User talk:Smilo Don/Archive 2

TheFinalClub.org links

Have you seen followed the link to the annotations of the Shakespeare plays? Those annotations were done by a person with a PhD from Harvard's English department. The line-by-line Macbeth commentary is probably better than anything available free or in-print. Furthermore, links to for-profit sites such as Sparknotes and Cliff's Notes remain. I don't particularly understand your objection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewmagliozzi (talk • contribs) 15:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Citation templates...

Hi Smilo, have a look at WP:CITET. This makes citations a lot easier. Cheers --Merbabu 03:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Further, citations such as these are of limited use. Such cites assume that everyone knows who "Ricklefs" is and that he only had one publication. Please cite the sources in full (with a strong preference for use of the templates above). cheers. --Merbabu 10:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. I just ran out of steam. I have no interest or knowledge in the Deli Sultanate. I just created that thing with cut and pastes, so as to solve about 20 articles from linking to delicatessen. Dangling refs like those are very lame indeed. --Smilo Don 15:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason you still don't use the WP:CITET templates? WHile not mandatory, they make it easier for you and other editors, and allow for strong standardisation. They are commonly used amongst the more serious and dedicated in the wider wikipedia community, and by all the regular Indonesia project editors. It's much easier to put in at the start than have someone else come in after you. thanks. --Merbabu 10:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Merbabu. I've just been too lazy to learn it. Thanks for the nudge. Oh, and thanks for cleaning up the refs on gotong royong and elsewhere. --Smilo Don 13:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Just did the first on Megawati. Such a pain. Do you cut and paste the template from WP:Cite every time? Is there an easier way?? --Smilo Don 15:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Gotong royong

Has a nafas of koentjaraningrat and clifford geertz's work - something most editors on this thing would not have even been born before it was passe and cynicised by most - I would have thought KKN would have had much more meaning for most. SatuSuro 00:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Good points, SatuSoro. I think Geertz is making a big comeback. There's a nice new English volume of Koentjaraningrat. I haven't read it yet, but it looks nice. Agreed that KKN should have a page in WP. KKN might fall easily from people's lips, but gotong royong is arguably more impt to everyday life. --Smilo Don 13:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Kalau tinggal di indonesia - Jawa - satu suro - tak bisa soro - bulan yang pertama dan setiap tahun baru.... :)

Wah when I was living there it (GR) was redundant/cynicised/obsolete then - I am intrigued by your sticking to the importance - external enforced new order ideology as superficial as the pancasila propoganda sessions in the outer provinces to keep the intels flummoxed ? Cripes Koentj was drawing on the dutch written records of up to 40 years earlier and was as about as relevent as the 1957 elections (ie not) - and Geertzs work was completely dismissed by all the muslim publishing intellectuals and most ooutsider anthrops that I have ever read -so - I can see we will have to work on our sources very very carefully for all of this as I cannot see where you are getting your material/info - unless - one reads the early obscure work of palmier, or perhaps the early ward keeler - there might be some credence to the gotong royong superficial adherence - but even then it can be very hard to read into being a pervasive part of the public ideology of the orde baru - if we were doing a snapshot of parts of the bung karno era- maybe. oh well cheers SatuSuro 14:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Gee whiz, Satu, you seem pretty cynical about gotong royong. It's an ancient concept in the region, not just an instrument of Sukarno and Soeharto. That's typical of institutions of power: they come along and claim organic ideas as their own, redefine them, and put them to work for themselves. And, in the process, said abuse can leave people cynical (as you note). BUT, that doesn't change the importance of the idea, BOTH as an integrated part of society and as an appropriated device of rule. The word might have been corrupted, but the practice is still vital. (E.g. funerals, weddings, work parties, communal buildings, public works, etc. etc. etc.)

Geertz, for all of his dated ideas and errors, is definitely staging a comeback in anthropology. There was a huge backlash against his stuff, including a lot of well-founded critique, but folks are revisiting his work now. His is a huge body of work: some terribly dated, some still very worthwhile. Don't discount him. --Smilo Don 17:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Cyncism? I lived in the middle of central java in the mid 90's :) . I still like the b and w photo of hildred geertz in dancing classes in Yogya towering over the javanese like the way the dutch did - ok I cannot wait to see your sources or cites to back it up - good luck! SatuSuro 23:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a very legit case to be made that Sukarno and Soeharto manufactured the "ancient" quality of gotong royong. I've seen some scholarly cynicism on that one. But, for me, the political theft and hyperbole around gotong royong does not reduce its vitality in everyday life, whether or not the term is ancient, and whether or not people bother with it outside of state discourse. Call it gotong royong or call it something else. But when an earthquake happens, or when terraced rice paddies allocate water, or when some dude needs help fixing his motorbike, there's a lot of mutual aid going around. It's so obvious and so common-sensicle, that we forget it's there. Anyway, gotong royong could stand some more editing, if you're up for it. --Smilo Don 15:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ali Mughayat Syah

Actually, Ali Mughayat Syah did conquer Deli, Pedir, and Pasai, 100 years before Iskandar Muda. Or that's what's in Ricklefs, anyway. I think in the hundred years after his reign, some of the territories were lost, and Iskandar Muda reconquered Deli in 1612 (and successfully took Aru). Apparently Ali Mughayat Syah was quite the conqueror in his own right, although perhaps he has a smaller reputation because historical records are scantier that far back. (The 1824 was a silly typo that somehow nobody had noticed yet; it was 1524.) Rigadoun (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Rigadoun ! You're right--I just got out my Ricklefs. I should have checked before changing. My bad. That one typo threw me--I started to think the whole little episode (spanning a few WP articles) had been botched. Glad to see it's more-or-less on the level. I was also thrown by the fact that Ali M. Syah AND Iskandar Muda conquered the Deli sultanate. I naively thought that it was a steady expansion. We probably should note the expansion/contraction/expansion in there. It still needs work. Anyway, thanks for setting the record straight, Rigadoun . --Smilo Don 18:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

well worth a read

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Indonesia/Assessment#Quality_scale SatuSuro 09:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Seemed to me that gotong royong on that scale was more a "B" than a "start," since a B can be missing info. I think it has the basics, so I put "B" by the scale. It's ultimately pretty subjective. At the risk of being punny, one bloke's stub is another's start.--Smilo Don 15:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed - the pun in australia would be even worse seeing the stubbie is the container of the amber fluid - however some eds do make a practice of not assessing their own arts - SatuSuro 15:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok - rather than twiddling

Re:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Majapahit_Empire&action=edit&section=14

There already is in wikipedia a comprehensive set of guides to inter-personal conduct between editors - where either you might raise the ire or yours is risen - it is at WP:AGF WP:Wikiquette and WP:Civility and there really is no need to tinkle with 'Be nice' - there are many parts of policy that assume a particular style of behaviour has occured already on this rather odd place - and the items are in place. 'Be nice' is indeed anachronistic and probably redundant in the wiki world - it is already dealt with there in the items mentioned above - you dont like someone else or their ideas - best to walk away - edit wars and WP:PA only lead you into the dark side of wikipedia and no its not larsens cartoons :( or derrida's writings for that matter :/ SatuSuro 07:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent points, one and all, Satu. I'm satisfied with the way things have progressed. Still trying to figure out was WP "is." I appreciate your sagacity. Well earned, no doubt, from time spent tending the WP crops. --Smilo Don 01:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thought for the day--

One of the more interesting things is some sort of almost mappable terrain on WP. Some WP "space" is owned, some colonized, some seized by hostile takeover, some abandoned, and a lot of no-man's-land. A host of ideologies emerge in these 'spaces,' recapitulating parallel land use politics in the "real world." That is, some people have ownership ideologies based on how much one works or "improves" the land (a classic discourse of Euro-White colonialism)... getting into private property. Some editors feel there are resources enough for all (more your Atlantic Coast Indians' attitude in, say, Massachusetts)... more your hunter-gatherer communalism, or your Proudhon-Kropotkin-anarchist type of orientation. (We might say there is corresponding "political-economy" of foragers, horticulturalists, capitalists, etc.) In a perfect WP, there'd be a key difference: the foragers would be on equal footing with the "advanced" industrialists--they'd have the same population, and they couldn't be overwhelmed by superior militaries or economies. Oddly enough, the "real world" comes in here (as is nicely described in WP:Bias): the majority of editors is probably "White," "Western," "male," "heterosexual," and more or less in favor of private-property, ownership via "improvement," "globalization," "democracy," "free trade," "intellectual property rights," and "development." With superior numbers (i.e. "force") such a POV, however well-intentioned, can colonize, consolidate, expand, and terraform the WP lands in their image. --Smilo Don 01:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

No

minor changes, incl. "Indo" instead of Eurasian (and link). Americanized spellings--is that the WP norm American cultural imperialism might invade the minds of the world - but respect the anglo variations that we favour in the other part in the english speaking other half :) In this case - Indonesian articles have the indonesian preferences/usages unless otherwise indicated SatuSuro 14:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ta. Imperial favouritism, eh whot? Wuzn't sure, given WP's US origin and drive toward standardization. Thanks for the tip, Satu. Smilo Don 14:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

when in indonesia do as the indonesians do, when in oztrylia do as the oz do - in fact is part of the WP:MOS from memory :) SatuSuro 15:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Tautologist anthropologists

Having been trained as one I would never join a group of them - bit like librarians (of which i have been as well) collectively a very dangerous species when gathered in a confined space - just a point - you and most member of the fledgling project have put the project page and the members page on your user pages - redundant as a football commentator saying its a goal its a goal its a goal - and its only one. The project page addition is of no functional use to anyone including your honourable selves and an indicator no one in the group knows how to do the project management very well :( SatuSuro 01:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes--WPAnthro is a shockingly abysmal Wiki-project thus far. I don't know the mechanics of WP: I'm assuming that if I label Talk pages with the project, eventually some program will recognize the template? I'm surprised the project is off to such a terrible start, but I don't have time to take it on. Maybe its sad state will chagrin some to embrace the cause. Smilo Don 13:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Having spent the day tagging monty python articles and finding king arthur project tags preceding me at every article - and trying to get used to the workings of commons - its good night from him and good night from him - i would say some WP (wiki project) savvy knight in white armour will come save the day one day :/SatuSuro 13:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be liberating to be on my own in WPAnthro, but also isolating. One of the nice things about WPINdnesia is that there are a bunch of active editors who know Indonesia really well. For example, I just looked at User:Indon's adds to Nagarakretagama and Majapahit and I feel heartened by the expert collaboration. User:Merbabu and User:Rigadoun have being doing some great historical work. And you, Satu, are contributing all over the virtual archipelago. I still feel like there's a pro-"development" bias--and a lot of other biases too, but... Still, given the power and knowledge of the active editors it feels like there's a chance on WPIndo (as opposed to Anthro) to get things done, to bring out one another's strengths, to build a knowledge base for the world to see. Smilo Don 13:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

See also

Hello, I noticed you added a see also section to mutualism. There is already one there, however, above the references. This is where see also normally appears. See this for a little more about see also sections, if you haven't already read it. Richard001 22:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I thank you Smilo Don very much for your placing such respectful tags 'WikiIndonesia Project' and 'WikiPhilosophy Project' on my biography. Wish i can do lots in those projects FHidayat 14:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Bookchin as green anarchist

• Seems to me that Bookchin is a good example of an green anarchist. He's prominently noted on the page for Green anarchism and his Ecology of Freedom is often cited as a key text for the field. Cheers, --Dylanfly 20:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Have you read Janet Biehl's "Murray Bookchin's Break with Anarchism"? Best wishes, --TouristPhilosopher 16 October 2007

• My sense is that Bookchin was an anarchist, published as an anarchist, contributed to anarchist theory, then decided (after many books) that there were better directions for society. But those late conclusions in life don't invalidate his earlier relationship to green anarchism. Cheers, Smilo Don 21:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• To my mind he was an anarchist. The problem is that the people who call themselves anarchists today don't agree with me, with you or/and with Bookchin. Bookchin call them life-style anarchists. I agree with him. So for me its ok to call him a green anarchist but its real confused still call him anarchist after all his "fights" against the irrational and life-style trends of anarchism. I believe that Bookchin's anarchism has nothing to do with today's anarchism. So if we call Bookchin an (green) anarchist we have to find another label for today's "anarchistic" trends. No meaning. --TouristPhilosopher 18 October 2007

Indonesian collaborationists categ

Hey, thanks for keeping the gate. Perhaps you might want to know about the famous sockpuppeter DavidYork71. The user KeepingFactsReal who created the Indonesian collaborationists categ has similar contributions with DY71's puppets, e.g. Proudlyhumble07 (see his contributions). So just to let you know. Keep up the good work! ;-) — Indon (reply) — 15:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Evolutionary theories on the origin of religion

Hi, I have been working on this controversial article, if you have any time I would be grateful if you could take a look. Muntuwandi (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Guided Democracy (1957-1965)

Thanks for finding the "controversial" reference. My only problem was the verifiability - I did grit my teeth slightly when reverting it :-) Incidentally, arguably the original editor I reverted was verging on POV the other way by gracing the "Act Free of Choice" [sic] with the word "referendum". By the way, I see all has gone quiet on the Cipinang Jail article. I actually know quite a bit about it having visited a friend there on numerous occassions, but it's all original research of course. And yes, it is bad. Regards Davidelit (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I just e-mailed you Davidelit (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Michael Ball(fashion mogul)

A tag has been placed on Michael Ball(fashion mogul) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- pb30<talk> 19:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from pages that you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, then please place {{hangon}} on the page (please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag) and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. -- pb30<talk> 19:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. The speedy happened seconds after the start of the article, so I thought it was a robot. Smilo Don (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It looked like no one went to the trouble of re-adding it, so I did that. In the future, use {{hangon}} instead. --Thinboy00 @224, i.e. 04:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Availability for Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anthropology/Collaboration_of_the_month

The probable sorry state of 'core anthropology' articles on Wikipedia has been recently identified here

As a self-nominated Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anthropology member, I thought I'd check on your interest and willingness to see anthropology better represented on Wikipedia? Bruceanthro (talk) 14:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

S&H

I too am trying to keep it down to size; we have a new enthusiast. But I really think silent generation" is a term that can be supported otherwise than from them/. Lets just keep that article down to size as wellDGG (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Castoriadis

Dear Smilo Don Congratulations on you Castoriadis editings, this is a great contribution. I wonder if you know this, but I think that he was married to the prominent psychoanalyst Piera Aulagnier. Piera Aulagnier had important contributions to psychoanalysis and I remember knowing that both of them printed some significant theoretical material together. I wonder if you wish to check on that, and believe that it will be a good idea to add some lines on this, and references if you find any, in case my knowledge is indeed correct. What do you say? best, Doraannao (talk) 01:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC) Dear Smilo Don, Thanks for your reply in my page. The reason this is interesting is because they developed some theory together, and this is relevant to his intellectual theory development. I will check this one day and will let you know some references that might be of value to add. All best wishes, Doraannao (talk) 01:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Michael Ball (fashion mogul)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Michael Ball (fashion mogul), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Michael Ball (fashion mogul) seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Michael Ball (fashion mogul), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 04:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Chattanooga choo choo

Please could you find somewhere other than an indonesian article talk page to work out your displeasure at labels that have been in use for 50 years - if you think they are inappropariate - please go write the book - it really does not help the advancement of the article or the issues related - I am sure if you have those POV problems - then - really - your book or article will be more satisfying than trying to change the terminology in an article like that in wikipedia - it is a label or hook - if we got into what seems to be a form of political correctness about every article in the indonesia project we might as well go home and write our books too - they are in the end just articles. SatuSuro 23:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we might take the humorous academic approach to some issues like this with - Its great music - but can you dance to it? (viz you can dance to chatanoggo choo choo - but can we dance to angst about a label?) - its might be intellectually satisfying to question all the labels that we use in the encyclopedia - but its like asking the caterpillar to count its legs - in the end counterproductive SatuSuro 00:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If this was a bulletin board, blog or anything but wikipedia - I would accept your response - it is an online encyclopedia - we do not re-invent the wheel for whims - thanks for going to the trouble to outline your position in 1000 words which could have taken 100 - lets leave it at indonesia and struggle with more important issues - cheers SatuSuro 23:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

After spending time studying some issues and living amongst them in indonesia I do not consider myself in any way either an expert or authority and i have no position to stake a claim as to the knowledge required to ascertain some of the complex issues that have evolve in the malaysian archipelago (sic) over the last 100 years - or for that matter 400 - I am simply saying this is an online encyclopedia - it requires 'labels' however difficult they might be for the more intellectually curious as to their evolution and practice - and in most cases it is not the role of any encyclopedia to either 'rock the boat' or delineate challenges to the general practice - you have clearly misread the purpose of this location - I still say (if not repeat) - such an interest as yours is mislpaced - here is not the place SatuSuro 23:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

On further thought - you are most welcome - if you can find the sources to back it up to create an article - 'Regional constructs of South East Asia - as the notion of /idea of south east asia has had at least one book written about the concept - and I am sure the fellow wikipedia editors from malaysia and indonesia would just love to see their identities deconstructed a la smilo don - :| - but I would not support or endorse such a venture unless it specificaly had lots of in article citations and correct wikipedia format and style - if you are up to it it might solve your problem and create an article as well SatuSuro 02:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

A very good lead would be the rather inconsequential articles (either because of lack of citations on one and the paucity of information in the other) of South East Asia and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism_in_Asia - neither have the reflexivity that you exhibit - you could counter your ideas against those two and it would be a good contribution to the encyclopedia SatuSuro 01:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Petition of Fifty

Hi there. I got hold of a book on the Petition of Fifty and decided to write the article seeing as it is important and there seems to be no other English translation of the petition on the internet. I was chasing the links and spotted your user page. Sorry for getting there before you :-) While the article now has the text of the original and the official response, I do not have any paper sources for the public reaction and information about what happened to the people who signed the document. The Abdul Haris Nasution article does mention it, but there are no references. Do you have anything that would make the article more comprehensive? Regards Davidelit (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Boskop Man

Hi. If you happen to agree with my comment, I'll be happly to delete everything but the original comment.

Respectfully, --UnicornTapestry (talk) 17:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Balagangadhara

The reference you deleted was of a peer reviewed article in the Thomson Social Science Citation Index. The scholar whose notability you question has made an important contribution to post-colonial analyses of Hinduism. I have therefore undone your edit. One of the external links which you deleted concerns a lively and highly active internet discussion board that discusses the work of the author to which the page is devoted. It enjoys contributions from specialists and lay men, and can hardly be called a 'trivium.' I have put the link back.

As for the promotional tone of the wiki page, it was not my intention to promote anyone, but your comment is noted. I am revising the article.

Many thanks,

--Dindimus (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)