Talk:Indonesia/Archive 8

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 6

Archive 7

→

Archiving page 6 and 7

Please note that Archive 7 contains extensive downloaded material relevant to the next section. Archive 6 and 7 were created as the size warning was showing in the edit page format. SatuSuro 09:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Re items to be found in Archive 7 - above

John Smith, I know you want to have a honest article with credible sources, and so do I. I read about John Pilger's book and other credible sources about my country, Indonesia, esp. as I'm living not in Indonesia. However, I would like to stress about contents of this article. If we put everything about Indonesia, then we will have a very long article. This Indonesia article follows other country's article, where it summarizes long story about history, because there are other necessary information regarding geography, demography, economy, politics, etc. If you want to include the above information that you wrote, then please find an appropriate place: a specific period of the History of Indonesia or other specific articles about Indonesia. The bottom line is that we would like to mantain a proper length of an article, as a summary about a country. — Indon (reply) — 08:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. BUT I am not trying to stop the information. I would like to see John Smith put some of this info (appropriately) into the other articles. Let's give him a few days, then we can archive this page.--Merbabu 08:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I can only concur, since I've already agreed that the indepth information belongs in the history of Indonesia. But I still felt that it should be mentioned in the shorter summary in the main page to let people know enough about this serious event in Indonesian history to want to know more, and also let them know that people disagree, and that it needs investigating.Merbabu has gone a long way to remedy this request,and I agree with him and feel we've gotten a good compromise between length and information on the issue. Some of the better pages on the subject are now already (recently?)added in the footnotes, quoted from the page at www.globalresearch.ca
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ROO20051105&articleId=1187

and as I've stated for a few days now: from now on I will try to contribute to the History of Indonesia page, to make it as correct as possible in regards to credible and valid sources, range of sources, and fairness towards the subject matter. I'd like to thank you both, and especially Merbabu for understanding, even though I was getting somewhat heated in my form and style,trying to debate this.

Sincerely. John Smith -213.172.204.59 10:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

One thing you could do is to send messages from the one ID - red linked numbers and then other names - can get you into some difficulty. Try to think - you are not the only person who has ever had these thoughts about Indonesia - beware if you think you can make something 'as correct as possible' - and even more so - if you get heated - take time out - it will be worth it - as everything put on wikipedia stays there - for everyone to see! Best of luck! SatuSuro 10:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, but it was an honest mistake, I lost my internet connection and forgot to log in to my wiki account again and just started responding since I was ancious to explain my view and stand on the issue. Also, I am behind a firewall in a network wich gives me and at least five other users the appeareance of having the same IP-adress. I'm no sysadmin in this wireless network but there it is. What is the significance of my IP numbers above having the coulor red?

And again, I have yet to find anyone who can actually _refute_ the claims, the sources, the documentaries or have tried discrediting the BBC documentary, nor the John Pilger one, or Woodwards book on the CIA, or the south-east asian human rights and their sources or investigation, so I'm really at a loss here. help me out.John Smith (nom de guerre) 13:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Viz the point at the very top of this talk page - this is nothing to do with the article - I will copy your comment to your user talk page to try to explain/answer SatuSuro 13:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Conflict between Javanese and Madurese?=

From the article:

"Ethnic and religious differences between these immigrants and the local peoples have been blamed for numerous difficulties, sometimes culminating in bloody conflicts such as those between the Javanese and the Maduranese,[75]"

Aside from the apparent misspelling of "Madurese," a claim is advanced which apparently is not supported by the source cited in the footnote. I searched for the word "Javanese" in the source, and no instances of that word at all were found. Instead, the cited article covers the massacre of the Madurese in Kalimantan extensively. So unless I've missed something in the source material, someone needs to edit the citations and delete the above phrase.

Michael 13:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.15.149 (talk • contribs)

Yes, i noticed that some time ago but didn't act on it. I will have a another look to make sure I am absolutely correct. Merbabu 13:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: I've now removed "conflicts between javanese and madurese". Maybe this did actually happen, but to be reinserted it needs a citation that actually refers to it! Merbabu 13:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Medieval

'Medieval' in the lead section. Since this term applies only to European history (see linked article), what is the proper term to be used here? Hmains 05:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

history and Sukarno

The history section needs some information on the Sukarno years of power and how the PKI came to be so powerful in a Muslim country. Hmains 05:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a fair question but I am not sure that it needs to go here in this article. This is summary article and it is already over-laden with information. It should certainly go into the relevant page on the PKI (Indonesian communist party) or Sukarno's page. The history sectin (and every other section) has had a lot of work to get it "tight". Perhaps that question alone wouldn't "blow the budget" but where do we stop? Merbabu 05:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: I added this. Not a direct answer to your question, but hope it helps. Although, i hope this isn't the start of the slippery slope to a sloppy and wordy history section that we used to have:

Sukarno's presidency relied on a strategy of balancing the often opposing forces of the Military, Islam and Communism. Increasing tensions, however, between the powerful Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI) and the Military culminated in an abortive coup on 30 September 1965, during which six top-ranking generals were murdered in contentious circumstances.

Merbabu 06:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Image Gedung DPR-MPR RI was deleted

There was no prior notification. It is deleted. I'll find an alternative picture for Indonesia article. Pictures of Tambora are likely to be deleted also by a wacko at Commons. :( — Indon (reply) — 14:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

If there is no technical reason or explanation - the editor doing it needs apprehending! SatuSuro 14:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The details of who deleted it is here: [1] (Caniago 15:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC))

that is claimed to be a copyvio - I am not well equipped to test that one out - I will opt out of that one. SatuSuro 15:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I cannot find the reason of copyvio. I did uploaded it and supplied with Public Domain Gov. ID template. The image was a governmental work, but why was it deleted? — Indon (reply) — 22:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

All right, I've commented the image in the Indonesia article. I'm not going to push Undeletion request because the image is not so important, though I still think it was inappropriately deleted. No prior notification, or whatsoever (huh, I hate Commons' admin). I'm going to save valuable pictures for Tambora, instead. Look how he pooled a lot of pictures in the Deletion Request here: [2]. I'm going to try OTRS ticket at Wikipedia. — Indon (reply) — 22:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, not too good. Where did the pic come from? You got it right, Indon? Has anyone made contact with the so-called "Wacko" (he, he)? Merbabu 12:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The DPR image was taken from the official DPR website, which I believe it is a government work, isn't it? I don't know who is the person who requested it to be removed. I guess that it was speedy-deleted, so no debate on it. However, usually when an image is going to be speedy-deleted, a prior notice is sent first to the uploader, but this is not the case with this image. Well, I'll let it go then. It is not such an important and good quality picture anyway. Who's in Indonesia right now who can take Gedung MPR-DPR picture? Maybe I can ask Imoeng; he is in Indonesia right now. — Indon (reply) — 13:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

OK

What point does this article get protected from red link vndls? SatuSuro 01:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You have my support for semi-protection (Caniago 03:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC))

GA passed

As far as I can tell, the article fulfills all GA criterias. Naturally, I can not tell if everything important about Indonia has been covered, but I believe that is more of a case for peer review.

Fred-Chess 13:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

I've made a few changes to try to remove references to the term Malay since it too contentious and ambiguous, as we have seen on the Malay people article. (Caniago 19:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC))

Administration division list

Regarding Michael's change to the presentation of the list, I think it is FINE as long as we know it is factually correct. [3]. I tried to put the islands into some sort of grouping by their general area, and yes, Bali was kinda the odd person out. If Lesser Sunda's is correct I am happy to go with it. But I have never been sure where it actually fits. Ie, geologically, Bali is seperated from Lombok and the rest of that chain by the deep Lombok straits. Thus I wonder is not actually part of the Greater Sunda Group? Something we need to confirm either way. Merbabu 00:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Or we can use something similar with Australia or Turkey with {{Indonesia provinces}}, but the template still has a caveat that the image width is fixed. — Indon (reply) — 00:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

According to Lesser Sunda Islands, Bali is included. Britannica also says the same [4] (Caniago 01:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC))

hmm - OK, well it is good how it is now then. thanks Merbabu 01:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Misinformation

What "immense natural resources" is the article referring to? And does it mean resources of the "Republic of Indonesia" inside Java, or does it mean the OTHER PROVINCES of Indonesia have "immense natural resources"?58.107.15.245 12:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Indonesia

i love the artical —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.170.252.30 (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Disputed

There are a few factual errors remaining in this article, and there are several misleading inferences. Here are some items that would help the article if addressed: 1 Statement: A shared history of colonialism, rebellion against it, a national language, and a Muslim majority population help to define Indonesia as a state. - is untrue, Provinces such as Maluku, West Irian Jaya, Papua, and the recently announced West Papua did not have a rebellion against colonialism until after Indonesia became the colonial administrator in 1950 and 1962; the Papuan population is NOT majority Muslim, and nobody in West New Guinea spoke Bahasa Indonesian before Indonesia became the colonial power by signing the New York Agreement which the United States drafted for them and forced the Netherlands and UN to sign.58.107.15.245 21:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the statement is not 'untrue' - it's highly accurate. But it would seem you've misread it or more likely misread its context. Which does then suggest the paragraph needs work and is related to your next point. Indonesia's boundaries are the former Dutch East Indies against. Maluku was included in the territory recognised by the DUtch in 1949 (not 1950) as Indonesian. Indonesia at approx 85-88% Muslim (depending on your source) is undeniably Muslim. But yes, there are Christian-majority regions, just as there are Christian majority villages, and families. Indonesian is its national language, and yes, maybe only less than 10% spoke it as their first language but it IS an important unifier. Your points on Papua are at least in part correct, but that doesn't mean the section you quoted is incorrect. --Merbabu 00:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: I've adjusted the text to allow for the aspects of disunity within a country that is still largely unified.[5] --Merbabu 01:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

2. Statement: Sectarian tensions, however, have threatened political stability in some regions, leading to violent confrontations. is a most misleading phase, suggesting only Sectarian issues motive the demands for Self-determination from Aceh to West New Guinea; it also strongly suggests the pro-democracy groups are equally violant as the Indonesian military and or police, which would be an outrageous impression given the ongoing gross human rights abuses by the TNI reported by bodies such as the US Dept. of State.,58.107.15.245 21:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine, it now reads "Sectarian tensions [b]and seperatism[/b], however, have threatened political stability in some regions, leading to violent confrontations."--Merbabu 01:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

3. Statement: Sukarno, a popular leader - I have yet to find any documents of the day to support this apparent propaganda published by Legge, the published works of CL Penders (both The Life and Times of Sukarno and first chapter of THE WEST NEW GUINEA DEBACLE) and Bernard Dahm seem more consistant with articles of the day such the the American The Nation magazine whose first ever mention of Sukarno was a 1944 listing as Japan's newest "quisling", unlike Muhammad Hatta whose exploits had been in the magazine since the 1920s.58.107.15.245 21:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

While your last two points have at least some validity (and I have accordingly addressed them in the article), this is, well, silly. Anyone with knowledge of Indonesian history from 1920s onwards knows the incredible pull he had and how he used this to pull many disparate groups together for the independence cause. He's remained popular right through to the present day. His popularity was a major factor in the popularity of his (essentially talentless) daughter's political success in the last 10 years or so. Sure, Sukarno's wasn't universal popularity, but has their ever been a universally popular leader. Any well sourced history text describing the 1920 to 1950s period highlights Sukarno's popularity.Merbabu 01:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

4. Statement: Sukarno was declared the first president - this infers somebody else declared him to be President, my understanding is that he used the same Japanese radio system that he used during the war to recruit the various work brigades and militia units, to declare himself President. I would appreciate seeing any reputable information on this point.58.107.15.245 21:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Sukarno was declared president by the Committe for the Preparation of Indonesian Independence (PPKI) on 18 August 1945 - a days after independence was declared. Sources? I've just done a quick check: see Anderson, Reid, Taylor and Ricklefs as listed here: [6] --Merbabu 01:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

5. Omission: There seems to be no mention of the Ford Foundation excellent work "Building an elite for Indonesia" between 1945 and 1949, the Foundation 1949 functions at which offers were made that a unity Indonesian State would offer US corporations "easy" access to the wealth of Asia; not even mention of the Foundation's 1957 advice to the CIA to fund the Indonesian Generals against Sukarno. In light of the US$billions 'lent' to the Indonesian military by 1965, and subsequent provision of sweatshop workforce and mine license for West New Guinea two years before the 'Act of Free Choice'. Omission of US corporate interests seems significant.58.107.15.245 21:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. This is a summary article the history section of which must encapsulate 5,000 years of extremely complicated history in only several hundred words if it is to match equivalent section in Feature Articles on countries. This was a major consideration of all editors involved in the collaborative efforts late last year to get the history section into shape. You should consult the history tab and archived talk sections to understand a high-level of consensus on this. Furthermore, there is always going to be CIA conspiracy theories on almost any subject. As for US corporate interests, i don't think it is that relevant to this article given the space limitations and the fact that Indonesian independence would have happened with or without it. On the other hand, you might consider putting them into other more specific articles on the subject if they are well sourced, true and actually relevant. Try History of Indonesia (where i would agree that the US involvement in the 1957 uprisings is certainly worth a mention) and Indonesian National Revolution. The Friend reference in that list of resources mentioned in point 4. also discusses US coroporate interests, again though, it is relatively inconsequential in this article.--Merbabu 02:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

6. Statement: Although relations among different religious and ethnic groups are largely harmonious - are you not aware of reports such as the Yale Law School's Indonesian Human Rights Abuses in West Papua: Application of the Law of Genocide to the History of Indonesian Control, or the ongoing US Dept. of State human rights reports about Indonesia? 58.107.15.245 21:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the key word is "largely". And, here is the rest of that sentence: Although relations among different religious and ethnic groups are largely harmonious, acute sectarian discontent, even violence, remains a problem in some areas. It's not an article about Papua, rather an about a country of 200m or more of which Papua doesn't even have 5million people. Not withstanding that, the article does make cited comment on the Papua problems. The sections of the linked US State Dept information that you suggest contradict the article are both repetive and vague.--Merbabu 02:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

7. Statement: Indonesian political and governmental structures have undergone major reforms - is someone suggesting the TNI Generals are no longer the backbone of Indonesia's political and governmental structures?58.107.15.245 21:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The quote says poltical and government structures have undergone major reforms. If you diuspute this, then your understanding of Indonesia is fundamentally flawed. --Merbabu 02:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

8. Omission: The article has an entire paragraph on the TNI, yet fails to mention that it raises an estimated 70% of its income through its own private businesses? (e.g. cement factories in Aceh, wood mills in Kalimantan, Sulawesi, and Papua, Banks, construction companies; allegedly prostitution, drugs, arms sales)

You can adjust it if it is (a)true, (b) well referenced by neutral and reliable sources, (c) relevant and (d) fits into the summary style of the rest of the article - ie, short. --Merbabu 02:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

9. Statement: In Papua, there has been a significant, albeit imperfect, implementation of regional autonomy laws, and a reported decline in the levels of violence and human rights abuses. - Every US report I have read states without reservations that there has been a increase in violence and human rights abuses - possibly the extra 15,000 troops SBY decided to send to the Province and the Laskar Jihad and Barisan Merah Putih and other jihad terrorist groups beheading people and burning towns and Churches to the ground might have something to do with that increase. Also Indonesia has kept violating the "Special Autonomy" laws it wrote by acts including dividing the Province into smaller Sections in violation of Indonesian law, flying Papuan prisoners from the Papuan courts to Jakarta's, and a long list we could fill pages with of other violations of the Special Autonomy Law. Which is part of the reason tens of thousands of Papuans rallied in Jayapura in August 2005 to formerly "return" the Special Autonomy under which they were suffering even more than under Suharto.58.107.15.245 21:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

yes, remembering summary style (and the need to put details in more specific articles) the articles does say imperfect implementation. The quote to lessening tensions is well referenced. Laskar Jihad has been disbanded.

10. Statement: the Government has achieved substantial, but so far incomplete, success in apprehending and prosecuting the perpetrators and fracturing their organizations. - not true, the smiling Bali bomber was arrested long ago, sentence to death for international PR, but domestically he was a celebrity talking with and signing children's autograph books at the police station, expected to receive a paradon from his death sentence. I don't see any signs of the FPI or Laskar Jihad or other groups being shut down.

11. Paragraph: In the freer political environment ... the role of religion, particularly Islam, in society and politics is hotly debated. - but fails to mention it is Jakarta's FPI and similar groups imposing their idea of Sharia law on the other Provinces like Aceh which had rejected Sharia law before the tsunami but which then had to accept as a condition for a promise to remove half the TNI forces out of Aceh.58.107.15.245 21:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Again - summary style, and relevance to an article with limited space about a country. also, try references.--Merbabu 02:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I have not commented on various questionable comments about the 'Dutch' because these are not significantly germane to the article to justify the effort to address such minor issues.58.107.15.245 21:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If it's not relevant, then why allude to it? --Merbabu 02:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

response

A general response while I reply to your more specific comments: This is a general summary-style encyclopedia article on a country of 200million people - it has no specific focus and much collect together 100s (even 1000s) of different ideas. THus, it is going to be a little different in focus to, say, an Amnesty international page. IN some cases - ie, the first one - you seem to have missed the point, but this does highlight the need to improve to avoid that misinterpretation. Another thing to remember is that this is a page to mention the most important of issues only. It is not the place to go into these issues in great depth. Here is a good example from another page of how it shouldn't be [7] Merbabu 00:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Please be aware I was placing { { dubious } } marks, which better describes many of the problems; but Wikipedia policy seems to be that 5+ dubious should qualify as a Accuracy dispute instead.

Thank you for looking at these issues, I will sit through your edits in the next day or two to give you further feedback. However, I recall the article did clearly claim the Republic to be a union of Provinces which shared common history etc.; which was not correct. Also, neither were Maluku nor dozens of other Provinces in Sulawesi, Aceh, Kalimantan, included in the Republic of Indonesia in 1949. Please be percise otherwise you propagate misinformation. They were included in the USI government which pre-dates the Republic's date of acquisition of these provinces.

Please remember you have not yet addressed the fundamental fact that the Provinces of Java are largely very resource poor, over-populated, and the seat of the centralised government and military and police forces. I mention this because it is the fundamental driving force of history and government and business and corruption issues in the Republic.

As I say, I'll give you feedback on the wording once someone has addressed these fundamentals. Thanks again.58.107.15.245 10:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The independent (from Netherlands) federal state United States of Indonesia was agreed to between the Dutch and Indonesia in Dec 1949 with jakarta as capital. It did include Maluku, Sulawesi, Aceh, Kalimantan. Over the next six months these 'states' came under the Republic for a variety of reasons. See: [8]. The article says nothing that contradicts this - ie, the mention of 1949 is independence which included all provinces except Papua. (furthermore, there were not 'dozens' of provinces in Sulawesi, Aceh and Kalimantan - and they were states during the brief RUSI) Merbabu 10:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting political spin, an example of how wiggling enough can achieve a complete denial of fundamental facts the Republic is built on.

New York Times - Aril 8th 1950

"UNIFYING" INDONESIA

The two major military revolts and a number of minor disturbances in Indonesia since the first of the year should not be ascribed solely to the difficulties of a young and relativelt weak Government in keeping order. The weakness of the Government has been a factor, no doubt, but, paradoxically, it is the strength of some elements that has invited trouble. There is a very real political basis for some of the things that are happening.

The agreement that set up an independent United States of Indonesia was based on the concept of a federation of sixteen component parts. The Dutch had insisted that some such government structure was neccessary because of the widely diverse elements in the archipelago and the fact that many areas and population groups were not willing to come under the rule of the Republic centered in Java. The Republic had insisted on a unitary Government, under its control, but eventually agreed to the federal idea. The Republic was to be the largest single component in the federation.

Since the transfer of sovereignty, however, the Republic has systematically and progressively dynamited the federation idea. By a series of "decrees" the "federal" Government has attached state after state to the Republic until the original sixteen components have already been reduced to seven, with the prospect that they will shortly be only four. It is against the strongest of these four, East Indonesia, that the latest drive is being made. Naturally, there is resistance and the result is disorder.

It is quite possible that in the long run a unitary, centralized Government will be the best thing for Indonesia. It is by no means established that this is the case at present. Moreover, it was fully agreed that the federal idea should be tried out as a means of getting representative government by consent throughout the archipelago. The Republic, however, after having given nominal consent to this experiment, has gone forward with precisely the program of centralization that it agreed to lay aside. ...

New York Times - Aril 27th 1950

Amboinese Secede From Indonesia In New Federation's Forth Revolt

By The Associated Press - JAKARTA, Indonesia, April 26

- Amboinese authorities declared the South Moluccas independent today. A radio message to Macassar told of this, the fourth revolt in four months within the United States of Indonesia.

People at the time seem to have the impression that the States didn't want to be part of the Republic. I understand that many schools and universities wishing to project Sukarno and the military in a better light have tried to 'forget' the actual history; but which course is Wikipedia to take?58.107.15.245 12:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I actually don't know what point in the article you are actually trying to reject as inaccurate. There is nothing in the 1949/50 description in this article that is not in-line with mainstream respected and peer-reviewed historical accounts. I've addressed the 49/50 RI/RUSI points as I see them. If you have a further point, please be concise, to the point, and stop pushing some agenda. And get a username if you want people to take you seriously. And, as for the NY Times article - so what? What is new in that and how does this WP article contradict it? But, once again, this page can't mention everything. Once again, try Indonesian National Revolution or History of Indonesia if you want to go to that detail. Merbabu 12:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You said: :::That's an interesting political spin, an example of how wiggling enough can achieve a complete denial of fundamental facts the Republic is built on. What denial? How is the following deny fundamental facts: The independent (from Netherlands) federal state United States of Indonesia was agreed to between the Dutch and Indonesia in Dec 1949 with jakarta as capital. It did include Maluku, Sulawesi, Aceh, Kalimantan. Over the next six months these 'states' came under the Republic for a variety of reasons. See: [9]. The article says nothing that contradicts this - ie, the mention of 1949 is independence which included all provinces except Papua. (furthermore, there were not 'dozens' of provinces in Sulawesi, Aceh and Kalimantan - and they were states during the brief RUSI) Merbabu 12:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you trying to be cute?

Fact, Sukarno and his military including General Suharto (retired) were and are tyrants, General Yudhoyono is also a tyrant although his hold to power is not yet as unconditional as the first two Presidents he has a fine track record of blood from East Timor to Aceh and now West New Guinea. The State of the USI were not willing members of the RI, the Dayak, Batak, Alifuru, Papuans and other populations are not consenting members of the RI. The TNI is both the military and primary organised crime body of the RI, as Megawati said in her address as President to the TNI their primary duty is to enforce the unity of the State against any people wanting Self-determination (such as Aceh who paid a heavy price before the tsunami), and the TNI is estimated to be around 70% self-funding from various private business operations many of which involve resource exploitation (like cement factories in Aceh) of the Provinces outside of Java.

I do not suggest for one second that this should be in the opening paragraph of any article, nor that listing every fault of any nation is the task of an encyclopedia; but, nor should an encyclopedia gross over such fundamental issues of its articles. In my view an encyclopedia should give people both basic information and give them a good understanding of what kind of information they should seek if they want to know more.58.107.15.245 13:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

My last comment was a specific one about your remarks about the 1949/50 period and the RUSI and RI which rubbished established and universally agreed facts of that period by respected historians. Yet, you reply with wide-ranging comments about a whole host of other issues including three indonesian presidents and funding for TNI. I'm not interested in holding a discussion that way.Merbabu 13:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment about dispute above

I didn't follow the discussion but remember: Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. — Indon (reply) — 12:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Flag

The flag looks like it's just a red rectangle unless you highlight it. --82.36.177.31 20:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Bold text

Language section about Chinese language

I have removed that specific assertion due to a very large size of this article and the assertion is too specific. The assertion has been added to Chinese Indonesian#Language. — Indon (reply) — 12:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Unencylopediac and ignorant of historical reality did not really help that section either Satu Suro 12:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I was going to delete it lol, but maybe I'm a bit too kind :P. Imo eng 23:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I tried to delete it but got 'edit conflict'. Merbabu 00:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I tried to delete but being WP:AGF, I moved it. :-) — Indon (reply) — 08:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Historically innacurate - see Anti-Chinese legislation in Indonesia - the transferred material mentioned above assumes no historical context or legal strictures upon the usage of chinese cultural material during the new order Satu Suro 08:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)