Merbabu, you mountain of resourcefulness! I should have been clearer in my suggestion which was to *parallel* the main article by excerpting parts in the same sequence. But I like the coherence and flow of the result you came up with. Martindo (talk) 10:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

All i did was essentially re-order the sentences without major change otherwise. :-) ` --Merbabu (talk) 13:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

News of the earthquake of 2009

At the time of typing this (October 2009), there has just been an earthquake near Padang, near Sumatra. An early paragraph says that Indonesia has frequent earthquakes, but does not even mention this. This really should go in the article - it is an event of notable proportions, and would make the article more up-to-date. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not necessary. Indonesia does indeed have lots of earthquakes - and a number over history have been many times more serious - and we can't list them all. Wikipedia articles need to take a whole-of-history view and not focus on today's news. That's what newspapers are for, and wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. regards --Merbabu (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

See the USGS web site "historical seismicity" map for any given region of Indonesia. For example: http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq_depot/2009/eq_090930_mebz/neic_mebz_h.html

In the case of Padang, there have been 18 quakes of magnitude 7 since 1900 which is an average of one every 6 years. Martindo (talk) 00:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Consistency, Estimates, Ranges

Elockid recently made the population estimate in the lead consistent with the infobox. This led me to wonder about the reliability of estimates, the process of updating the lead vs updating the infobox (always within days/hours of each other?), and the meaning of estimate. I wonder if it would be better to include a range that embraces 2 or 3 reliable estimates when we give the population in the lead. Thoughts on this? Martindo (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It would seem confusing to reader to have two different population estimates since both the 237 million figure and the 230 million figure (rounded off) were present. They could be asking, which is it then or why two different estimates? The 237 million figure is from an older estimate the CIA World Factbook (previously unsourced) and the 230 million figure is the the United Nations which is more current. The 237 million is before 2009, the 230 million figure is from 2009. The United Nations estimates are far more reliable that the CIA estimates. This is why the United Nations estimates are used as the primary source for the article List of countries by population. If you would like me to provide examples of the unreliability of the CIA population estimates, I'll be glad to. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 23:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Also we don't need to constantly keep updating the lead. New estimates usually come out every year or every six months (except population clocks but there isn't a reliable one working right now to my knowledge). There's really no need for a constant population update then. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 00:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Well said, Elockid. If there is good reason to believe that nearly all reliable estimates agree, then I could go with a single figure. But if there is a variation of millions, as was present and you explain clearly above, why not include a range and name the two sources that provide the extremes? The nature of estimation is that there isn't really a "fact" so much as an educated guess about the current state of some aspect of reality. I think we should convey that variability. Martindo (talk) 00:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The 2009 estimates that I'm well aware off are roughly equal the same with exception of the CIA figures:

United Nations Estimate: 229,965,000
International Monetary Fund : 231.5 million
Statistics Bureau of Indonesia: 231,369,500
CIA World Factbook: 240,271,522

Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 01:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. I can go with "around 230 million" as 2009 comes to an end. Any other opinions on this topic? Martindo (talk) 01:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Dollar a Day

Please avoid echoing shoot-from-the-hip phrases from reports or the media about the fraction/number of "people" who live on X dollars a day. Any such information MUST be qualified by stating whether the figure is PER CAPITA or PER HOUSEHOLD. If per capita, just do the math: a family of 4 would get $8 per day, which is over RP 2 million per month. That is hardly poverty level outside the largest cities -- plenty of families buy motorcycles on that kind of income.

AFAIK, the Indonesian government refers to "equivalent" income as described/defined by World Bank and other international authorities (within their limits of being able to compare basic life in Indonesia to that in other countries in order to globalize the meaning of "dollar a day" figures). We really don't need to add this poorly universalized concept to the Economy section -- the other figures cited are clear enough to make the point.

Alternatively, links could be inserted to global poverty or other WP articles that discuss the details of defining poverty in a clear way across countries and cultures. Martindo (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a key statistic from a world bank report about poverty and a very useful indicator of comparing the income of the majority of the Indonesian population with other counties. The poverty line in Indonesia is US$1.55 a day, and the point being made by the $2 per day statistic is that many people live very close to that margin. These are basic economic indicators not "shoot-from-the-hip" phrases. Thanks. (Caniago (talk) 05:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC))

I agree with Caniago on the importance of this figure, but perhaps the problem here might be that this figure lacks context (which Martindo provides here). --Merbabu (talk) 07:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Correct and thank you, Merbabu. The stat should be kept out until its context is clarified.

The Economy section and that specific paragraph were already in good shape before insertion of $2/day. Note that the report contains LOTS of info -- our task here is to provide enough details to make the point, not to upload the whole report (which may or may not include echoic terminology).

Finally, as noted by Caniago him/herself, the gov poverty line is NOT $2/day. So, the resulting consensus might be better focusing on the gov poverty line, not a "round" figure of $2.00 Martindo (talk) 09:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I certainly didn't say remove it again. :-( --Merbabu (talk) 10:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say you said it. I merely thanked you for explaining the need for context. Note, for example, that the more detailed Economy of Indonesia page only mentions the 17% stat. It looked to me like the 49% stat was a backdoor for reinstating the "poverty is the defining feature of Indonesia" epithet recently cut from the lead.

Note that many economists (e.g., Hans Rosling) now consider Indonesia a "middle income" country. Without context, the recently deleted stat is a mere factoid. Martindo (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The "factoid" should be replaced - perhaps you can suggest very concise context here. --Merbabu (talk) 03:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said in my first paragraph (opening volley?), the most fundamental clarification is to indicate per capita or per household. Additional context would be a phrase or sentence to explain that purchasing power parity varies widely across the country, and link to that WP page. Further context would be a note comparing the $2.00 figure with the results of bumping the poverty line up 30% in other middle income countries, such as China -- otherwise, seems arbitrary.

IMO, this detail belongs on the Economy of Indonesia page. Enough is already said on this page to make the point that poverty is a problem. Martindo (talk) 04:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The poverty report and poverty metrics in general seem to focus on income per person. Your insistence on differentiating per person versus per household income seems to be based upon your own viewpoints and original research. This is a summary article about Indonesia and there isn't a need significantly expand or change what’s already been written about poverty here. It would be great if you could instead focus your energies on creating a new article about poverty in Indonesia which can cover all the intricacies. The only change I think is needed to sentence is to state exactly what Indonesian poverty level is - US$1.55 a day. Then, the statement about "49.0% of the population live on less than US$2 per day" needs no further clarification - it’s obvious that 49% of Indonesia lives below or very close to the poverty line. (Caniago (talk) 06:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC))

Original research doesn't belong in a WP article, but it can (and sometimes should) serve as "common sense" to filter what is more relevant or less relevant to include from sources. The problem here is that "very close" to the poverty line is defined as "only" 30% above it, with no explanation (and possibly no actual knowledge) about the extent to which the local population feels 30% would be a hefty cushion rather than a cause for worry.

I, too, have friends at the WB in Jakarta and some openly admit that many stats are "fuzzy" due to the socalled "gray economy" in which a lot of money circulates off the books. That alone should give all of us pause about quoting derivative stats. There's plenty of space on the Economy of Indonesia page -- I have no objection to quoting analyses in detail there. Martindo (talk) 09:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

What a lot of nonsense. This a statistic which provides a very important perspective on the distribution of Indonesian wealth among the population, no less important than the percentage of population below the poverty line. It comes from a reputable reliable source, there is no disputing that. It has been present on the Indonesia page for over a year, probably over two years, and you are the first and only one to complain about it. If you want to provide more detailed perspective on Indonesian poverty, its time to create a new article. Stop trying to whitewash the negative aspects of Indonesia from this article. (Caniago (talk) 10:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC))

Look, we can call each other's ideas "nonsense" and edit war this thing until we're both exhausted and everyone else is bored or confused. I notice Caniago said: The poverty report and poverty metrics in general seem to focus on income per person. To me, the word "seem" suggests you didn't read the report. Go ahead and download it -- Figure 1 and Figure 2 are right at the beginning (under Overview) and there are a few fairly un-turgid paragraphs of explanation surrounding those diagrams which make the context clear.

In that light, I have added a couple of sentences to explain the context, reverting 49% to "almost half" (after all, even WB admits it's an estimate). The "venerability" of the 49% factoid being on the page for nearly two years is kind of silly because it simply means the stat is out of date!

I included purchasing power parity twice in my revision -- once would be enough but I leave it to the wisdom of my fellow editors to figure out the best place to include the concept. IMO, it is essential (along with the phrase "household income' -- see the WB report!), for no other reason than the fluctuation of the exchange rate.

Further, I would like to see Fig 1 and Fig 2 specifically inserted as distinct references in the sentences (now split as two) that give the poverty stats -- this will serve the WP reader who is motivated to check on the veracity and currency (timeliness) of the info. However, I'm not skilled at separating one citation into two this way, so somebody please help!

One more request: please do NOT re-introduce POV judgments like "very close" (to poverty line) because the cultural and socioeconomic contexts are very complex (barter is a factor, among many other issues that are hard to evaluate quantitatively).

Finally, I am surprised that the absolutely true KEY statistic of 49% has languished for two years without being on the Economy of Indonesia page where it is far more relevant. Martindo (talk) 01:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Haha Martindo, I totally agree with you. I dont know why on earth some of guys here really want to display less than 2$ a day. I doubt the statistic and even if it is true, should we write also more than half of Indonesian earn more than 2$ a day, which equally right according to 'the holly stat' anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.87.125.231 (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I added the extra about India then

IN the history of Indonesia it suggests that the Java man came from India then. So I thought I would add that here then then then then then then then 71.105.87.54 (talk) 06:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Updates

I updated the internet penetration figure at the very end of the article (before SEE ALSO). This type of stat changes quickly and should ideally be reviewed quarterly.

I also noticed after our recent discussion about population that an older national total appears under Demographics.

And there are many places where 2006 or 2007 figures are cited, even though it's nearly 2010.

In regard to the recent discussion about Dollar a Day, I *think* the government figure is Rp 500,000 per month (household income) as poverty line -- dollar figures (e.g., $50 per month) seem unlikely, even though purchasing power parity is usually given in USD. IMO we should include the actual government figures with the USD equivalence in parentheses and a note indicating something like "based on exchange rate as of date x" (which could be month rather than exact day). Martindo (talk) 08:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

560 seats in parliament elected 2009

Somebody who has access to the sources and knows when it happened should update the figure of 550 seats in parliament to the current 560 seats, please. To me it is only hearsay, so dare not to edit the figure. 85.228.24.135 (talk) 17:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

DPR and DPD seat totals updated. Arsonal (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Poverty level

I see no reason to remove the paragraph detailing the level of poverty. -Reconsider the static (talk) 09:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I made an argument a while back (Dollar a Day) that the details would be more appropriate on the specialized page Economy of Indonesia (where the details do not exist as of this writing). If there is real consensus (rather than edit war) for retaining the info here, let's at least update it!

I'm going to re-insert the part about underemployment, which is very relevant to Indonesia. Sure, it occurs everywhere, but so does unemployment.

Also, while we're talking about recent changes, I support TLD in the info box. It's more significant than a derived stat like Gini, which fits a specialized page like Economy of Indonesia. Martindo (talk) 02:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Really can't understand why someone would think a piece of trivia about the internet is more important than a key statistic about the economic circumstances of 100s of millions of people. You or anyone else is welcome to update the number with more recent data, if it is available. The data is quite recent anyway so I'm not going to spend my time looking. The sentence about underemployment is irrelevant to this article unless it is backed by some information specifically relevant to Indonesia. Space is too precious on this article to be explaining generic circumstances which apply to every country. (Caniago (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC))

I have to agree about underemployment. It's unreferenced, not quantified and no indication of how this is unique to Indonesia - ie, every country has under and over employment - to different extents. There are many people in my own very different country who are working 20 hours when they'd like to do 40, and many (most?) taxi drivers here are doctors or engineers - the circumstances, sure, are different to Indonesia's, but it's still underemployment --Merbabu (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Martindo, your suggestion is good, let's put some updated data there at least most recent data of 2008 or 2009 one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.87.125.231 (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Well said Martindo. Clearly some people have double standard here. If it is for the sentences that they like, they will say it should be detail to be displayed. If someone else comes up with sentences that they don't like, they will say it is 'too detail' and remove it hahaha what a non-sense. It is clear that some people here FORCED their will upon this page, no neutrality whatsoever. Therefore, I would say some of these editors lost wiki readers' respect and they lost their credibility as editors around here. This remind me of my stubborn coworkers, they just dont hv any leadership qualities ;)

The "precious space" argument does tend to be specious and sometimes is wielded as a club. However, I agree that underemployment should be referenced, so I will seek something useful in the coming weeks.

Gini is a derived stat. GDP is tallied. Population is tallied. Land area is tallied. Islands are tallied. Area code is a fact. TLD for internet is a fact. What does the average WP user of this page want to see? If a derived stat is already on a specialized page (Economy of Indonesia for example), we should seriously consider trimming the overlap. I don't see why an editorial issue like that should be dismissed as "trivia" with a wave of the hand (or keyboard). Martindo (talk) 00:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Reason for editing

I think there should be a valid reason for editing. Some of you come up with 'condense' or 'too detailed' reason. These are reasons which are highly relative and sounding 'out of the blue'. You can go on throwing up non sense reasons for editing, but you will lose your credibility as editor from wiki readers. I have a far more important job than climbing Merbabu mountain and sit all day editing wiki pages. So I am not going to keep dealing with such people who comes up with 'unquantified reason' here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.87.125.231 (talk) 14:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Your English is indecipherable so I will restate mine comments made on the edit summary (although I sense a distinct incivility and superiority complex). This article has gone through a very long and arduous process to get to where it is - one of the few featured articles on wikipedia. The economy section is arguably too long already. Your's makes it way too long - I've moved your full version to Economy of Indonesia, and I update the article with your info (incidentally, you edit makes the article repetitive and contradictory.) You don't have a consensus for your full change.

Before further discussion, you might also want to familiarise yourself with WP:CIVIL, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:BRD. thanks. --Merbabu (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries, we do things here for fun, why we are too serious with 'quantified reasons' and 'english' or 'credibility' (should i make clear that im being sarcastic). This is the way wiki make money, to get millions of ppl editing online pages, regardless of the credibility, and wiki get all the money. Boy what a hard work u guys had done. Yeah i will complain abt this to wiki (if i hv time) rather than dealing with 'far from credible' wiki editors. Not sure how wiki can verify MBA or any economic degree here. Knowledge on English editorial does not guarantee the quality of the content, there are many junk books out there. Oh and I do experience 'editorial superiority complex' here for sure ;) Hmm I wonder if the superior attitude here can justify us on selecting our company's business partner in the future. Is it that serious? ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.87.125.231 (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If all you have is generic criticism of wikipedia and its editors, rather than anything to say about the specific article at hand, then please cease wasting time. If you don’t take wikipedia seriously, as you are suggesting, then you have no place here. While I agree that editing should be enjoyable, Wikipedia is by no means just a “bit of fun” not to be taken seriously – if that’s all it is to you, then you should leave and do the more important things that you talk about.--Merbabu (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You got your point for being serious abt this. Actually business people do use some favorable editors (and favorable progammers on the net), for free. Not a bad idea to lower the cost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.87.125.231 (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I reverted an edit by Caniago that removed the 2008 World Bank report from the list of references. Inconsistency is not a reason to rollback the update -- instead, we should correct the info. I'm willing to take on this task by reviewing the 2008 WB report this coming weekend. I don't think it is a major distortion of wiki-reality to keep the newer stat of 16.6% on the page for a few days. Bigger inconsistencies (e.g., national population) hung around much longer, as you can see (above) from the recent discussion on that topic. Martindo (talk) 02:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

While we should keep statistical information up to date it should be done consistnet across the whole article. Also this article had been assessed as an FA class article which took considerable effort by many editors to recognised as our best work. Please be considerate to that effort and standard rather than restoring inconsistancies, then leaving them and walking away until you have time to return leave the article when your ready to do the work if nobody else has already done it then revert and work forward, to that end I will revert you edit when some one has the time they alter the whole article to the new information. Gnan garra 03:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Gnangarra – thanks for your interest. You are dead right about the quality of this article and the process it went through. Your post summarises caniago’s and my positions well. But, we should be a little careful to distinguish between the various versions and editors that this has gone through over the last few days.

Martindo, like Caniago, is an astute editor, and he is also correct in saying the article should be updated. I am sure he and Caniago can work out a way to update the article without substantially modifying it or lengthening it. Is it not a matter of updating one year’s figures for the next? The article should not be set in stone.

On the other hand, and as Gnangarra says, the anon editor above who added a whole slab of disjointed but quality well-referenced info missed this point completely, and on this talk page appears to be more interested in broadcasting his ideas on wikipedia and its editors – of which we should not entertain discussion on this page. That version we should NOT revert to, and as you say it is ridiculous for that editor to flop a lousy addition in and promise to fix it later. --Merbabu (talk) 04:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey Guys, Just have a short time to take a look and haha looks like my provocation caused some kind of awakening. Anyways, I am not a wiki addict and i leave this thing for you guys who just looove it ... but think abt we (the not active/non-wiki editor) as ur customers or some other component of wiki who can fairly judge ur editorial (i think wiki hv this kinda user voting whatever not sure) ...i am wiki reader just like anyone who just want to read but not writng it, happen to know business-related data, so i got a lot more economic numbers than you guys have here. I saw that u guys collect free sources, that's ok, a lot of work, appreaciate that. But when the reader (like myself) got a lot more recent data on economics, companies, M&A deals, country performances from commercial databases like DowJones, International Competitiveness,etc....and when I went here and read Indonesian economy's page displaying old data ... i was thinking...what are this editors writing here ... good English, great, but data from 2006 ??? are u kidding me? hello ??? are we living in 2006 now ??? Why should i refer to wiki then, id better search google or get back to the commercial database then. So I leave it up to you ... if u gonna build a good reputation as editors and dont want the non-active editors just screw up up the layout, at least u shoud listen to the feedback of the wiki readers. I dont care abt the English as long as the data is up to date, it is more meaningful, data talks a lot, you can measure one situation right away with data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.87.125.231 (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with updating *existing* data, and thanks for providing. But, what you did was add a large amount of new data that went way beyond the scope of this article. As I said before, this detailed info is much better placed at Economy of Indonesia which is linked from the economy section of this page. From your posts above, it sounds like you could make some great improvements to the Economy of Indonesia article - so why not go ahead? It would be much appreciated. --Merbabu (talk) 01:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

So, ahem. Can someone explain to me why updated but inconsistent economic data MUST not be kept on this page for more than 41 minutes (see time stamps in History), but an old guesstimate from Lonely Planet about population projection not only hangs around for weeks but gets reverted back in as "useful"? Martindo (talk) 07:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The data economic data should be updated. The problem was the size and scope of the changes, and the inconsistency it introduced. --Merbabu (talk) 07:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)