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.

I have declined GA status for the current incarnation of the article based on the standards of Good Article Criteria below. I do see immense merit and positive attributions made to the article and have no doubt that the editors can address the necessary concerns to bring the article up to GA status. For reference, I also compared the format, content and styling to featured articles on countries such as Cambodia and People's Republic of China. Judging by the hard work and dedication of the editors, I suspect that an eventual goal would be to bring this article up to FA status. Included in this assessment will be some comments labeled FA Consideration on areas that you may want to look at. These items won't be "make or break" considerations for the sake of GA but are worthwhile to keep in mind.
1. It is well written. - Pass

• Overall I think it's well written with no glaring WP:MOS issues. However for the sake of FA consideration, I would consider looking at some of the section titles to see if they most clearly present the subject. (Like Japanese Occupation, Independence & Sukarno-which looks awkward)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. - Needs Improvement

• Compared to other country articles that have received Featured and GA status, the article is under-referenced with nearly 80% of the reference isolated in 4 of the article's 18 main sub-sections. Very glaring is the entire sections of The Dutch, Japanese Occupation..., The New Order, and Reformasi not having any in-line citation references at all. In fact the entire history section only has 3 in-line citations.

3. It is broad in its coverage. - Needs Improvement

• An area of considerable need for expansion is History prior to the 18th century. There is the link to the main article of History in Indonesia but that link is not meant to replace everything. Rather it's meant to provide more in-depth information on key events and topics that is approached in this article. In a way you can visualize it as a thumbnail or summary presentation that will wet the reader's appetite to want to read more about the subject matter. I would review the History in Indonesia article for more key points that can be added here.
• There needs to be more expansion of the Muslim history and influence in Indonesia. A question that popped into my mind early while reading the article was "How did Indonesia become the most populous Muslim nation and how has that affected their society?" After reading the Religion section here and even the main "Religion in Indonesia" article, I don't think either or those two areas have been addressed.
• I would also expand on the Foreign relation area under the Government and politics. I found it odd that there wasn't much commented about Terrorism, in particular the 2005 Bali bombings. Similarly I was surprised at the absence of info on the independence movement in the various ethnic areas like Aceh.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy - Weak Pass

• Based on the material present, there is an NPOV tone. But given the significant need for expansion in many areas (like Politics, terrorism, and religion), I could only give it a weak pass since all sides of the story really are not present.

5. It is stable - Needs Improvement

• Reading the comments in the discussion page and looking at the article history makes me think that this is still a work in progress. While a definition of "stables" doesn't mean it has to be free of edits for a certain period of time (tweaking and tidying is always an on going process), there has been over a 130 edits to the page since it was nominated for GA status on August 11th and a large chunk of them were more then just minor typos or formatting issues.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. - Needs Improvement

• Some pictures seem out of place in the context of the article they are placed in like...

- Borobudur in the section on The Dutch, which has no connection that I can discern. If there is one then it needs to be mentioned in the section. As it stands, it doesn't illustrate the topic.

-Prambanan in the section J'apanese Occupation, Independence & Sukarno'. An important part of including images is that they serve as a visual aid in conceptualizing the concept or event being detailed in the section. There should be an explicated link between the context of the section and the accompanied photo.

-There are other photos as well but for brevity I will not list them all. I recommend a general review of all placements.

• FA consideration The image "Irrigation in Pachung, Bali." in the Economy section is not very discernible, even when you click on the image for a larger scale. You may want to consider a better illustration.
• FA consideration Areas where you may want to look for an image for illustration benefit

-Religion Ideally you wouldn't want just repeats of what is in the main article but Indonesia is home to many simple gorgeous mosques as well as indigenous tribal arts. You may consider the buddhist temple pictures from above (Though I think they would be better off in an expanded Early History section.

-Demographics This one is generally easy since there is vast array of ethnic groups and people shots.

-History of the Spice Trade An easy pic would an example of the spices that are native to Indonesia and where commonly traded by the Dutch.

I do want to thank the editors of this article for bringing the article up to this point. Your hard work and dedication is of immense value to the project. I have no doubt that the above concerns can be address and a stellar article awaits. I wholeheartedly encourage you to continue pushing this article up to GA and then FA level. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Agne 21:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm moving this comment from my talk page here to keep the discussion centralized Agne 01:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. For the last one hour, I've been searching for references, ahahah. Also, I am pretty sure those are verifiable and reliable. Could you take a look at it now and tell me what you think. I mean, whether its enough or not. I'm still looking for those under the Ethnic groups section, its really hard to find. Cheers -- Imoeng 00:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

First off, I need to give you Kudos for the impressive amount of work you've done in such a short period of time. In particular with the pictures. The new additions are fantastic. (Especially the spices and currancy) As for the sources, looking at them I would say that you've got a pretty good selection (News sites, governemnt agencies, College studies, etc). While the formatting would pass for GA status, you may want to consider some of the tips in WP:FOOT. But again, this is a great start. Agne 01:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey again, how are you? Sorry for keep bothering you with this article, heehehe. So, this is your comment, "An area of considerable need for expansion is History prior to the 18th century. There is the link to the main article of History in Indonesia but that link is not meant to replace everything. Rather it's meant to provide more in-depth information on key events and topics that is approached in this article. In a way you can visualize it as a thumbnail or summary presentation that will wet the reader's appetite to want to read more about the subject matter. I would review the History in Indonesia article for more key points that can be added here.. I'd like to improve it now, but I don't really understand what you were saying, and where did you get the number "18". I've checked History of Indonesia but I couldn't find anything related or pointing out the 18th century. You help is greatly appreciated. Take care -- Imoeng 09:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Essentially what I'm getting it at is in the main country page you should have to listing of a few more key events (in prose of course with some relevant details) that happened to shape the country history with the History of Indonesia page then detailing those events in more fuller details. Again, you don't have to go into great detail (it would get overbearing) but a brief mention of this important event with a segway onto the next. The timeline in particular that would need more development is the period prior to the 18th century. Looking at the article from the section titled The Dutch on, you cover the history of that time period very well. As a reader, I'm thirsting for my details about what took place before the Dutch got there that was pivotal in shaping Indonesia. Hope that helps! Agne 16:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi everyone. Recently I saw History of Indonesia and noticed that Indonesia has some information that History of Indonesia doesn't have. I also have attempted to reduce the article size, but I just can't delete the info, it is just feels strange. So, umm, because probably editing is too late, I suggest we really delete the history section, probably just New Order and Reformation, as I reckon those two have many unnecessary info. Then, we can re-write everything. Please comment. Cheers -- Imoeng 09:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I am thinking like, separate it into three parts.

• Early history
• Colonialisation
• Post Independence

Currently I'm working on it. Cheers -- Imoeng 10:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

GAAAHH!!! I spent an hour without internet connection to consolidate the 98-06 period in the history section but Michael already did it overnight!! But it is a very good edit. Mentioning the issues that Indonesia has faced is much better than listing by name all the presidents of the last 6 years. Let's not forget though that this has been a momentus period in modern Indonesian period and deserves the attention that the article gives it (only independance and the instability of the Sukarno/Soeharto transition are comparable). --Merbabu 23:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

THe history section is looking pretty good now - we've all done a great job particularly Michael, Imoeng (who started it all!), Feeeshboy and I think I saw Indon in there too. I think each area mentioned has been covered in adequate detail for such an introductory section, with the glaring exception of the ancient kingdoms of the pre-colonial days - Mataram, Majapahit, Srivijaya, etc. IMO, another paragraph, although smaller, could easily be devoted to these. Just introductory sentences like the rest of the section - that importantly convey the significance of them to the greater scheme of things. What do people think? --Merbabu 01:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree, but I only did small changes. Howver, I've a little objection about pictures. We do not need to show 3 presidents at the same time. I guess the most notable one is Soekarno, as the founding father. SBY is not worthy there, as he is just a current president. I'm leaning to remove Soeharto as well, as he is more suitable in the main article: History of Indonesia. Just my 2 cents. — Indon (reply) — 02:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I second the removal of SBY's portrait. Not so sure about Sukarno and Suharto. They are both very significant. Can we make both of them smaller? lol --Merbabu 02:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

On second thoughts, get rid of Suharto too. And rather than a picture of the Bali Bomb site, does anyone have a pic of the interior of the parliament building with parliament sitting?? It is the govt section afterall. --Merbabu 02:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I just put in a few more edits, trying to reword to make things shorter. Somehow that ends up being balanced out by other parts getting longer. I put back the mention of the 2004 election; I don't know much about Indonesian history (or, at least, I didn't before this week, lol), but I'd say that the first truly democratic presidential election is pretty important (and makes the end seem a little more balanced, to me at least). Paring down the details about the last 4 presidents was definitely a good move; I wonder if mentioning three hominid species is a bit more than necessary. That's great information, but maybe this page could just talk about homo erectus and leave the others to the Indonesian History article. Come to think of it, why is the page missing a link (no pun intended) to Java Man? Feeeshboy 04:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, good to put 2004 presidential elections. But, this goes hand in hand with first fair parliamentary elections (99 & 2004???). I am reluctant to put more info into the post 1997 section (yes, good to see boring list of presidents names removed), but it was truly a momentus period and I had the idea to put in info on the good and bad of this time. YEs, there is too much in my (badly worded) notes here but is there anything that stands out (i can also dig up good refs if required)?

The 1997 financial crisis left Indonesia teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. In 1998 widespread rioting, student protests, skyrocketing prices and corporate bankruptancies. The ‘’’reformasi’’’ period has been one of great instability and hardship for Indonesia, and although many have been disappointed with the pace and nature of reform, much progress has nonetheless been made.

Indonesia is grappling with numerous problems

• Terrorism
• Sectarian violence in (Maluku & Sulawesi). 1000's dead
• Cessation of East Timor was a particularly traumatic time and acute separatism problems in Aceh and Papua although the 2004 tsunami that devastated much of Aceh coastline
• Rising world oil prices have increased already high poverty levels and have been a severe drain on Government’s finances which subsidises fuel prices.
• Corruption
• Natural disasters

However progress has been made in the areas

• A decentralisation process has removed distributed power away from Jakarta to regional areas although many problems such as corruption are also being transferred from a national to regional level.
• New media freedom
• The military no longer has reserved seats in parliament and the police are separated from the military.
• A degree of economic stability and growth has returned although growth is inadequate to reduce unemployment
• Free elections saw the New Order’s ‘’Golkar’’ Party’s vote fall from a rigged 70% in 1998 to 21% in 1999, and in 2004 the Indonesian electorate went peacefully voted out the largely ineffectual Megawati Sukarnoputri for Susilo Bambang Yudoyonho in Indonesia’s first direct presidential elections.
• The loss of East Timor notwithstanding, the so-called ‘’Balkanisation’’ of Indonesia predicted in the late 1990s did not come to pass. A cease fire agreement signed in 2005 with the Free Aceh Movement OPM has ended a vicious separatist war in Aceh and improvements are reported in the Government’s handling of separatism in Papua.

--Merbabu 05:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

So, what are you saying, that the history of one of the most geographically and ethnically diverse nations on the planet is somewhat... complicated? Obviously it's an oversimplification to just point out the first direct presidential election, but I mention it because it is a convenient point to have such a detail in the article, because it's the best fit so far as I can tell (in my western perspective) for a "watershed moment" in the struggle for true democracy, and because it underscores what may be the best hope for Indonesia's future, an increasingly democratic and transparent government. Do with it what you will. I'm just the grammar police, after all. Anyway, I'm glad you're checking up on my edits, because it's easy to misread or misrepresent the facts in the quest for improved flow. Feeeshboy 06:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, very complicated. he he. Sorry, don't misunderstand me, i was not attacking your edits. In addition to grammar, you are making us think about how we actually articulate the knowledge we may have. Notice that although i removed some of your stuff, much (most??) still remains. You phrase many things well and it is improving the article. As for my specific point about the direct elections, i agree, it is hard not to mention everything. All i meant was that in 1999 (and again in 2004) there were the first non-rigged general parliamentary elections which ran extremely well and i feel this is equally important, or rather the two points are inseperable in my opinion. Anyway, no need to get worried about getting it "perfect" right this moment. it's already good. we can all mull over it. --Merbabu 01:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Believe me, I have no complaints about the changes. Many of my edits are more suggestions that I don't feel are quite right but may be more on the right track. You can probably squeeze the parliamentary elections right in there in the same sentence, such as "...including Indonesia's first direct elections for parliament in 1999 and for president in 2004" if you like. All in all, the page looks better every day. Feeeshboy 07:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Rather than getting into an edit war of the most utterly trivial and pointless kind, I'd like to point out that it is disingenuous editing to refer to this change as fixing a "spelling error." Both words are relatively acceptable and they mean the exact same thing. My logic in changing to "inhabitance" was that it has the same meaning and one fewer syllable, and briefer is better. This is a stylistic choice, even perhaps a dialect-driven one, and that is not the point of editing Wikipedia, so I'm not changing it back. I just think "inhabitancy" is a ridiculous neologism created by people who didn't know that "inhabitance" is already a noun. There are plenty more important ways to contribute than to make petty style changes, and referring to them as correcting spelling errors is dishonest and not within the spirit of Wikipedia. Feeeshboy 14:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think I was dishonest and breaking the spirit of wikipedia or rather simply unaware? Please assume good faith [1] before making patronisingly worded and emotive accusations. Also, although I have not yet had the time to further edit the recent changes to the history section, there has been a push to actually make that section shorter, and/or more succint, rather than expand it. [2], [3] --Merbabu 14:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I was assuming good faith by expecting that someone wouldn't make repeated spelling/grammar edits if they were indeed unaware of what is correct. It's not as if it's hard or time-consuming to consult a dictionary before making a change (I did). That said, I apologize if I was quick to judge. I fully agree that the history section should be made shorter, but the few changes I made did not significantly add to the length, and were intended to address serious weaknesses in the flow of the article. I don't consider myself well-enough versed in the subject matter to be an authority on what content should be removed (although I would suggest that the details from 1998-2004 are excessive), but whatever is there should at least read like an encyclopedia. Feeeshboy 14:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

That's OK. For the record, after initally only consulting Microsoft Word, i did consult two hard copy dictionaries and 1 online and they don't change my opinion. Most importantly though, I think your "flow" edits are almost all good "value-adds" but i did change some of the subject/content.--Merbabu 15:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

As this it the key article to all Indonesian related articles, i am posting here to remind people to contribute to nominating and voting for the next collaborations. We chose next article on Sunday. Here: [4] I've put mine in but I am not particularly tied to it - i will work on whatever is nominated. I suggest choosing articles ranked at high importance but lower quality. Check quality and importance rankings here [5]. --Merbabu 05:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

At Imoeng's request, I took a look at the article and overall I am extremely impressed with all the work that has been done in essentially the matter of a month. The biggest concern is the copy edit (and sentence flow in sections like Economy), which I already see work is being done on. When it is renominated for GA, for impartiality, I will not be the one to re-review so that we can get another set of eyes looking at it. Some things that caught my eyes though....

• In the Lead "Indonesia was first governed by Sukarno, leader of the national independence struggle, and then by controversial authoritarian Suharto." the phrase controversial authoritarian is a strong phrase that immediately grabs your attention with wondering "Why is that?" "What made him so?" Obviously you can not cram the answers to that in the lead but a citation could help, especially if it is one that is also used in History section about him. That way if that phrase piques a curiosity that needs immediate satisfaction then it can be settled.
• A curiosity point. You mention what the name Indonesia means in the Lead, but when was that name first used in history? Was it always called Indonesia, even by the natives? I don't know how easy it would be to find that info but it would be a worthwhile addition. The FA articles of Canada, Australia, Cambodia, and India have little blurbs on the name history that are interesting reads. I would see what you can find.
• On the photo of the Dried berries of Cubeb or Java Pepper, I would add a little more context with the caption including some comment to the affect of "Spices like these helped make Indonesia an important port of the Spice Trade" (hopefully better wording then mine :p)
• The white space between the Spices and the VOC logo is not the most visually appealling. It shouldn't hurt GA consideration but I can see an FA objection. Admittedly, I don't know off the top of my head what the best solution to that would be. Just keep it in mind for now.
• I see the history section has gone through some expansion and reduction in the past month, with a lot of thought going into the current presentation. Overall, I can say that I would be satisified with the compromise as it is now.
• There are a few lines that I would want to see a cite on for verification purposes. I will add a tag for them in the article.
• Good work on incorporating details about the recent terrorism threat and the ethnic tension among groups in a very NPOV way.
• Excellent job of wiki-linking in the Geography section.
• In the Economy section line Apparently, in 2005, the income from exports was larger than the import's expenditure with $83.64 billion and $62.02 billion respectively. is the word "Apparently" really needed? It's a slight tilt towards POV.
• Some of the comments in the language area are really interesting and I added some fact tags with the note that maybe expanding it would be helpful too. Language is such a unifying bond in society and for a country as diverse as Indonesia, you get the sense that it plays a very pivotal role in relations to the different ethnic groups and the government. I'm curious as to why some villagers "even on the major islands" don't know Indonesian. (Lack of educational funding? A cultural desire not to learn? etc) In regards to Arabic, I am mostly curious about what religious functions it would be used in with a cite to that sentence that can also lead a reader to where they could find more information on the topic.
• I LOVE the religion map. Excellent resource. In the Religion section though, it would be nice for the difference between the Modernist Islam that looks to be practiced on the main islands and the Traditional Islam that looks to be practiced mostly on Java. You don't need to go into much depth but a brief description of the differences (and maybe any cultural ties with their locations) will be enough to put the map in context when it distinguishes between the two.
• In the Culture section, I was curious about about any literary or poetic traditions. Also, does Indonesia have any "Entertainment" centers for the production of Indonesian film and TV shows? Or do they mostly watch Western fare?
  

Again, I do want to convey how outstanding of a job that I think the editors of the article have done. Any article about a country (especially one as diverse and complex as Indonesia) is a large task with so many elements that need to be carefully sewn in order to create a tapestry view of the country. Your hardwork and continued dedication will certainly get this article up to FA status. If you need anything else, let me know. Agne 01:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Agne for your deep thoughtfull thoughts. We know that this article is far from perfect and a lot of works are still needed to be done. You've given us a very valuable inputs. Also thanks for your time. — Indon (reply) — 01:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

First, Indon - i agree still far from perfect, but we are so much closer than what we were a few weeks back.

Agne, thanks for the feedback - i have some comments:

• • • controversial authoritarian i suspect was a compromise term i came up with some months back. He was labelled military dictator in a previous edit but that is only part of the picture. Of course, we don't have much space to explain that Suharto is not as simple as some would like. Rather than a dictator (he was no Ceacescu, Stalin or Mao), i'd suggest he was dictatorial. Aspects of his rule were like a dictator, and even though democractic mechanisms were only a veneer, he did have undeniably widespread support throughout Indonesia to balance those who didn't like him - in a way, he was allowed to get away with his "dictatorialness" cos many things were managed well. Ie, Under his rule the economy stabilised and flourished for 3 decades, poverty levels went from 60% of population to 15%, ditto health and education stats - all good things (he wasn't called Father of Development for nothing). But, yes, he was authoritarian cracked down on dissent (generally prison terms not a bullet to the head in the dark), and in the end, increasingly corrupt. So what else can we call him? We can also think about your citation suggestion. I think the Suharto article says something like his legacy is still debated.
    • Actually, maybe we could actually remove altogether that reference to Sukarno and Suharto in the lead and instead strengthen their mention in the history section. Ie (a shorter editer version of... Sukarno was the nation's independance leader, first president and is considered the nation's "founding father". And something like the New Order administration sustained economic development for 3 decades contributing to gains in poverty allievation, education and health, Suharto's administration was marred by authoritarism and corruption.)
    • Good point about the name. I do not know when it came into first usage but it needs to be sated. Also, i have never been sure that the explanation of the Greek origins should be int 2nd sentence (or 3rd?). I do feel though that we should make the point that before colonial times, Indonesia as we know it today did not exist, rather there were a number of different ethnic groups and kingdoms/chieftans spread across the region that have various levels of contact (trade, war, etc). And that present day Indonesia forms are the former Dutch held territories as they were immediately prior to WW2. Even in the late 19th century, the current borders (ie, Dutch control) were not in existence. How do we get all this into the article.
    • Yes, create better context for the spice pic. On a related point, i think the context and significance of the spice trade to Indonesia and WORLD history has not been properly emphasised. i used to be very familiar with the history but need to refresh myself. At the time, certain spices were the most valuable items on the planet. Europeans were falling over themselves (and killing each other) to find and secure the original source to set up monopolies. A tiny island held by the British that had nutmeg (Run in the Banda Islands, was swapped with a certain Dutch colony known as Manhattan because nutmeg was more valuable - lol. I will try and get more info into the article and consider the emphasis - editors welcome to edit any verbosity to keep it short.
    • I also hate the white space between pics. Can anyone get rid of it???
      • Would anyone mind if i possibly changed that pic in the near future? I have some of my own from my visit to the Banda Islands - original source of nutmeg. includes pics of the historically fascinating and drop-dead gorgeous islands, the tress, plantations, and fruit itself. Anyway, i will see what i have, and promise to post here in talk for people to consider before replacing anything.
    • According to my understanding the difference b/w 'traditional' and 'modern' Islam is not quite what one would expect. Traditional relates to the Indonesian infused usually more moderate form that is often mixed up with animist and mystical beliefs, and all mixed up with local cultures including old Hindu and Buddhist beliefs. Modernist Islam refers to the increasingly prevalent more orthodox forms of Islam which are more inline with islam as practised in the MIddle east. Traditionalists are more prevalent in rural and regional areas, and modernists more prevalent in urban areas.
    • It is really heartening to see this article improve so much. Another big well done to the editors particularly those paying an interest who until now haven't had much to do with Indonesia - i hope you continue to help us, and in future indo-related collaborations.
    • --Merbabu 02:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, by all means change the spice picture - I don't find it particularly illustrative in this context. I've not really participated in this collaboration, but the results are very impressive. Well done to all. --Bwmodular 08:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I saw the tag on the comment referring to Arabic not being spoken despite Islam being the dominant religion. As I recall, this was added a few months back and initially said it was "interesting" they don't speak Arabic. I removed it cos i thought it was a pointless comment (like saying Brazilian Catholics don't speak Italian or Latin) but was repeatedly added by the original editor until i proposed the compromise without the word "surprisingly". The original edit [6] and a link to the issue on my talk page [7]Personally i would not mind at all if the whole comment just vanished. lol --Merbabu 02:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I would move that you were correct in removing the line in the first place. It is not in the least bit surprising that Arabic is not spoken despite Indonesia's being a Muslim country. Anyone who suggests otherwise probably doesn't know much about the Muslim world. Arabic is mainly spoken in and around the Arabian penninsula, but (as I just researched) is not a very significant native language in such major Muslim countries as Iran, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, a number of West African countries... need I go on? In these countries, Arabic is more of a scholarly language among Muslims, like Latin among Catholics as you mentioned. Also, how is Arabic the norm in Muslim nations if Indonesia and Pakistan, the two largest Muslim nations, don't really speak it? There is a popular misconception (at least in the US) than Muslim = Arab, but Arabs are merely one of dozens of ethnic groups that practice Islam. If someone wants to start an edit war over this, there are appropriate ways to handle that situation. Feeeshboy 07:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree. What do others think? As for edit wars, i think that was my 1st week or 2 at wikipedia when i had a little scuffle - it as resolved in 3 or 4 edits. --Merbabu 08:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)