Talk:Indonesia/Archive 5

message: Two issues regarding links: what happened to link #34? There's no source there. Did it go missing?  Secondly, the foodstuffs referred to as a major commodity isn't the same thing as the page that the word links to, is it? Feeeshboy 07:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know and I don't know. If you can find #34 in the previous diffs, please reinstate it. :-) --Merbabu 08:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Economics

message: I just put in a major update to the history section. See here:. It addresses the discussion we have had about almost no info on the pre-colonial history. I know I could have put some more refs in put I need to hunt a bit on the net and on the bookshelf - how tiresome!.  While it may seem that this makes it overly long I beg to differ for a few reasons. 
* Firstly, i checked it against 4 FA country articles and their equivalent sections are range from no shorter to over twice as long!  
* Secondly, although this section is now maybe only 1/2 the length it was a week or so ago, i feel it has MORE info due to much better prose, and a focus on what is really relevant and significant (rather than, say, a full descriptions of all the presidents since 1998!!!). 
* Thirdly, if i had wanted to do, my additions could have been even shorter had I just listed names and dates, but I have also added some descriptive/qualitative info to provide some context and idea of significance thus hopefully increasing the readers' interest levels.
* Fourthly, if you look closely i actually took a little bit out either cos i felt it was unnecessary or I worded it differently so it is really not that much more.
That list of feature articles and approximate word length of their (excellent) history sections...
* India: 730 (words)
* Australia: 1000
* Bangladesh: 900
* Canada: 1600
* (Indonesia 770)
Of course, if you have better prose go ahead and "wordsmith it", but i am proud of this edit so please be careful if you want to make changes - I'd appreciate your reasoning if you relly must!! he he
 
Btw, do you realise we have no fauna, flora and/or ecology/natural-history section here??? Doesn't Indonesia have the 2nd-highest level of biodiverstiy in the world or something??? Maybe it can be combined with geography under the new heading Ecology or Natural History"? THe next project for before Sunday???--Merbabu 08:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we can include zoological and botanical info in the geography section, which already says something about the forests. This is a good catch. If nothing else, this article MUST mention the Orangutan. I suppose a separate article on Indonesian wildlife should follow. Feeeshboy 20:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. I wrote a bit on the train for the ecology. Rather than wait weeks til I am happy with it (there is more to write) i have posted into the article for others to add to and mold into shape (prose, cites, and I've probably got some tourist brochure speak and peacock terms in there). --Merbabu 22:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Update to Pre-historic and pre-colonial section

message: Do you think it is a good idea to make a new subheading with that title? Per Agne's suggestion, Australia has it and I think its not bad idea to write that on this article. Cheers -- Imoeng 12:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read this. Extremely interesting. I didn't know about these things either! Cheers -- Imoeng 12:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I already did :P. Please copy-edit. Cheers -- Imoeng 13:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The etymology section is a great addition. Does that mean we can get rid of (or just move) the sentence (from Greek: indus = India nesos = islands) in the 2nd sentence. It's position there has always bugged me. lol --Merbabu 23:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of the name 

message: I've added a few paragrpahs on ecology and environmental issues - yes, much work still to be done. Currently it is combined with Geography which is fine as it is still small. Later we may want to add a new section or at least change the current heading. I am happy with the current combined section or seperate sections as long as it is well thought out. THis section should be brief but informative - thus we must be economical with words like the history section. Topics should include:
* the existing geography topics, 
* as Feeeshboy suggests, a quick mention of a few notable species (orang-utan, komodo dragon, Rafflesia (sp?) flower, and the Garuda bird - just kidding on the Garuda), 
* Mention of different environments incl. tropical forests, coral reefs, alpine areas, and also man made environments, particularly the 'ecology' of the sawah or rice fields.
* Any notable ecosystem wide points? ie Wallace Line.(needs some thought and research)
* Mention of environmental problems
I gave some thought to headings for the section (whether combined with geography or not) i suggest:
* "Flora & fauna" - I don't like this. Tends to look at individual species rather than the ecosystems as a whole (which includes living and non-living elements)
* "Ecology" - my interpretation is that this is the broadest - even includes geography and interactions b/w species, but i probably others disagree.
* "Natural history" - but does this include a holistic environment, ecology approach. The best approach?
* "Environment" - too vague in my opinion, prefer "Natural History" or "Ecology"
--Merbabu 23:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The addition is great! But can you provide citations? With that specific information, you must have seen some sources. Cheers -- Imoeng 10:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: he he, yeah. i put a couple in. I can find more - just not a job i enjoy. --Merbabu 10:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can tell me the sites, I can put them in if you want. Imoeng 10:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ecology section

message: I did some comparisons with equivalent sections in some Featured Countries (there's about 10, i did 3 so far). Indonesia is not drastically off the mark. And these things vary on the country.  It's not 100% accurate, but certainly fit for purpose - i'd say 90% accuracy, if not up to 95%.
I don't intend this to be used to justify any major removals or additions of info, rather as a guide. Ie, don't just put info in cos we want to match other countries - lol. Rather, section length, and thus Removals & additions, should be based on information quality - unless of course sections are extremely long, none of which the comparision table seems to suggest. And each country is different.
Remember, this table doesn't tell us about quality - just quantity.
From the table i interpret the following:
* I don't like the Lead - plus the table shows it is long. Can we cut some of the history from it? It is repeated later anyway.
* History is the longest section in all countries, and Indonesia's is the shortest of all. If there is good info we still have some room. 
* Government & Politics is OK, but probably the current issues need tightening up
* Our Nat History section is long - but i think that is fine for Indonesia, it has an unusually rich nat hist and unfortunately unusually "rich" environmental problems.
* Overall, at least compared to Bangladesh, Canada, and Aust, Indonesia is on the shorter side - that's fine. Remmeber, lets make sure other editors are creating quality, not quantity.
                            	Indonesia      	Australia      	Bangladesh	Canada
Lead                        	286            	227            	277       	167
Etymology                   	160            	282            	n/a       	207
History                     	745            	1000           	994       	1569
Government & politics       	525            	460            	453       	449
Administration divisions    	346            	274            	200       	215
Geography                   	204            	235            	259       	450
Fauna, Flora, Nat Hist, etc 	400            	270            	n/a       	
Demographics                	700            	712            	438       	387
Culture                     	334            	736            	640       	440
Language                    	in demographics	in demographics	n/a       	300
Foreign Relations & Military	n/a            	300            	n/a       	445
Law                         	n/a            	n/a            	n/a       	180
Economy                     	410            	370            	536       	480
Totals                      	4100           	4866           	3797      	5290
--Merbabu 04:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikilinked, if its fine with Merbabu. Imoeng 11:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparative length of section

message: Initially, i was opposed to this - they are strongly inter-linked, and although seperate sections seems to be more common, i do not believe precedence is ever a strong justification - and i am still far from convinced on a seperation. But on the other hand the section is long, so a few questions:
* Should Geography & natural history section be seperated? 
* If so, should the second section be Natural history or Ecology? Personally, i prefer Ecology (it is broad like the content we have), but I can live with Nat Hist if I must (less broad, but OK). But, I strongly oppose the term "Fauna & flora" which is narrowly focuses on individual species - one can see that the section is a lot broader than that - the fact that "F & F" commonly used in wikipedia doesn't mean we should use it - even in Australia "F & F" is used, but like Indonesia, that article actually takes a broader ecological approach. 
Please see my sandbox to see how it might look. (Comments here, please).
--Merbabu 01:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Support, better to be separated. — Indon (reply) — 01:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Support" noted. What is your reasoning though? --Merbabu 02:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's simply comparing the article with your sandbox. You've better. Anyway, geography is a different "animal" than nature, IMO. :-) — Indon (reply) — 02:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, i respect your choice - i might even support too eventually, as the section is long and it may increase clarity. I just don't agree that geography and nature is unrelated (see Wallace line discussion). If a seperate NatHist/Ecology can directly follow Geography, then that would be a good compromise. Let's see what others think. Thanks --Merbabu 02:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *Support: I think that the Ecology content has grown sufficient to separate it. I looked at several nations' pages of varying quality, and the better ones had a separate Ecology or Flora and Fauna section (i.e. Australia, which is FA). Surprisingly, some ecologically interesting nations, like China (class A), had no ecology info whatsoever. I think the Wallace Line info belongs more in Ecology than in Geography, because Geography would still have the fault line info, which is similar. Feeeshboy 03:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *Support: I would say separate the whole Natural History from Geography. Firstly, I agree with the title. Secondly, it becomes longer than the original content of the Geo section, so it is better to be separated IMO. Lastly, I agree with Indon that Geo should not cover animals and stuff. What about if we make a new big subheading? Cheers -- Imoeng 09:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *Support. Happy to go with consensus. Can we call it Ecology. --Merbabu 11:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, the content currently there would be more aptly described as Ecology than as Natural History. Feeeshboy 15:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *Support. Reads better when split, and as Indon put it, geography and natural history are v. different animals, however they might be related. Also, yes Ecology rather than Natural History for me. --Bwmodular 15:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should we seperate Geography & Nat History?

message: I am still confuse about Modernist Islam and Traditional Islam in Religions Map ? Can someone explain it ?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.118.148.218 (talk • contribs) 
: First, please sign your post by typing in ~~~~. Better still - create an account. :-)
: Anyway, this is a very important point i think to understanding Indonesia - it needs to be further developed in the article, particularly the religion section. NExt job?  I offered this explanation earlier - did this help: 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 in line with islam as practised in the MIddle east. While both exist everywhere, Traditionalists are more prevalent in rural and regional areas, and modernists more prevalent in urban areas. 
: Moving into POV territory, it's been said that the the most likely to be less tolerant or fundamentalist in their beliefes are the modernists whereas the traditionalists are likely to be more tolerant as their own version of Islam is very accepting of other influences. 
: THe traditionalists have "traditionally" been more numerous particularly in high-population Java but the influence of modernist Islam is increasing.
: Certainly something that needs to be developed in the article - I can look into it and hopefully express it better than here. --Merbabu 04:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modernist Islam vs Traditional Islam