![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
New data is available ( year of 2008 )
GDP (nominal) = USD 511 billion [1]
GDP (PPP) = USD 909 billion [2]
GDP per capita (PPP) : USD 3,979 [3]
GDP per capita (nominal) = USD 2,238 [4]
Export (2008) = USD 136.76 billion [5]
Import (2008) = USD 128.79 billion [6]
Newest Corruption Perception Index Ranking = 111th of 180 countries [7]
Thanks Bkusmono (talk) 03:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Someone put Indonesia will be a developed country, which is absolute rubbish. I changed that false information and said the following: "Indonesia is one of the worlds poorest countries and is one of the largest economies in Southeast Asia". It reflects the fact that Indonesia is still a Third World country and still one of the poorest in world despite it having a relatively large GDP.Pryde 01 (talk) 08:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
On the list of languages the first "Bahasa Indonesia" link directs to some Asian template, not an articale about Indonesia. The one normally positioned in alphabetical order is OK, the first link should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.205.81.66 (talk) 22:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Projections that extend a shorter distance into the future are more reliable and, IMO, have the appeal of immediacy. However, I left both the 2020 and 2050 figures in the text. Why don't we leave them both there for a few days (or at least more than the proverbial 41 minutes) and see if more than 3-5 WP editors comment on which is preferable.
I'm glad there's tentative consensus for omitting growth rate because the ESA (UN) did not project based on constant growth rate. In fact, their 2004 report that projects thru 2300 estimates Indonesia leveling off at under 300M around 2055 (later than China levels off).
I agree that comparisons with Pakistan and Nigeria (both likely to surpass in this century) would be better for Demographics page, but I don't have time this week. Someone else give it a shot? Martindo (talk) 02:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
You are a bunch of morons, when you were presented with good evidence about the diverse origins of the modern Indonesian people from several, you chose to revert to the myopic and erroneous view of one Western scholar at odds with DNA evidence. Then you semiu-protected the page. The article as it stands, is totally inaccurate about the Austronesians displacing the Melanesians. This never happened, they were absorbed by the Melanesians, so almost all modern Indonesians are a mix of both. So get it right and stop being pansies!!!12:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.70.51.101 (talk)
Hi long time no speak here - we have an issue at the main Indonesian article - which suggests that the issue of generalizations in lead paragraphs might or might not have any semblance of truth in either a contemporary or a historical sense.
I would be very interested in any long standing editors comments on this as to whether such comments should or not be in lead paragraphs - and to whether the impossibility of summarising 50 years of regional conflicts and ethnic issues actually negates any mention in the first place? SatuSuro 03:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
First things - this has ramifications throughout project and I personally I have aversions to be locked into discussions at a large 'main' article talk page - as few editors venture into the area unless they are involved in discussions specifically about the way a subject is being treated.
I believe that any assertions - either that a country is x or b or y - regardless of the quality or connotation - needs qualification in the body of the article if the subject has been raised in the lead - the actual issue does not have a single article out there in the Indonesian project - and it was certainly a commonly accepted issue amongst historians of the old order that there was not one day of peace throughout the country - for the whole of the nation for the whole reign of Sukarno - there were separatist or regional conflicts and or law and order issues as a constant. I cannot make any specific claims for contemporary Indonesia - however I do not think the issue was one of sometimes or isolated events in early years of Indonesia as a nation. The problem is in such a general article as this one (and why I wanted to have conversation about this at the project page and not here) the issue of the problems maybe needs a separate article to give either a timeline of separatist movements activity and other issues of conflict - to have effect of either refuting the generalization or showing a good outline of the events that make the assertion a valid one.
Thanks to those who have joined in - at least the conversation so far seems to be going somewhere SatuSuro 07:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think the general structure of the lead is good, fits WP:LEAD very well, and has stood the time (2 years) very well with minimal change. The paragraphs as I see it:
This is a huge topic, and is the lynch pin article (the Queen Bee) for the thousands of articles on Indonesia topics. Apart from the sentence I mention in my post above, I don't see the need for any significant change, but I could convinced otherwise. --Merbabu (talk) 07:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
bahasa indonesia kurang diminati siswa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.162.34.72 (talk) 05:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
DR. MIRA NILAMSARI AMD FROM INDONESIA
Indonesia has the best one from Scientist of health in 2002. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.247.8.150 (talk) 11:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
yang dimaksud dengan purna jual —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.247.33.143 (talk) 03:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Please check Statistics Indonesia (www.bps.go.id) for latest economic statistics. That's the government official site. Poverty rate is down to 14.15% in 2009. Unemployment is down to 7.41% in February 2010, from 9.86% in 2004. Contrary to the The Economist article you quoted, the data show that the annual growth did put a dent to poverty rate and unemployment rate. The GDP per capita in 2009 is Rp 23.4 million. That's USD 2,500 at Rp 9,300 per USD exchange rate. I was surprised to see that there were no mention of continuous political stability and economic growth Indonesians enjoy since 2004. If 6 years of crisis (1998 to 2004) is worth mentioning, I'm sure 6 years of uninterrupted growth and stability is worth mentioning, too. The last paragraph of Economy section gives impression that Indonesia never comes out of the 1998 crisis where in fact, today it has become the global FDI darling. Didudu (talk) 09:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
first i want to say that i am here not to make destruction, i just want to discuss with you all about the *tense* "has since been turbulent" in the top paragraph and *poverty remains widespread* as well
as Indonesia has shown progress in recent years, with the decrease of poverty rate, better transparency than ten years ago (when so many bureaucrats doing corruption have been arrested and investigated)and now separatism is rare, and since separatist movement only occurs in Papua with average thousands people, they cannot represent hundred million of Indonesians who can live peacefully and share their different culture & religions, the last, natural disaster, please don't refer Indonesia to this, all states must suffer natural disaster, whether it is less or much, i don't want people will reconsider to visit Indonesia just for seeing that words, but you can still write it below (geography section)
i hope you understand my wish, top paragraph is very sensitive thing, as an Indonesian, I'm hurt each time when reading it. the writer should respect the improvement Indonesia has recently made. so, i hope you can write it with different words that are more suitable to describe Indonesia in present.
Thank you, Regard, Assalamualaikum --Mikael07 (talk) 10:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
yes, i am Indonesian... i realize i shouldn't do that, since it caused many problems, i wish you dont have any problems with that, i can friend you in real life to give you proof,
do you want to revise the writing in the top paragraph, please, --Mikael07 (talk) 10:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
i promise i leave this site and never come back anymore, i ask you because you are the person who maintain the Indonesian page for years, i am not going to revise it, but you, you dont have to change all the sentences, just the sensitive words like what i have written above, please --Mikael07 (talk) 10:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Merbabu, I don't know what he (Mikael07) did last time, and it's your right to ignore him if he made a mess last time. I just want to second his opinion that too much emphasis is given to poverty, corruption, and natural disaster in Indonesia. India and Bangladesh has more poverty, corruption, and natural disaster than Indonesia, but none in their articles it is given such prominent highlights. Poverty remains widespread in Indonesia? So is in other 120 countries (see articles on Poverty). Do they highlight it in the first paragraph of the country article? I also don't know how you (or the other editor) conveniently quoted some outdated data to support the general tone that Indonesia is chaotic and miserable (the Economy section, for example). Please see my note above this string of message, directing you to the latest statistics about Indonesia (www.bps.gov.id). We are not talking nonsense here. The latest statistics shows that Indonesia has 6 years of uninterrupted growth and stability. You just choose to ignore it. Like I said, I don't know who Mikael07 is, but I fully understand his frustration. Didudu (talk) 03:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Merbabu, DO check. Your apology is accepted in advance. Didudu (talk) 06:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Merbabu, no, i am not Didudu, i wont make the same mistakes again, but if there some people ask the same things, I think the subject really needs to discuss, and people who ask about the same subject doesn't mean they are the same person.. i told you, i can friend you in real life (giving you my facebook account for example) so, you can recognize me and i can guarantee you that i wont make any disputes on this... come on Merbabu, i and Indonesian page really depend on you, --Mikael07 (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
that's why i ask Merbabu to open this discussion, why do this become the judgment for me? i just hope that we can talk about some changes in the top paragraph, i mean we don't have to change the meaning of the paragraph, but we can change some sensitive words, like natural disaster, it's not fair to refer Indonesia to it, and poverty, i think we can change it with income inequality because indeed, that's the issue of contemporary in Indonesia --Mikael07 (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I really understand that, i mean for the word like natural disaster, why isn't it written in the geography section instead of putting it in the top paragraph, i never ask to change the meaning of the paragraph, i just want the words like natural disaster, or separatism are moved to the section that can explain about it, these words (natural disaster & separatism) cannot represent the large nation like Indonesia, and they (natural disaster & separatism) are not characteristic of Indonesia, this may lead to misunderstanding to the readers reading it.
Just that, i dont ask for more, promise ! --Mikael07 (talk) 01:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
If it had been an experienced editor to whom heaps of WP:AGF was due - it would be another matter. In this case there are parts of Mikael's request that may appear reasonable - if in fact the issues were explained adequately, but I have my doubts, and wonder by the same token that all other country articles in wikipedia are in denial in their lead paragraphs as to their problems as well. Lead paragraphs are in fact summaries of the articles that follow - and to ask to remove such assertions in a summary is tantamount to asking for the tone of an article to be changed - I can think of at least 15 articles that are in the Indonesian project that need much more than tone to be cleaned up - this request smells (ie has the nafas) of WP:UNDUE - specially when experienced editors have to cope with this type of issue SatuSuro 02:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
thanks, i do really understand why an/some editor(s) may disagree with me, because may be they think what they have written is factual and what Merbabu said above "don't make comparison between Indonesian article and other countries" is indeed understandable since each editor has his/her own writing-style and the writers and editors who have established and maintained Indonesian page may not be the same persons with those maintaining other countries' articles, but why do i complain?, because i place myself as a reader, a reader don't only read one article in wikipedia, but they must read a lot of articles, and when they find a biased article, they will make a comparison, e.g (when someone read Indian page, he/she will only find the top paragraph show its international relationship, its cultural explanation and economic view but in Indonesian page, the top paragraph shows its turbulence although India has even more turbulence with terrorism, separatism, and natural disaster than Indonesia), thus, It's not always about what we write, but what a reader will read, i am here to struggle the fairness in writing, i believe, the sources even sometimes bias the factual event in one particular time of a state. so, please, i depend on you all, since you all are people who have been maintaining this page for years,--Mikael07 (talk) 01:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
yes, i understand, i never ask anyway to change the whole top paragraph, i just want the words like *natural disaster* and *separatism* to be moved to the section that can explain about them... and yes, of course it biases because people reading Indonesian top paragraph will refer Indonesia to natural disaster in which most nations suffer it, and you are right Feeeshboy, natural disaster and political instability are important feature of an article, but it doesn't need to be shown in the top paragraph, things like natural disaster or separatism can be put in the section that will explain about it like what i have said, so i never have those words (natural disaster and separatism) deleted, but i ask them to be moved below, thank you, i appreciate your kind attention, thanks --Mikael07 (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thanks very much for you all, Merbabu, Gunkarta and Feeeshboy, although i believe that Indonesia doesn't have to be referred with separatism, separatism is now rare in Indonesia. but thanks... --Mikael07 (talk) 08:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The caption of the picture of Sukarno/Soekarno should use a spelling which is consistent with the text . Although there could be an explanation in the text, it does not seem necessary on this page.
I suggest Sukarno.
On the Sukarno page, it states:
"Sukarno was born Kusno Sosrodihardjo ... .... "The spelling "Sukarno" is frequently used in English as it is based on the newer official spelling in Indonesia since 1947 but the older spelling Soekarno is still frequently used, mainly because he signed his name in the old spelling."
I know the difference between Sukarno and Suharto, 'cause I lived through the difference. However, it is confusing enough without injecting the spelling issue on this page.-- Komowkwa (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
This article needs to be protected from anonymous edits. Ardiedan1995 (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
what are the significants of your family? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.212.34.94 (talk) 10:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Neither of the recently added sources confirm this claim. The problems with the Lonely Planet source are:
The problems with the second source are:
The second source does, I think, have some excellent information that would fit in well elsewhere in the article. But it simply doesn't support the claim being made here. Fell Gleamingtalk 21:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
in Economy section, i have recently replaced the numerals in Indonesia's Gross Domestic Product for 2008 in both its current price and Purchasing power parity with the 2009's report served by IMF, and GDP by sector composition as well. I have also included the sources, if editors have better suggestion, improvement or change, welcomes from me are yours. Thank you. Regard. --Mikael07 (talk) 11:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, there are no sources about it. This is not neutral. Check up.--Dogfish Jim and the Dixoap (talk) 20:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
In the Etymology section it is asserted that 'Indus' is Latin for 'island'. This did not sound right to me: I had never encountered any word other than 'insula' as Latin for 'island'. Checked several online dictionaries including the Lewis and Short, which is one of the "top two" Latin dictionaries; none lists 'island' as a meaning for Latin 'indus'. I do not have immediate access to the Oxford Latin dictionary, which might perhaps list an additional meaning, owing to its coverage of Latin during additional time periods.
The article cites as a reference a book published in 1996 which apparently itself perpetrated this apparent error. Or perhaps someone has mistakenly represented the content of that book, while preparing this article?
I am not likely to get to an Oxford dictionary anytime soon. Anyone who can do so, it would be appreciated if you mentioned here, whether the Oxford lists 'island' as a meaning of 'indus'. If not, I believe the Wikipedia article should be edited, excising the reference to 'indus' as Latin for 'island', notwithstanding the apparently erroneous content of the cited reference. Publius3 (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I made a start on George Windsor Earl, one of the sources gave some background to his conception of the term "Indu-nesian"; on this point it was unequivocal, it was a racially-based lumping with the peoples of India. The section sort of covers this, but leans a little to a geographic interpretation in its original usage. Secondly, Logan is described as a student, what little I discovered on Earl would make this slightly surprising, "Earl himself met or corresponded with leading ethnologists of the day such as Logan and Prichard ..." [8] The refs here are to the primary sources, their papers, do the secondary sources have more on this. cygnis insignis 20:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
This article says "The first Europeans arrived in Indonesia in 1512, when Portuguese traders, led by Francisco Serrão, ..." However, Marco Polo is supposed to have visited Sumatra centuries earlier in 1292, as mentioned in the article Sumatra. It is my understanding that there were probably other European travellers who also visited before 1512.
At http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-6184.html they hedge their bets and say "The Portuguese were the first Europeans to come in significant numbers to the archipelago". Perhaps this article should do the same. 81.151.35.59 (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
PS: I have also just found http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=dmDYLxcPDPoC&pg=PA21 which says "Marco Polo and a few early missionary travellers aside, the first Europeans to visit Indonesia were the Portuguese". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.35.59 (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I think the title says it all. Indonesia is the fourth most populous country in the world, the 15th largest economy and yet this article is barely 4700 words in length, about as long as the article for Macau and half the size of the article about the tiny island of Cyprus. I'm not asking anyone to do the job, but considering that articles about sovereign countries are about 10,000 words long on average, shouldn't this article be expanded, and dramatically?--LK (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
"Papua, formerly known as Irian Jaya, now West Papua, was granted special autonomy status in 2001."
This sentence is little bit incorrect. It's improper since Irian Jaya was separated into Irian Jaya and Irian Jaya Barat (West Irian Jaya), and then renamed into Papua and Papua Barat (West Papua).
Timeline:
1963: Indonesian government named the province Irian Jaya.
2001: The province was granted special autonomy status.
2003: Separation of Irian Jaya province, it became Irian Jaya Timur (East Irian Jaya, later only called Irian Jaya since Central Irian Jaya was cancelled), Irian Jaya Tengah (Central Irian Jaya, cancelled), and Irian Jaya Barat (West Irian Jaya, it remains as a separated province until today).
200x: Irian Jaya (the eastern part of the region) was renamed Papua. I don't know when the exact date Irian Jaya (eastern part of the region) was renamed into Papua.
2007: Irian Jaya Barat (the western part of the region) was renamed Papua Barat (West Papua).
So the sentence IMHO should be:
"Papua, formerly known as Irian Jaya, was granted special autonomy status in 2001 and was separated into Papua and West Papua in February 2003."
Can we change the sentence? ?
Yofan Pratama P (talk) 01:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
What's the fixed link for Yogyakarta province? Is it Yogyakarta Special Region or Special Region of Yogyakarta? It's formerly called Yogyakarta Special Region, but then the page was renamed into Special Region of Yogyakarta. Which one should we use? The fixed-name of the province in Indonesian is Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta, what's the correct name for the province in English? I propose that we should use one correct and permanent name for the province.
Yofan Pratama P (talk) 11:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In "History" section, request to add underlined part below (obviously not with underline!), or any similar wording that says the same thing, as you see fit:
See e.g. http://www.lonelyplanet.com/indonesia/history
86.180.160.89 (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)