- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by 4meter4 (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Rumoh Aceh
edit
A traditional Acehnese house
... that the roof plates of Acehnese traditional houses are lashed to the beams using ropes, in a way that in case of fire, the roof can be quickly detached?- ... that the roof plates of traditional Acehnese houses are lashed to the beams using ropes, in a way that in case of fire, the roof can be quickly detached?
- Reviewed: Fukuda, Nagasaki
5x expanded by Rochelimit (talk). Self-nominated at 04:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC).
Needs a serious copyedit. For instance, "Acehnese traditional houses are mostly in the verge of extinction due to lack of supply of the required good timber for its construction and its impracticality for modern lifestyle" (on the verge of extinction, their construction, their impracticality). Three very basic errors in one sentence. Even the caption on this page is grammatically incorrect (there is more than one Rumoh Aceh, so you can't say "The Acehnese traditional house"; also, generally its traditional Acehnese house—place of origin goes after descriptor). Also, one of this article's main sources is a Blogspot page. That's not reliable enough for Wikipedia. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review Chris Woodrich. I've edited the grammar and replaced the Blogspot reference with a book one (there's probably a much better reference). The place origin issue bothers me as well because this translation is used in many book reference, such as the case of Javanese traditional house from the Indonesian heritage series (3 books). Perhaps the translation goes that way because it was translated from the Indonesian rumah adat Aceh --> Acehnese traditional house, with the emphasize on the "rumah adat". To avoid confusion however, I decided not to use that translation and decided to use Rumoh Aceh instead, although my preference is not to use the Acehnese language for consistency and for the sake that this is English Wikipedia.--Rochelimit (talk) 10:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- To not get into too detailed an argument over Indonesian-English translation, if there is to be emphasis on rumah adat, most academics I know would use the term "Rumah adat". There's a reason why we don't simply translate priyayi and menak as "nobleman": the connotations of the two in Javanese and Sundanese culture, respectively, are quite different from the European idea of nobility. Here we end up with an ungrammatical title because of an attempt to convey something in a way that just doesn't work. Works professionally published in English seem favour "traditional Acehnese house", like this, this, this, and this.
- The grammar is a bit better, but it still needs work; if I have time later, I'll have a go. Also, refs are lacking for several statements. Some of them could prove quite controversial; for instance, considering the current Acehnese view of Islam, the suggestion that something important to their culture originated from a non-Islamic tradition could be taken very seriously. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking your time to improve the article. Yes, the animistic origin may be taken very seriously by the existing conservative leaders as non-Islamic, however it's a historical fact - as well as a common knowledge - that Indonesia was once an animistic society even before the introduction of Hindu-Buddhism into Indonesia, and the same applies to Aceh. There are multiple examples of these traces of animism, even in the also extremely religious society of Minangkabau. Lots of still prevailing Minang custom can be potentially deemed as non-Islamic: maternalism, minang structure for the dead, etc. I think the association with animism (not with other religion) should be relatively fine, but anyway I'm adding another ref for that particular sentence. Also I used "traditional Acehnese house" now for the hook.--Rochelimit (talk) 13:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not disputing that; I'm well aware of the pre-Islamic traditions in Sumatra, such as the Hikayat Sri Rama. I'm saying that you need to cite this and all other potentially disputable information. This falls under WP:V, that the person adding material must "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." The sentence "The traditional units of the Acehnese were heavily influenced by the ancient Hindu Javanese unit of measurement, which is still used in the construction of the traditional houses of the Balinese." remains uncited, even now. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking your time to improve the article. Yes, the animistic origin may be taken very seriously by the existing conservative leaders as non-Islamic, however it's a historical fact - as well as a common knowledge - that Indonesia was once an animistic society even before the introduction of Hindu-Buddhism into Indonesia, and the same applies to Aceh. There are multiple examples of these traces of animism, even in the also extremely religious society of Minangkabau. Lots of still prevailing Minang custom can be potentially deemed as non-Islamic: maternalism, minang structure for the dead, etc. I think the association with animism (not with other religion) should be relatively fine, but anyway I'm adding another ref for that particular sentence. Also I used "traditional Acehnese house" now for the hook.--Rochelimit (talk) 13:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review Chris Woodrich. I've edited the grammar and replaced the Blogspot reference with a book one (there's probably a much better reference). The place origin issue bothers me as well because this translation is used in many book reference, such as the case of Javanese traditional house from the Indonesian heritage series (3 books). Perhaps the translation goes that way because it was translated from the Indonesian rumah adat Aceh --> Acehnese traditional house, with the emphasize on the "rumah adat". To avoid confusion however, I decided not to use that translation and decided to use Rumoh Aceh instead, although my preference is not to use the Acehnese language for consistency and for the sake that this is English Wikipedia.--Rochelimit (talk) 10:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- Also, please check what the proper tense is supposed to be: Present or past. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- I've removed the unit of measurement part. It's a fact that Javanese architecture influenced almost all architecture of the nusantara, including Aceh and the Moluccas (similar mosque architecture, similar garden architecture (gonongan, gunungan), kraton and alun-alun concept. I assume that this includes the measurement units (name similarity Acehnese deupa, ancient Javanese-Balinese depa). However I couldn't find any sentence referring to - specifically - the similar origin of the measurement units (ancient Javanese book Asta Kosala Kosali?), so I removed that uncited sentence. Out of referencing issue, I don't think it's potentially disputable.--Rochelimit (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- "Yes, the animistic origin may be taken very seriously by the existing conservative leaders as non-Islamic,"... That is your own statement. Anyways, what tense are you supposed to be using in this article? You jump between past and present. You say that the Rumoh Aceh are dying out, not dead, so why do a lot of the paragraphs you wrote use the past tense? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- One of the reference for the "construction" section is from this book by Peter Nas. He explained most of the construction part of a Rumoh Aceh in past tense. In page 136 and thru, I initially thought that he explained a construction process of this specific Acehnese house, but he used THE Acehnese house instead, which I think implies Acehnese houses in general. I don't know why the book explained everything about the construction process of the Rumoh Aceh in past tense, so I assume that the book tells us about a practice that has not been widely practiced anymore. So I decided not to change the tense, because I don't want to assume wrongly.--Rochelimit (talk) 09:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
- In that case, we need to be clear what is the "traditional" method and what sources say is still done. Tense alone is not enough. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
- Please give me time. I'm planning to check one more source to support that part. Will review it the next 20 hours.--Rochelimit (talk) 14:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- Alright, no rush. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- I've fixed the grammar and added new references. Hopefully it's okay now.--Rochelimit (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- I've removed the unit of measurement part. It's a fact that Javanese architecture influenced almost all architecture of the nusantara, including Aceh and the Moluccas (similar mosque architecture, similar garden architecture (gonongan, gunungan), kraton and alun-alun concept. I assume that this includes the measurement units (name similarity Acehnese deupa, ancient Javanese-Balinese depa). However I couldn't find any sentence referring to - specifically - the similar origin of the measurement units (ancient Javanese book Asta Kosala Kosali?), so I removed that uncited sentence. Out of referencing issue, I don't think it's potentially disputable.--Rochelimit (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- Also, please check what the proper tense is supposed to be: Present or past. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Looks passable now. Good to go. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
