User talk:HaEr48/Archives/2017/February

Islamic criminal law in Aceh

Thank you, Corinne, as always! HaEr48 (talk) 05:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Trunajaya rebellion

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Trunajaya rebellion you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Simon Burchell -- Simon Burchell (talk) 12:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Trunajaya rebellion

The article Trunajaya rebellion you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Trunajaya rebellion for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Simon Burchell -- Simon Burchell (talk) 16:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Trunajaya rebellion

The article Trunajaya rebellion you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Trunajaya rebellion for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Simon Burchell -- Simon Burchell (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations, HaHer48! At your request, I copy-edited the section Trunajaya rebellion#Forces involved. (Perhaps you have noticed by now that I remove what I consider to be unnecessary words, making the prose more concise.) I want to ask you about something in that paragraph. The paragraph begins:

• Lacking a standing army at the time, the bulk of Mataram's forces consisted of feudal levies. The king's vassals provided the men, consisting of corvée-liable peasants (Javanese: wong kerigan), arms, and supplies.

I know "levies" is a real word, and this use is one of its definitions, but this definition is so uncommon that I wonder if you should use it. Also, the word "feudal" may raise questions in the the reader's mind: Is this related to the European feudal structure or a separate Asian (?) feudal structure? Is this article about feudal times in Indonesia? (What are the feudal times in Indonesia, anyway?) Is that the same as feudal times in Europe, or China? If you really want to use this phrase, "feudal levies", I would follow it with a brief definition or explanatory phrase.

That brings me to the second thing. In the third sentence, you write:

• The king's vassals provided the men, consisting of corvée-liable peasants (Javanese: wong kerigan), arms, and supplies.

Here, you seem to define or describe the men who became soldiers in the Mataram army (such as it was). My question is, why define the men in a sentence that follows the first mention of the men ("the bulk of Mataram's forces consisted of feudal levies")? This could cause confusion in your readers. Are these men the same as, or different from, the men mentioned in the previous sentence? Why not define/describe the men at the first mention of them? I recommend a clearer definition/description than you now have. It seems to me that both "feudal levies" and "corvée-liable" are both academic terms with which many of our readers will not be familiar. Also, it's not clear whether they mean the same thing or mean two different things.

Finally, I wonder if you could come up with a better phrase for the section heading. "Forces involved" sounds like an incomplete sentence. I found this page, which might make it easy for you to look at similar articles to see what section headings are used: List of revolutions and rebellions.  – Corinne (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, Corinne! I took the words "feudal", "levies" and "corvée-liable" from the cited sources, but you're right they aren't common words or might connotate something else, like European feudalism. What I'm trying to say by these sentences are the fact that (1) Mataram did not have a standing army, (2) The king's vassals provided the majority men, the weapons and the supplies of the army (3) The king's vassals raised most of the men by conscripting/forcing (hence corvée) their peasants - they aren't, for example, full-time warriors. I tried rewording these two sentences again (see my edit). Do you think it's better? Please edit further if they're still not clear. HaEr48 (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Much better! I wouldn't change a thing. In a later sentence I changed "since" to "by", which I think makes more sense.  – Corinne (talk) 15:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Excellent

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trunajaya_rebellion#Background - just one thing - I have been trying to make dates specific to java/indonesia/southeast asia, rather than 'asia' - hope you agree - asia is far too wide, and generic, whereas, java or indonesia is a better 'fit. There are some other issues (very small) about some bits of content - hopefully for the better - here or on the talk - which would you prefer ? - I am somewhat concerned about the over-reliance on ricklefs and pigeaud, do you have access to any other sources at all? JarrahTree 13:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: Sure. The article's talk page is in my watchlist, so either my talk or the article talk page will have my attention. About Ricklefs and Pigeaud, both authors as well as de Graaf (whose works Pigeaud based on) are respectable authors in Indonesian history, so I feel relying on them is acceptable. I've read other sources but didn't find any jarring contradiction to what is in the article. Do you have something in mind? HaEr48 (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes - Ricklefs has sat upon the dutch source tradition for most of his whole career - respectable and jarring are not historiographical conceits - it is much more whether the interpretation by others offers insight into why and how they come to their understanding of things, that is why, I was curious. So it is a lot less whether 'relying' on sources being acceptable, it is much more understanding the 'place' of the pigeaud de graaf ricklefs tradition of explaining javanese history, and realising that in a strict sense, it is only that, it is a 'tradition' and not necessarily the only possible interpretation of events. One of the weirdest things in article reviewing here on wikipedia is seeing people who clearly know nothing about Javanese culture or history, editing and reviewing text from a a basis of total ignorance. JarrahTree 22:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that more diversity of sources would be ideal. If you have access to other sources on the topic, you're of course welcome to improve the article. HaEr48 (talk) 06:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

unfortunately I am no longer involved in the institution where I could access them - sorry about that JarrahTree 11:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

imho you were well placed and did well to fend off the usually easily placed misnomer of 'feudalism' - onto the article - it is typically problematic when totally irrelevent constructs get thrown onto Javanese history JarrahTree 08:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Proof of the Truthful

Hello! Your submission of Proof of the Truthful at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Mhhossein ^talk 05:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Llanrumney Hall DYK nomination

Hi,

Please given me a day or so. I will try to expand the article with another hook. SethWhales ^talk 08:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure, Seth Whales. Cheers! HaEr48 (talk) 08:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I have added ALT2....but I still like the first hook...SethWhales ^talk 19:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. SethWhales ^talk 14:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Islamic criminal law in Aceh

On 22 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Islamic criminal law in Aceh, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that last year, the Indonesian province of Aceh processed 324 court cases and carried out at least 100 caning sentences under its Islamic criminal code? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Islamic criminal law in Aceh. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Islamic criminal law in Aceh), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 00:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Jilbab di Indonesia

HaEr, Anda aktif disini ya ? Oke, kalo gitu saya kasih pesannya disini ya. Tolong sempurnain artikel ini donk, pasalnya kebanyakan isinya juga copyvio dari situs lainnya, nggak enak juga sih kalo cuman copyvio doank (meskipun juga nggak dilarang) --Erik Fastman (talk) 03:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Regional regulation (Indonesia)

On 25 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Regional regulation (Indonesia), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that regional regulations passed by Indonesian regencies and cities occupy the lowest position in the country's hierarchy of laws? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Regional regulation (Indonesia). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Regional regulation (Indonesia)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 12:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Proof of the Truthful

On 28 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Proof of the Truthful, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Avicenna made an argument to prove the existence of God which became known as the "Proof of the Truthful"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Proof of the Truthful. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Proof of the Truthful), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)