Talk:Riau Islands Flight Information Region

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Riau Islands Flight Information Region article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Indonesia Low‑importance

	Indonesia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IndonesiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate:WikiProject IndonesiaIndonesia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Aviation

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Untitled

This template should be substituted on the article talk page.Reginaowww (talk) 08:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning if there is a Singapore-bias in the article

TL;DR I think this article has Singapore-bias through the use of wordings and unrelated citations stringed together to form narratives/opinions, but I would like to discuss this with others first before making major edits.

Some of the words & terms used in the article, such as "well-honed", "world class", "Singapore... has stuck to factual statements", "Indonesia's inadequate capabilities.." seem to be very biased towards one side while patronising the others.

There are citations used in the article that seem unrelated to the FIR topic, such as in the 1st citation that uses a CNA article for Changi Airport's "World's Best Airport status" (which I believe is about the airport itself, not FIR management). Heavy words such as "inadequate", "ill intent" and "unsubstantiated" was also used. I don't think you'd see wordings like this even in controversial, well-visited articles such as on the Ukraine-Russia War.

Referring to this part in the article:

Further, some Indonesian aviation industry experts have pointed to Indonesia's lack of presence on ICAO and poor aviation safety record as factors for its inability to convince the ICAO authorities that it could manage the FIR safely, efficiently and effectively. In particular, doubts were raised on the safety record of the Indonesia aviation industry, which was ranked the poorest globally in terms of safety. The Indonesian case was not helped by a lackluster safety record that saw an average of 40 air crashes a year since 2001 and which had almost 60 Indonesian airlines banned from operating in the EU.

None of the articles in citations 7 to 11 cited any articles that talks about the FIR issue, or an article from a reputed source that connects both Indonesia's competence at aviation and the FIR status. The citations only point to individual articles stating Indonesia's lacking presence at ICAO and safety of airlines, but never how they connect to the FIR issue. It makes it seem that the editor was stringing articles together that suits their view/opinion, instead of relying on reputed sources that does connect both. Only the 6th citation seems relevant, and that is the minister stating that "they were not ready to handle the FIR", and I believe we should only emphasise that.

I believe Wikipedia is a place to just state things as it is, and not for one's patriotic agenda. However, I'd like to ask if anyone has the same or opposing thoughts to the state of the article, and to discuss whether there is a bias, and if it should be reduced.

Fazley01 (talk) Fazley01 (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]