Talk:Indonesia

Transcontinental country

Why is it that it is only mentioned in the Geography section that Indonesia is a transcontinental country? Why not state it on the main article summary as well? 2406:3003:2002:2D79:645F:EDDC:481F:15A0 (talk) 10:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Because it's pretty meaningless trivia. CMD (talk) 03:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

New Guinea is fully part of Oceania, that's why. G0dzillaboy02 (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2024

Indonesia
Establishment
• Proclaimed Independence from the Netherlands	17 August 1945
• Emergency Government of the Republic of Indonesia	22 December 1948
• Republic of United States of Indonesia & Recognized Independence from the Netherlands	27 December 1949
• Liberal / Parliamentary Democracy of The Republic of Indonesia	17 August 1950
• Guided Democracy of The Republic of Indonesia	5 July 1959
• New Order of The Republic of Indonesia	11 March 1966
• Reformation of The Republic of Indonesia	21 May 1998

Handhikka (talk) 06:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Not done, the additions are not changes in sovereignty. CMD (talk) 06:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2024

“The country’s capital, Jakarta” should be changed to “the country’s largest city” V37z (talk) 13:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

 Question: why? M.Bitton (talk) 23:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

It was moved to Nusantara since 17 August 2024 to avoid Jakarta from sinking in the next decade. 2001:FD8:2606:147:2053:6E3D:CDE4:C612 (talk) 00:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

No it wasn't. The capital has not yet been moved - it is only a plan. There has been no government announcement about a move. Davidelit (Talk) 01:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done per Davidelit comment above. Ckfasdf (talk) 09:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Wrong capital

The page is locked for edits, but I see it had the wrong capital. Indonesia officiaøøy changed to Nusantara om 17th of August. 46.15.96.48 (talk) 12:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

It did not, celebrations were held there, but the city is still under construction. CMD (talk) 12:41, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Lol its still forest 🤣 Protocetus1 (talk) 13:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2024

i want to change critical error on the wikipedia about indonesia (en wiki) there's called

The name Indonesia derives from the Greek words Indos (Ἰνδός) and nesos (νῆσος), meaning "Indian islands".[12] The name dates back to the 19th century, far predating the formation of independent Indonesia. In 1850, George Windsor Earl, an English ethnologist, proposed the terms Indunesians—and, his preference, Malayunesians—for the inhabitants of the "Indian Archipelago or Malay Archipelago".[13][14] In the same publication, one of his students, James Richardson Logan, used Indonesia as a synonym for Indian Archipelago.[15][16] Dutch academics writing in East Indies publications were reluctant to use Indonesia. They preferred Malay Archipelago (Dutch: Maleische Archipel); the Netherlands East Indies (Nederlandsch Oost Indië), popularly Indië; the East (de Oost); and Insulinde.[17]

which is wrong, malay archipelago is commonly used to call sumatra and smaller island around it. not whole continent of indonesia. commonly indonesia called by "nusantara" (since historical date of majapahit on 1336) or dutch east indies (since early 1620s) i think this is massive wrong when calling indonesian as "malay archipelago" where the malay itself even minority. even javanese not identify himself as malay.

i hope you can unlock this edit, i myself is now learning for Magister degree on my campus on historic matter, and it's sad to see simple things like indonesia "Whole indonesia" being called malay archipelago where the rest of indonesia doesn't even identify as malay's

i can help modify/renew the source with lastest credible research and source too. i hope you can accept my appeal

called whole island (modern day indonesia and part of philipine and whole malaysia as nusantara) and it's own people also call it "Majapahit inside nusantara archipelego" and yeah idealism about "malay archipelego" is some facist malaysian idealism that drive from man made history of "ALAM MELAYU" which said "all South East Asian + some part of south indian, and almost all sea related" is being own by malay which is hughly false, we're all know that almost all of it is exaggerated by malaysian to propaganda that they're the best tribe on south east asia. which is not true. since human had it's own history and past. with that being said. i hope you can move the "melayu archipelago" to "melayu of indonesia" section instead slapping it to entire indonesia which isn't even melayu at all. even nearest people like dayak on kalimantan will not call himself as melayu. Dhanamerdeka (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Remsense ‥ 论 20:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Infobox

@Ckfasdf: One important reason for removing information about ethnic groups, regional languages, and religions from the infobox is the inconsistency and uncertainty of the data often presented. For example, the number of ethnic groups can vary widely between sources, with some listing ‘1,300 ethnic groups’ and others stating ‘600 ethnic groups,’ depending on how ethnicity is defined or categorized. These discrepancies make the data less reliable and may mislead readers. Additionally, figures such as ‘1,300 ethnic groups’ or ‘700 languages’ only represent numbers without providing sufficient context. For this reason, it is better to focus information about ethnicity, language, and religion in the main body of the article, where a more thorough and contextualized explanation can be provided.

One of the best examples is the Germany infobox, which excludes figures for ethnic groups, languages, or religions, focusing on clear data like population, area, and government structure. Bayoka55 (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

While I understand the concern regarding inconsistency and uncertainty in data about ethnic groups, regional languages, and religions, I believe removing these parameters entirely from the infobox may not be the best approach for the following reasons:

1. The Template:Infobox country explicitly lists parameters for ethnicity, language, and religion, which are widely used across country articles. Unless there is a consensus to deprecate these parameters, there is no strong justification to avoid their use, provided that the information included is well-sourced and verifiable.
2. The infobox in the Germany article is indeed an exception rather than the norm. It is one of the few articles that does not include information on ethnicity, languages, or religions, making it an outlier rather than a standard to emulate.
3. Most country articles on Wikipedia use these parameters in their infoboxes, providing a quick and concise overview of the country's demographics.
4. Even in countries such as Papua New Guinea, Nigeria and India, known for its linguistic diversity, the infobox includes parameters on languages similar to Indonesia.

Therefore, rather than removing these parameters altogether, a better approach would be to ensure that the information presented in the infobox is accurate, well-sourced, and reflective of the context, while using the main body of the article to expand on nuances and complexities. This allows the infobox to serve its purpose as a concise summary while maintaining the article's depth and reliability. Ckfasdf (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Ckfasdf, this is not a helpful response. CMD (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with CMD and Bayoka - it would make sense to explore these details in the appropriate section. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria:According to MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the purpose of an infobox is to provide readers with key facts at a glance, while detailed information should be included in the appropriate sections of the article. By filling out these parameters, we help readers quickly understand these key facts.

And, unless a parameter is deprecated, there is no valid reason to remove it—especially when the majority of country articles use this parameter (e.g., United States, Finland, Brunei, South Africa, New Zealand, etc.). The fact that one article does not use a particular parameter does not mean it should be removed, particularly when it is commonly used in similar articles. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

The fact that a parameter exists does not mean it must be filled. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: True, but that does not mean it should not be filled as well. Especially when it is a parameter commonly included in other similar articles. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the explanation provided above is sufficient reason, and see WP:OTHERCONTENT. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: The purpose of an infobox is to provide key facts about the topic at a glance. As the second most linguistically diverse country and the most populous Muslim-majority country, IMO these facts should be included in the infobox. Ckfasdf (talk) 05:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

also about Bayoka55's concern regarding ethnic groups, it has already been addressed in my latest edit. Ckfasdf (talk) 05:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Bayoka55's concern is about the inconsistency and uncertainty of the data often presented, especially on ethnic groups, regional languages, and religions. Let’s dive deeper into each of these points.

Firstly, regarding ethnic groups: initially, the parameter was filled in with "600 ethnic groups," and it was sourced. I am aware that other sources also state "1,300 ethnic groups." However, if we refer to similar articles and template documentation, it becomes clear that this is not the recommended way to fill in this parameter. In my edit, I revised it to list specific data, such as "Ethnic group A: XX%, Ethnic group B: XX%," and so on. This approach resolves the issue that Bayoka55 raised earlier, making the information more specific and accurate.

Secondly, regarding regional languages: Indonesia is the second most linguistically diverse country in the world. Including the figure of "700 languages" provides factual evidence of this diversity. This approach is consistent with the article on Papua New Guinea, the most linguistically diverse country.

Thirdly, regarding religion: Bayoka55 did not raise any specific issue with this parameter. Religion is one of the most commonly used parameters in infobox for country articles and provides at a glance insight into the societal makeup of a nation. I don’t see any compelling reason to exclude this parameter.

Lastly, Bayoka55 mentioned that Germany excludes figures for ethnic groups, languages, and religions, focusing instead on clear data like population and area. However, even this so-called "clear data" can vary depending on the source. For example, the population listed in Germany's article is 82.7 million according to the 2022 census. However, UNICEF lists it as 84.5 million, the CIA.gov lists it as 84.1 million, and the EU lists it as 83.4 million. If we follow Bayoka55’s logic, the population parameter should also be removed due to inconsistencies in the data source. Ckfasdf (talk) 14:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

There's a lot of llm text in this discussion. This should be avoided, as llms do not understand what they are writing, nor what they are responding to. CMD (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I am absolutely shocked by your refusal to engage in a discussion with an experienced editor in good standing solely because they quite likely have made use of AI-assisted tools to brush up their English. Beyond the smoothed-out surface, I can see a set of well-thought policy-based arguments that deserve to be answered.

That said, I only partially agree with User:Ckfasdf's points. Indonesia is a multi-ethnic nation, and the ethnic, linguistic, and religious make-up of its population represents the very type of key facts that can be presented in an infobox—in principle, provided it presents a concise and meaningful summary of the article's prose, which itself needs to be solidly sourced. In the case of religious affiliation, I can't see how six data points exceed the limit of infobox-worthy information. Let's restore this at least, if tag-teamers are unwilling to self-revert in full.

The question of ethnic groups and languages is more tricky. We could have a list of the most numerous ethnic groups and languages, leaving us however with the problem of reasonable cut-off points that make a balance between a digestable number of entries and a residue that shouldn't be to high in relative and absolute numbers. Not to forget the sentiments of those "left out" which will turn very discussion about cut-off points into an endless exchange of whines.

But non-entries like the sheer number of languages or ethnic groups are not infoboxworthy, especially when they feign a degree of exactness that is proven highly volatile every time when bureaucrats decide to classify ethnicities and languages differently, based on their current understanding of the ethnic and linguistic diversity in Indonesia. Broad variation based on fluent (and often arbitrary) criteria of individuation/identifiaction on the one hand, and uncertainty of measurement (as in the case of the population of Germany) on the other, are two very different things. Three people in Germany standing in the street will be always counted as three, not as two or four depending on different criteria how we distinguish human individuals. The high degree of linguistic and ethnic diversity of Indonesia is a key fact, but one that is better reflected in the prose of the lead section rather than in the infobox. –Austronesier (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

There's no likely about it and it's not one editor. To respond to your specifics, the use is not a smoothed out surface of brushed up English either. Much of it appears to mention the concepts but without knowing the specifics of the concept. Take "However, if we refer to similar articles and template documentation, it becomes clear that this is not the recommended way to fill in this parameter". This doesn't read as based on the actual template documentation, which just notes a "List/breakdown of ethnic groups". It reads as based on the idea of template documentation, as in the actual documentation there's no recommendations at all. At some point PNG was picked up as an example, and that's been kept in the memory. This is despite that if it was actually being referred to as a model, one item that stands out is that the PNG infobox simply says "Ethnic groups: Papuan". I don't think I fall fully on the removal side, but it's hard to engage with something that isn't itself engaged with what it's talking about. CMD (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, PNG, Nigeria and India are only cited as models for the language parameter. And lo and behold, all three have a total number of languages either as a full or more specified ("native languages" etc) entry. Apparently, the presumed machine has made a good catch. For the moment, I prefer to engage with what might turn out to be partially AI enhanced text, than with a somewhat sloppy deconstruction of it. –Austronesier (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Nigeria and India were manual additions. The PNG repetition is the model spinning its wheels on one item without knowing any of the context. I don't know how to deconstruct llms, they're a black box, which is part of the issue. If I could deconstruct it, it would be easier to figure out what to reply to. CMD (talk) 04:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)