Talk:Indonesia/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Review

Taken from User:Indon/GATemplate.
As of 17 October 2006, per WP:WIAGA, here's my assessment:

1. It is well written.

(a) it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers → needs improvement

• In the lead section, the following sentence: "The modern-day borders of Indonesia are based upon those of the Dutch East Indies colony, rather than on any preconceived notion of unity; however, a shared history of colonialism and rebellion against it, a national Indonesian language, and a majority religion (Islam) help to define Indonesia as a state.", is confusing. There are many "sub-sentences" to explain many facts in one long sentence. I suggest the editors to split it into more clear and concise ones.
• Also this sentence: "The highest legislative body is the Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat or 'People's Consultative Assembly,' consisting of the Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat or People's Representative Council, which is elected for a five-year term, and the Dewan Perwakilan Daerah or Regional Representatives Council." is too long. It is more confusing, because of 3 technical jargons are explained in one sentence.
• Please remove the following peacock words: highly strategic, greatly, great, the most famous.
• Please also remove inexact time axis: soon.
• The explanation of Kalimantan: "Indonesian Borneo shared with Malaysia and Brunei" is a bit odd. It should be: "it is known also as Borneo island". I don't think the term shared has a clear meaning. In fact the whole sentence is confusing, because the most populated island is actually only Java. Does Papua also have a lot of population on it? I think it is better to split into 2 sentences: "The most populated island is ... [ref]. Other main islands are Sumatra, Kalimantan, ...."
• This sentence: "Originally part of the Australian landmass, the highlands of Papua enclose a number of unique environments, including over 600 bird species, with fauna closely related to Australia’s.[42] Sulawesi,[43] Nusa Tenggara and Maluku,[44] having been long separated from the continental landmasses, have developed their own unique flora and fauna" is also too long. Should be trimmed off.

(b) it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles) → needs improvement

The lead section has put the article in context and it gives a summary of the whole article. However, per WP:LS, facts in the lead section should have proper citations. Thus, the following facts need inline citations:

• "Indonesia (from Greek: indus = India nesos = islands) is the world's largest archipelagic nation."
• "With a population of over 200 million, it is the world's fourth most populous country and the most populous Muslim-majority nation."
• "The Indonesian Archipelago, home of the Spice Islands, has been an important trade destination since ancient times, when early Chinese sailors began to find profit in the spice trade."
• " Indonesia was colonized by the Dutch for over three centuries but declared its independence in 1945, which was internationally recognized four years later."
• "Since then, Indonesia has had a turbulent history, including political instability and corruption, periods of rapid economic growth and decline, environmental catastrophe, and a recent democratization process."
• "However, sectarian tensions have threatened political stability in some regions, leading to violent confrontations and the secession of East Timor."

The 3rd paragraph from section Government and politics seems not belong to the same topics with others. Thus, I would suggest to split foreign relations from the Government and politics section with a bit of expansions into 2-3 paragraphs.

I found also the last 2 paragraphs in the Government and politics do not belong to the section's subject. I would expect more on political parties, judiciary system, the distribution of political parties in the parliament, etc. in that sections, but somehow it is missing there. The last 2 sections describes more on regional conflicts; it is better to be put in other section. For example, East Timor can be embedded in the missing-section Foreign relations, Papua & Aceh conflicts in the Ethnic groups, and Islamic terrorism in the Religion.

I think the statement: "The Indonesian constitution guarantees religious freedom for all,...", although it is sourced, it is contradictiory with the fact that Indonesia only officially recognizes 6 religions. Perhaps trimming into direct fact that the Indonesian constitution only recognizes 6 religion is more factual.

The sentence: "Pencak Silat is a unique martial art originating from the archipelago." is an orphan. Should be merged into other paragraph.

(c) it follows the Wikipedia Manual of Style → pass

(d) necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided → needs improvement

• In the lead section, there is a term Classical Hindu. What is the difference with Hinduism? I've tried to search in Hinduism in Indonesia and in Hinduism, but couldn't find one. If it is a necessary jargon, please supply with a source.
• In section History, there is a big gap from a sentence that explaining about pre-historic inhabitans, with the next one that contains modern Malay. For a non-specialist readers, they might ask "who are Malay? what do they have to do with Indonesia?". A bit of explanation about Malay ethnic group, as the biggest ethnic group in Indonesia, is needed.
• In the sentence: "Following elections in 2004, the MPR became a bicameral parliament, with the creation of the DPD as its second chamber in an effort to increase regional representation.", there are no explanation of the abbrv. MPR and DPD before. Furthermore, the term bicameral parliament, although it is wikilinked, it should be briefly described. In a parentheses, for example.
• I think the term orthodox Islam or orthodox Moslem is not commonly known. The more common term is modernist and traditional Islam. As far as I know, modernist Islam is what the "orthodox" means, that is the original Islamic practice, while traditional Islam is more influenced by local traditional habits. I think it is a misconception to say that jilbab is because of orthodox Islam.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

(a) it provides references to any and all sources used for its material → weak pass

The article has good references, but some of them cannot be verified. I guess, it's a matter of technical issues, thus it should be fixed soon. They are:

• Ref. #2 -> no citation.
• Ref. #3, #82, #81 and #80 -> is not an English citation. Please translate it into English, so a reader can understand what the citation is. You can keep the (indonesian) information, to inform the reader that the source is not in English. Sorry that non-English citation is properly all right, but if somebody can find similar sources in English then it is preferable.
• Ref. #17 & #18 are equal. Please put it into one citation.
• Ref. #64, #69, #70 -> there is {{booktitle}} tag. Please fix that.

Information about Java: "(one of the most densely populated regions on Earth, where about half of the population lives)" is not relevant and unsourced.

(b) the citation of its sources using inline citations is required → weak pass

I see also that citations are not consistent one to each other.

(c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources → pass

(d) it contains no elements of original research → pass

3. It is broad in its coverage.

(a) it addresses all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed) → need improvement

• Missing information about military, foreign relations, judiciary systems.

(b) it stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details (no non-notable trivia) → weak pass

Found the following non-notable information in this context:

• "In 2006, sensitivities over the Papua issue resulted in the Indonesian Government recalling its ambassador from Australia following the Australian government granting protection visas to 42 Papuan asylum seekers." It is a small case, compared to the subject. I think there are dozens of these cases in the past, and it would not be useful to put them all.
• The last paragraph in the Administrative division about East Timor is not relevant information anymore in that section context. It is belong more to History section.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

(a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias → pass

(b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic → pass

5. It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. → pass

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

(a) the images are tagged and have succinct and descriptive captions → failed

Please fix the license tags, as well as WP:FAIR issues, for the following images:

• Obsolete image tags are found in Image:LocationIndonesia.png.
• Copyrighted images without proper fair use rationale: Image:Soekarno_Indonesia.jpg, Image:Indonesian_Rupiah.jpg.

In the article, there are two maps of Indonesia. Are they really necessary to have both? I think one image is enough. The other makes the article redundant and crowded.

The last image about religion has been asked for its accuracy by a reviewer. I think it would get more questions if it is not fixed.

(b) a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status → not relevant

Conclusion: It's a bit hard to judge whether Indonesia will pass GA. I see some reviewers would pass article easily, but some don't. GA is bit inconsistent, IMO, but it is popular now in WP. The odd for this article is a bit slim, I think. However, the major concern from me in this article is that the prose.

(copied -- Imoeng 10:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC))

My response to GA-style review

Response to indon's review in black italics

1. It is well written.

(a) it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers → needs improvement

• In the lead section, the following sentence: "The modern-day borders of Indonesia are based upon those of the Dutch East Indies colony, rather than on any preconceived notion of unity; however, a shared history of colonialism and rebellion against it, a national Indonesian language, and a majority religion (Islam) help to define Indonesia as a state.", is confusing. There are many "sub-sentences" to explain many facts in one long sentence. I suggest the editors to split it into more clear and concise ones.

• Sorry, I can't see a problem with this sentence. It flows perfectly in my opinion. There are only two related parts seperated by ";". OK, so it is not a sentence for a 6 year old but Wikipedia doesn't have to cater to 6 years olds. :-)

• Also this sentence: "The highest legislative body is the Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat or 'People's Consultative Assembly,' consisting of the Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat or People's Representative Council, which is elected for a five-year term, and the Dewan Perwakilan Daerah or Regional Representatives Council." is too long. It is more confusing, because of 3 technical jargons are explained in one sentence.

Agreed. The whole government section needs rewriting i think.

• Please remove the following peacock words: highly strategic, greatly, great, the most famous.

Hmmmm. Do you have suggestion to put in its place? For example: Many things have "influenced Indonesia's history" but not many things have "greatly influenced Indonesia's history". And i think Krakatau is indeed the most famous.

• Please also remove inexact time axis: soon.

yes - the word "soon" can go

• The explanation of Kalimantan: "Indonesian Borneo shared with Malaysia and Brunei" is a bit odd. It should be: "it is known also as Borneo island". I don't think the term shared has a clear meaning. In fact the whole sentence is confusing, because the most populated island is actually only Java. Does Papua also have a lot of population on it? I think it is better to split into 2 sentences: "The most populated island is ... [ref]. Other main islands are Sumatra, Kalimantan, ...."

hmm - i think it might be correct, but yes, wording could be clearer. Borneo is the island that Indonesia SHARES with Malaysia and Brunei. Kalimantan is only the Indonesian part of the island. With the exception of Papua, they are INdonesias most populated islandS

• This sentence: "Originally part of the Australian landmass, the highlands of Papua enclose a number of unique environments, including over 600 bird species, with fauna closely related to Australia’s.[42] Sulawesi,[43] Nusa Tenggara and Maluku,[44] having been long separated from the continental landmasses, have developed their own unique flora and fauna" is also too long. Should be trimmed off.

No, that is two sentences. Have a another look. :-) he he

(b) it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles) → needs improvement

The lead section has put the article in context and it gives a summary of the whole article. However, per WP:LS, facts in the lead section should have proper citations. Thus, the following facts need inline citations:

• "Indonesia (from Greek: indus = India nesos = islands) is the world's largest archipelagic nation."
• "With a population of over 200 million, it is the world's fourth most populous country and the most populous Muslim-majority nation."
• "The Indonesian Archipelago, home of the Spice Islands, has been an important trade destination since ancient times, when early Chinese sailors began to find profit in the spice trade."
• " Indonesia was colonized by the Dutch for over three centuries but declared its independence in 1945, which was internationally recognized four years later."

• Does this really need a citation - it is common knowledge? Verifiable doesn't mean everything must be referenced in the article.

• "Since then, Indonesia has had a turbulent history, including political instability and corruption, periods of rapid economic growth and decline, environmental catastrophe, and a recent democratization process."
• "However, sectarian tensions have threatened political stability in some regions, leading to violent confrontations and the secession of East Timor."

In my opinion, the above criteria (b) is not about citations (although I agree that there could be more citations), rather this criteria is about the STRUCTURE of the article. Although i think the lead is very good, i think it needs to be checked to make sure it covers, evn if only very briefly, the main areas of the article. As for the "structure" mentioned in criteria (b) it is good. I don't know that i have any specific suggestions

The 3rd paragraph from section Government and politics seems not belong to the same topics with others. Thus, I would suggest to split foreign relations from the Government and politics section with a bit of expansions into 2-3 paragraphs.

I think that section is well-placed, BUT it is too long and the section should include other topics that the govt must deal with.

I found also the last 2 paragraphs in the Government and politics do not belong to the section's subject. I would expect more on political parties, judiciary system, the distribution of political parties in the parliament, etc. in that sections, but somehow it is missing there.

agree that more info is needed on judiciary, etc. Not sure though that the issues in the last paragraph is misplaced.

The last 2 sections describes more on regional conflicts; it is better to be put in other section. For example, East Timor can be embedded in the missing-section Foreign relations, Papua & Aceh conflicts in the Ethnic groups, and Islamic terrorism in the Religion.

I think the statement: "The Indonesian constitution guarantees religious freedom for all,...", although it is sourced, it is contradictiory with the fact that Indonesia only officially recognizes 6 religions. Perhaps trimming into direct fact that the Indonesian constitution only recognizes 6 religion is more factual.

Yes, it is contradictory - but that is clear. The whole sentence states the contradiction reads like this, "The Indonesian constitution guarantees religious freedom for all,[71] ALTHOUGH officially it only recognises six religions...UPDATE: I changed it :-) "

The sentence: "Pencak Silat is a unique martial art originating from the archipelago." is an orphan. Should be merged into other paragraph.

ACtually, the whole culture section does need work. Like Govt, it wasn't really touched during the collaboration.

(c) it follows the Wikipedia Manual of Style → pass

(d) necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided → needs improvement

• In the lead section, there is a term Classical Hindu. What is the difference with Hinduism? I've tried to search in Hinduism in Indonesia and in Hinduism, but couldn't find one. If it is a necessary jargon, please supply with a source.
• In section History, there is a big gap from a sentence that explaining about pre-historic inhabitans, with the next one that contains modern Malay. For a non-specialist readers, they might ask "who are Malay? what do they have to do with Indonesia?". A bit of explanation about Malay ethnic group, as the biggest ethnic group in Indonesia, is needed.

From my bit of research, the gap is common in other sources. I also don't think that expansion is needed. I fixed the link - now goes to Malay People. That is enough i think.

• In the sentence: "Following elections in 2004, the MPR became a bicameral parliament, with the creation of the DPD as its second chamber in an effort to increase regional representation.", there are no explanation of the abbrv. MPR and DPD before. Furthermore, the term bicameral parliament, although it is wikilinked, it should be briefly described. In a parentheses, for example.

Agreed. That whole section is poor.

• I think the term orthodox Islam or orthodox Moslem is not commonly known. The more common term is modernist and traditional Islam. As far as I know, modernist Islam is what the "orthodox" means, that is the original Islamic practice, while traditional Islam is more influenced by local traditional habits. I think it is a misconception to say that jilbab is because of orthodox Islam.

I think "Orthodox" is straight and is correctly used here. Here's a definition of orthodox:

1. of, pertaining to, or conforming to the approved form of any doctrine, philosophy, ideology, etc.

2. of, pertaining to, or conforming to beliefs, attitudes, or modes of conduct that are generally approved.

3. customary or conventional, as a means or method; established.

4. sound or correct in opinion or doctrine, esp. theological or religious doctrine.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

(a) it provides references to any and all sources used for its material → weak pass

The article has good references, but some of them cannot be verified. I guess, it's a matter of technical issues, thus it should be fixed soon. They are:

• Ref. #2 -> no citation.

hmm - isn't this a citation: "^ a b Tomascik, T, Mah, J.A., Nontji, A., Moosa, M.K. (1996). The Ecology of the Indonesian Seas - Part One. Hong Kong: Periplus Editions Ltd.. ISBN 962-593-078-7.."

• Ref. #3, #82, #81 and #80 -> is not an English citation. Please translate it into English, so a reader can understand what the citation is. You can keep the (indonesian) information, to inform the reader that the source is not in English. Sorry that non-English citation is properly all right, but if somebody can find similar sources in English then it is preferable.
• Ref. #17 & #18 are equal. Please put it into one citation.
• Ref. #64, #69, #70 -> there is {{booktitle}} tag. Please fix that.

Information about Java: "(one of the most densely populated regions on Earth, where about half of the population lives)" is not relevant and unsourced.

(b) the citation of its sources using inline citations is required → weak pass

I see also that citations are not consistent one to each other.

(c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources → pass

(d) it contains no elements of original research → pass

3. It is broad in its coverage.

(a) it addresses all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed) → need improvement

• Missing information about military, foreign relations, judiciary systems.

(b) it stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details (no non-notable trivia) → weak pass

Found the following non-notable information in this context:

• "In 2006, sensitivities over the Papua issue resulted in the Indonesian Government recalling its ambassador from Australia following the Australian government granting protection visas to 42 Papuan asylum seekers." It is a small case, compared to the subject. I think there are dozens of these cases in the past, and it would not be useful to put them all.

agreed

• The last paragraph in the Administrative division about East Timor is not relevant information anymore in that section context. It is belong more to History section.

hmmm - maybe

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

(a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias → pass

(b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic → pass

5. It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. → pass

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

(a) the images are tagged and have succinct and descriptive captions → failed

Please fix the license tags, as well as WP:FAIR issues, for the following images:

• Obsolete image tags are found in Image:LocationIndonesia.png.
• Copyrighted images without proper fair use rationale: Image:Soekarno_Indonesia.jpg, Image:Indonesian_Rupiah.jpg.

In the article, there are two maps of Indonesia. Are they really necessary to have both? I think one image is enough. The other makes the article redundant and crowded.

in my opinion, both maps serve two very distinct purposes. One purely a political map, the other is a (very) hi-res almost topographical style map. They both fit in perfectly with their sections.

The last image about religion has been asked for its accuracy by a reviewer. I think it would get more questions if it is not fixed.

I think the concept is great, and i like the idea. It's faults have been documented however - see archive

(b) a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status → not relevant

Conclusion: It's a bit hard to judge whether Indonesia will pass GA. I see some reviewers would pass article easily, but some don't. GA is bit inconsistent, IMO, but it is popular now in WP. The odd for this article is a bit slim, I think. However, the major concern from me in this article is that the prose.

While i clearly don't agree with everything you have said, you have given us a fair bit to work on. (by the way, if i haven't replied to one of your comments above, it probably means i agree with it. That's a big job you've done!!!

--Merbabu 13:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Some issues from your comments:

1. Please do not say that this article is written with a brilliant prose, not for 6 year old reader. Any non-specialist reader should easily understand the subject. This is an encyclopaedia item, not a master thesis or a scientific paper. When I was reading this article to review, I pretended to be a non-specialist reader, who do not know a priori about the subject.
2. Please do not claim any subject is a common knowledge; thus it does not need a citation. It has been a lenghtly debate in Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources about common knowledge. One common knowledge for a person, does not mean it is the same common knowledge for another person. If you are a physicist, you have a common knowledge about relativity theory, but not for a policeman. Whenever we write a fact — any facts —, we should be able to support it with reliable source, if we are being challenged about it.
3. Peacock words are not suitable for encyclopedia. Let the sentence speaks for itself, if it is important or famous or great, etc.
4. I have fixed Ref #2 myself.

Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 14:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I thought that way. I'm sorry. Actually, some of your responses are correct. I've made some review errors: long one sentence, but it is actually two sentences, foreign relations might be okay inside government and politics section, etc. And specialist is just a person who knows more about the subject of the article. Just think of a non-specialist is someone from São Tomé and Príncipe, for example, and wants to study about Indonesia for his high-school project. ;-) — Indon (reply) — 15:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

he he, i will watch my step. Excellent work. --Merbabu 15:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Istiqlal Mosque pic

The copyright tags on this picture don't look right. Is this a copyvio? I could be wrong, please correct me.

I have another pic we can use:

I reckon it is in public domain. I also like the second picture, but there is a man with red shirt there :P. I'll ask other editors. Cheers -- Imoeng 02:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

As long as it is OK to use (which i am not yet convinced of) then leave it. I am not trying to push my pic, rather suggesting this be used if we need to remove the current pic. lol - i never saw that man. or maybe i forgot, it was a long time ago. Thanks --Merbabu 03:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Indonesia religions map

This map is inaccurate. North Sulawesi is majority-Protestant. Maluku is half Muslim, half Christian. It notes the 200,000 Hindus in Central Kalimantan, but not the 1.2 million Christians in West Kalimantan. Check all the info at: http://www.depag.go.id/index.php?menu=page&pageid=17 75.18.12.72 01:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for telling us. Indon will make a new map soon. Cheers -- Imoeng 04:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Geography

The lead para is: Indonesia, officially the Republic of Indonesia (Indonesian: Republik Indonesia), is a nation of islands consisting of 18,110 islands in the South East Asian Archipelago making it the world's largest archipelagic state.

Reading this in isolation would give the reader no indication that the western part of the island of New Guinea, a significant proportion of the total land area of the Indonesian nation, is not part of the archipelago but is in a different continent. JackofOz 20:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, New Guinea is an island, not a continent. It is also similar with Borneo, that part of it belongs to Malaysia and Brunei Darussalam. And also Timor island that is shared by East Timor. — Indon (reply) — 08:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

And, irrespective of whether it is part of a continent or not, the sentence itself is fine. Does a country article need to state what continent/s it is on in the first sentence? I think this is not worth worrying about. It all depends on what one is defining, for example, it is part of the Malay Archipelago. --Merbabu 08:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

As New Guinea is not part of the Australian mainland, I think that the current bit about Indonesia straddling the tectonic plates is sufficient information. Feeeshboy 06:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

Recently, there is one editor who put geographically-related infoboxes, that Indonesia is a country in this ocean, that ocean, etc. Who knows that there are more, like countries in equator, archipelagic countries, etc. I and Merbabu had reverted his edit, because the article becomes too crowded with so many infoboxes. I have put some notice (a comment) in the article.

Now, I'd like to suggest to remove several country-related infoboxes. I propose to remove Countries of Asia and Countries in South-East Asia, as ASEAN grouping is already enough. Also with D8, OIC and G15. Do they really add another information that can't be served with category? I suggest categorization is already enough, because there's no need to list other countries there.

I need other opinions. — Indon (reply) — 09:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we can OD (overdose) on info boxes, but there is value in some. I also like the infoboxes that can be minimised, they are good (click hide). As for the specifics, the one I think is compulsory is "Countries in South East Asia". THe rest can go to categories - maybe. ACtually, I am confused - people don't always scroll down that far, and if you click "Hide" it is not that bad.

As for the ed with the oceans, he is creating boxes for every sea in the world, and putting it on every country!!!! Has done about 750 edits in 2 days!!! --Merbabu 10:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, hide and show is not bad for reading, but have you noticed that it takes longer for this article to be loaded to your browser? That's because that whole infoboxes are needed to be transferred with so many redundant flag images, even if they're hidden by default. — Indon (reply) — 10:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but my guess is that load times are more influenced by images. Those boxes are just simple coding, right? --Merbabu 10:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually those infoboxes are transcluded templates, which are merely an inclusion of a page from a template space into an article, when the article is loaded. Some templates have codes, yes, but those infoboxes in this article do not. It's similar with the floating table that I created in Institut Teknologi Bandung article. The worst thing about infoboxes at the end of this page is that all of those use a lot of flag images. Those flag images look small, but it is because of resizing; thus actual size of flag images are transferred. — Indon (reply) — 10:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Race Issues and Discrimination

I was part of a social group that was made up of Indonesian students studying in Canada. Half were native muslim indonesians the rest were non-native ethnicities living in indonesia. Both agreed there was rampant and severe racism by the government and governmental organization against all minorites and especially non muslims. Little notes about racial tensions are mentioned in current issues but I think perhaps more should be written about it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.89.54.207 (talk • contribs)

I need the source of your statement, because IMO your statement is unclear and tend to discriminate some people or community. I think we must maintain NPOV in Wikipedia. --_Annas_ 12:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Religious tension has been covered in religion in Indonesia. Perhaps somebody would like to expand human rights in Indonesia for "government-motivated racism"? And for racial tension... hey, why ethnic groups in Indonesia is redirected to Indonesia?— Indon (reply) — 12:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I re-redirected it Demographics_of_Indonesia#Ethnic_groups --Merbabu 13:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Social tension is part of every community not only Indonesia. This statement is biased although there is some truth in it. The distinction is blurred. Not every 'native'-Indonesian is a Muslim and vice versa. Meursault2004 15:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sea Area

I reverted +-70% to 4% simply because it was clearly a guesstimate. How do we define sea area in INdonesia's case? If you include sea and land area, then perhaps the sea area is as much as 70%. We need a WP:RS. --Merbabu 08:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You're wishing - even something as simple as the East Timor Australian maritime boundary issue was a mess for a long time - what exactly constitutes Indonesian territory including sea boundaries/territorial waters is very unlikely in my guestimation - maybe someone has a reliable sourcce, but I'll believe it when I see it!SatuSuro 08:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

OK I'll retract that - my apologies - according to - www.indonext.com/Indonesia/About_Indonesia/

Size: Total land area 1,919,317 square kilometers, which includes some 93,000 square kilometers of inland seas. Total area claimed, including an exclusive economic zone, 7.9 million square kilometers. SatuSuro 08:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)