Talk:Dayak people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Flag Dayak people is part of WikiProject Indonesia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. Please do not substitute this template.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Indonesian WikiProject • Indonesian notice board • Indonesian WikiPortal

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dayak people article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] earlier comment

I deleted "spiritually weak" as it is very POV --Tamas 10:57, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Dayak

The article says dayak means 'upstream'. While this might be true, I know the word 'dahulu' for upstream. Are these terms maybe mixed up?

It is already explained by someone right below. "Dahulu" means "in the past time". Maybe u mixed it up with "hulu", no worries ;) Matahari Pagi 08:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Re-Edited for Clarity

[edit] Questions

I've never heard of cannibalism in Borneo. So I changed that. Correct me if I'm wrong (though I doubt it). DirkvdM 11:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

You are wrong. There is no term such as Dahulu. It is a adjective, the meaning of which in english, is "In earlier times, once upon a time, etc".

[edit] Indonesia

...the Iban arrived in western Sarawak from Indonesia about 1675. Indonesia is a bit vague, it didn't exist yet in 1675, and if it is meant to refer to present-day Indonesiam then that is also confusing that most of Borneo is Indonesian now. Can this be made more specific? DirkvdM 11:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sea Dayaks

The history section is almost entirely on Sea Dayaks, most notably Iban. This makes sense given their recorded history, but it looks very much out of balance. So I've moved most of this to the Iban article. Also, are they realy Dayaks? They live on the same island (but so do the Punan), but have a different origin. I also get the impression that much of what is said about Dayaks is really about Ibans (eg names like 'bilek' and 'Simpualang Gana'). DirkvdM 11:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Ibans are Dayaks. "Iban" is a reference for this group of Dayak, although Dayak is a general term used to, officially, describe all natives in Borneo.

[edit] Reverted rewrite

I've reverted this rewrite of the article, for two reasons. 1) It removed substantial, well-formatted information, and was incorrectly formatted. 2) While the existing article wasn't great, the rewrite was egregiously written from, frankly, the point-of-view of a a nineteenth-century amateur anthropologist; surely the only two features of the Dayaks worth mentioning aren't their earlobes and filed teeth! Anyway, I'm noting this revert here, with the link above to what I removed, because there might be a little content in there worth merging in, though I didn't immediately see anything that's an improvement over what we already have. CDC (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, it's a copyvio of an unsourced page on a freebie website [1]; not sure why I didn't check that before... CDC (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Ibans are Dayaks in the general sense. In terms of identity this is akin to saying the English are Anglo Saxon.

[edit] Colonisation?

In 2001 the Indonesian government ended the colonisation of Kalimantan that began under Dutch rule in 1905. As an Indonesia, I can say this is wrong. Colonisation at Kalimantan ended at 1945 when Indonesia declare its independency not at 2001.

Colonisation means something like 'opening up new territories'. This does not just refer to the Dutch colonisation in the Dutch Indies. For example, in what is now the Netherlands there was also a colonisation of the eastern regions, except much earlier (middle ages). And within Indonesia there was the colonisation of Borneo from Java and Madura, known as 'transmigrasi'. DirkvdM 17:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Following that train of thought, then "colonisation" of Sarawak and Sabah would be real to you.

I resent that. I'm from Kalimantan. The formation of the Indonesian state was not based on colonisation. Basically, we have a common interest to break free from the western colonization and we formed a unitary state. The current provinces of Kalimantan comprised of kingdoms and federations which agreed to become one province under Indonesia. Matahari Pagi 07:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The process of Decolonisation in Indonesia and Malaysia is a sensitive subject, especially in those Provinces and States in Borneo. There is evidence to suggest that in the case of Sarawak, decolonisation was not an entirely straightforward process, as the State was lunged into colonisation, emergency and war, from 1948 to 1966. In the case of the Kalimantan States and Provinces, internal political wrangling between the Banjarese and Dayaks actually contributed to the formation of Indonesia in Borneo.

The policies of "Transmigrasi" itself is fairly controversial, in the sense that in itself, it was perceived by some, as a crude attempt to introduce migrant communities en masse in certain districts and provinces in Indonesia Borneo. This invariably altered the local politics, and it is in these changes that evidenced the mass breakdown in social and community cohesion there.

Tuai 18:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tuai (talk • contribs) 19:37, 31 March 2007.

Please, in the matter of Kalimantan, especially South Kalimantan, ask me. South Kalimantan Province was formed by Kotawaringin, Dayak Besar, Banjar Territory and Federation of South East Kalimantan. Later on, Kotawaringin and Dayak Besar formed a new Province of Central Kalimantan. South Kalimantan remained a Banjarese-majority province and the new province have their chance to paint their own province with more Dayak colors. Of course, there are a lot of Banjarese in Central Kalimantan and there are a lot of Dayaks in South Kalimantan too. We live in harmony. The only problem the Dayaks have is with Madurese, by transmigration.Matahari Pagi 10:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

Made small edit to distinguish indigenous historiocal accounts from colonial histories.--campdog 07:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"The term Malay is generic, and is applied loosely to describe all those inhabitants of South East Asia. It is specific only to the ethnic Melayu of south eastern Sumatera, Riau and various geographic areas of western Malaya. Minihasas, Mandailings, Jakuns, Bataks, Bugis, Javanese, Achehnese, Tagalogs, Suluks, Minikoks, Dayaks, Khmers, Thais, Karens, Hamaheras, Taiwanese Indigenes, etc, are representative of the wider austronesian presence in the Archipelago." Is this neccessary, it doesn't seem to take us anywhere, I propose a delete. --campdog 07:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Unless the history is explicitly an ethnic Malay one, focusing on the differences for now maybe necessary.

You can always refer the readers to Malay(race) and Malay(Ethnicity) to explain the difference.Matahari Pagi 08:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agriculture

Cleaned up into section to Agriculture. I didn't make much sense before.--campdog 07:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"The main dependence on subsistence and mid-scale agriculture by the Dayak has made this group active in this industry. The modern day rise in large scale monocrop plantations such as palm oil and bananas proposed for vast swathes of Dayak land held under customary rights, titles and claims in Malaysia and Indonesia, threaten the local political landscape in various regions in Borneo. Further problems continue to arise in part due to the shaping of the modern Malaysian and Indonesian nation state on the back of previous British and Dutch colonial political systems and western laws on land tenure. The conflict between the state and the Dayak natives on land laws and native customary rights will continue as long as the Anglo-Saxon colonial model on land tenure is used to define relationships between the Dayak citizenry and the central authority of the state. Dayak cultivated land, interpreted by local customary law, is considered to be owned and held in right by the natives, and the concept of land ownership as thus, flows out of this central belief. This understanding of adat is based on the idea that land is used and held under native domain. Invariably, when European colonial rule was established, conflict over the subjugation of territory by a foreign authority erupted several times between the Dayaks and the respective colonial authorities." This is all definitely POV and no to the point for the agriculture section. I think it could be reworked and included in a section on land tenure reform. --campdog 07:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Definitely POV, although just one interpretation of local customary rights and laws. Insertion of Indo and Sarawak Land law should be inserted.

[edit] religion

Deleted "furtively introduced" too POV.--campdog 07:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Love of Pork needs to go. Islam is not synonymous to just one group so "furtively introduced" still applies. Alternatively "supported" could describe further Dayak Islamisation, especially in Malaysia.

A noble can become kamang after the Dayak prepared a grand fest in which they carve a wooden figure (pantak) of the deceased. A priest then summons the soul of the deceased and invites him to "inhabit" the wooden image. In the ceremony, the pantak is set upright, sprinkled with rice and fed like a child by putting bits of rice in its mouth.[2] The pantak is then placed in the village center called padegei. The Dayak believes that when the pantak is transported into padegei, the soul of the deceased joins the kamang and then returns to the mountain.

To Indon,

As we discussed.

I am going to delete this, pending better examples in the future. First of all, the para in question does not mention if this is a Kantu, Bugau, or indeed a Kadayan religious practise. My point is that the para does not cite which Dayak subgroup practices this ritual. For WIKI purposes this should be expanded and better described rather than inserted from other sources. For now, I am going to remove it whilst over the next week or so, I will add other practices fitting in with various religious and customary practices prevalent in Kaharingan belief. In that sense, the religion section can be improved.

Grateful for your patience and I hope you do not see this as an act of Vandalism.

Tuai 18:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


Discrimination " A problem with conversion to these two religions was the Dayak's habit of pork and alcohol diet. Islam forbids the consumption of pork and missionaries attempted to discourage the consumption of alcohol."

I am going to remove this sentence altogether. It is insulting to the Dayak as a whole regardless of their religious belief, because it deliberately denigrates them. Dietary preferences is not something in general to do with accepting Christianity or Islam, and neither is labelling the Dayak alcoholics helpful. Moreover, both food and drink has nothing with religion.

Tuai 22:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Confusing Sentence. "Over the last two centuries, some Dayaks were converted to Islam, abandoning certain cultural rites and practices, including the Dayak ethnic identity. "

Some "were" converted to Islam??? How?? Was Islam enforced or Imposed??? This sentence needs to be less POV and more specific in example. It needs to explain how Islam spread in Borneo, and how this ties in with the rise and fall of those Borneo Kingdoms, Nakhoda Ragam, Kutai, Negara Daha and Negara Dipa in particular. I suggest further amendments. How about; Islam was gradually introduced, and took place amongst several local Dayak groups???

We do not need a timescale as that would be better served in a separate article on the various Hindu and Islamic Kingdoms in Borneo. (Pre Indonesia and Malaysia).

Tuai 22:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Politics

There was no Indonesian state in the late 19th century. Dutch Colonial state would be better.--campdog 08:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Love of Pork has nothing to do with further the Islamizing of the Dayak. This needs to be removed.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tuai (talk • contribs).

[edit] Photos

I had found the foto "Dajak children" used in the finnish version fi:Dajakit, consider also the fotos on the russian page: ru:Даяки. Although these may be newer I dont think them as good. They seem more rather made up for tourists. (notice the modern shoes) I dont think they show a better image of what a Dayak is today. Except if you want to reduce the Dayak people to their function as tourist attraction. An upto date foto of modern Dayaks would probably not look much different to some modern malays. A good foto might be some dayaks in front of a longhouse to show that a great portion of this population group still lives in a way that differs from their neighbours in the coastal towns and cities (any numbers on this?). The caption of the picture "Dajak children" might be not the best. It could make it clearer that this is not the way they dressed every day but rather dressing up for a special event. (Like an jungle smoking) --T.woelk 08:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for Malaysian Dayak but I certainly can explain from Indonesian's point of view (I am from Kalimantan). Kalimantan is a big area, and while there are Dayak Indonesians who live in the modern world, there are still people who still wears their traditional outfit in daily life too. Matahari Pagi 08:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Matahari Pagi (what a lovely name :-), since you're in Kalimantan, do you have pictures of Dayak people? So that we can combine them as such in the Malays (ethnic group) article. — Indon (reply) — 10:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi there Indon, why thank you! ;) Unfortunately I don't have any :( And all the Dayaks I have met wore modern (AKA western) outfit anyway... Matahari Pagi 10:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I very much hope there are still a lot of people around in the world that rather wear their traditional clothes than the causual t-shirt and shorts you see so often. Yet the picture surely does not show every day clothes but clothes for a special occasion. --T.woelk 19:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

To T Woelk,

The image is taken from an earlier anthropological book circa 1905. It is not the best image to potray the Dayak as a whole, and in fact the image should have been used in the same context it was published in the Book. For overall purposes, I suggest we remove the image altogether and if others find the article interesting, they can then google the term "Dayak" in the image search function.

Tuai 18:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tuai (talk • contribs) 18:36, 31 March 2007.

if you study the article history, you will see that I had added the photo to the history section before somebody else moved it to the info box. I am now pretty sure the history section is the correct place and the time the photo was made must be mentioned in the caption. I still think the photo should be left in the article. I totally agree though that It has little to do with Dayaks of today. So then to those whom this may concern "make photos!" Yet one image representing what all dayaks are today? Good luck. Maybe this photo is just as good or bad as any other ;) --T.woelk 14:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

To T Woelk,

My point is, it matters not where this photo is placed but in what context it is used. For the purposes of this WIKI article, an image of 2 Dayak teenagers taken in 1905 IS NOT REPRESENTATIVE of the DAYAK as a whole today. And in fact, if you wish to see example images of their past culture, then I suggest a celluloid version of the Sleeping Dictionary, perhaps a still image of Jessica Alba in full Hindu kaharingan regalia, if I am following your train of thought correctly. This is what you are infering. By use of that image, you are saying that the Dayak today are as backward and as primitive as the photo suggests. This is a put down to say the least, and quite possibly very insulting. I am now asking for the photo to be removed.

I look forward to your response assuming your good faith. Failing that, I shall in future, replace this with an image of a recognizable Longhouse or other uptodate photos.

--Tuai 15:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

To T Woelk and Indon,

The Photo used is now in Dispute. Please refer to my point above. Also, read below from Wikipedia:

The best way to resolve a dispute is to avoid it in the first place.

Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to. The revision you would prefer will not be established by reverting, and repeated reverting is forbidden; discuss disputed changes on the talk page. If you encounter rude or inappropriate behavior, resist the temptation to respond unkindly, and do not make personal attacks.

I hope we can resolve this here on this thread. I am going to re-edit the box and remove the image, pending a better photo to be used. That is the best compromise.

--Tuai 19:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I am somewhat irritated. You seem to have several opinions about the photo and what you would allow in the article that seem to differ from mine. You seem to not want any historic photo in the article, not even in the historic section. I haven't seen the film the "Sleeping Dictionary" but from your wording I conclude you consider it incorrect in terms of portraying the dayak culture or at least clothing. Following this thought you seem to say that the photo is not only old but also incorrect for its time? It does not show what any dayak may have looked like at any time in history? Ok so we need two articles, one called "Dayaks of today" and another called "Dayaks (historic)" of course excluding the photo as it shows incorrect clothing. What would be your threshold for a good photo? 1970? 1990? 2007? Honestly I don't mind the historic photos in the cowboy or Ainu people article and I think most people understand that modern cowboys wear modern jeans and the modern Ainu may not look as traditional as on the image. I must say I'm very curious what kind of photos will be left in the article in the future. I hope something that gives an ethnic identity and we wont see pictures of people that don't give a hint to where they live in the world or what culture they belong to assuming we still have several different cultures out there as of today. What I will be missing will be pictures of where the Dayaks came from - as user Tuai seems to find this offending to modern Dayaks? --T.woelk 02:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I also don't see any problem with including historic photos on this page, especially since it is labeled as such. If you want a photo which represents the contemporary Dayak people, you had better find one to include. (MichaelJLowe 09:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC))

You seriously need to calm down. Nobody ever said about the pic representing the present Dayak people. I think both historic and contemporary pics are allowed and there no such rule against that. Matahari Pagi 10:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

To Michael J Lowe

Thanks for maliciously reinserting the unqualified photo in the "Historic" Section. I wonder which part of my earlier entry you chose to ignore?

I have asked other Users to kindly use photos in the correct context. In this example;

1. This would mean explaining why a Photo circa 1905 and from an earlier copyright source was used.

2. This would mean that setting out your reason why you prefer old photos of 2 children taken to represent the image of the Dayak in Borneo today and why this was used as a further illustration in the otherwise incorrectly termed "historic" section.

3. You then go on to justify your Luddite repetition because "you see no problem in using this photo"? You do this, despite the WIKI paragraph I have used in outlining the dispute in imagery.

Not content with the compromise I struck with TWoelk, you blatantly tell me to go look for another photo. This is how you courteously treat me as a User on WIKI. I will look for another image to be used instead, because as a User, I will use this in the appropriate context.

Reading your actions, I sincerely doubt your interest in enhancing this article. I don't expect your reply, so don't bother. This is after all, business as usual for you.


Tuai 12:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Tuai, please do not attack other editors. I have warned you on your usertalk page and being WP:AGF. However, your personal attack against MichaelJLowe is unacceptable. Michael has been the best editor for Indonesia-related articles and your accusation is baseless. Please refrain from such remarks and I want you to apologize to Michael.
Regarding the photo, I believe you are the only person who do not want the photo but yet you do not provide alternative ones. I am the person who put the photo on the infobox and the photo is historical to best represent the Dayak people in the past.
— Indon (reply) — 12:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

To Indon

In my message to MichaelJLowe, I made no personal attack. My CONCERN with his altering has been carefully explained. I have already said that I will look for another photo to be used, and my concern was directed against the User's earlier intervention. The Photo is being used in the WRONG context, and I find the use of that PHOTO insulting.

Terima Kasih

Tuai 12:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears personal attack to me and even if you deleted/edited your post, everybody can still see them from the history. Although I thank Merbabu for deleting Tuai's comments, but I disagree about removing comments per WP:TALK and WP:EQ. — Indon (reply) — 12:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
My deletion of the unnessary remark was intended as a sign of good faith and leeway to a new and potentially good editor who i think probably just needs to be encouraged to, well, um, operate a bit more smoothly on talk pages. I believe he will if given such assistance. I have just informed him I am preparing an e-mail for him. However, if it turns out I am wrong and he is a bad faith, rather than good faith editor, i will gladly reinstate his comments i removed? Is that OK? :) Merbabu 12:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Tuai, wikipedia is not your personal play pen. You haven't provided any reasonable explanation why these historic photos are not suitable. You are the only person objecting to them, everyone else wants the images here. You keep repeating that the images are being used in the wrong context without explaining what you mean by this. This article is about Dayak people including their history, not just about contemporary Dayaks. Trying to override the consensus on wikipedia with personal attacks won't further your cause. (MichaelJLowe 13:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC))

To MichaelJLowe

I have expressed my concern. I am not satisfied with your reply. In good faith, I suggest we close this matter by agreeing that the article in question will continue to change in content and in appearance. That is the WIKIPEDIA way.

Furthermore, although my objection can be construed by others as singularly valid, in no way does that reduce the reasons I gave, nor justify the negative decision made. Please see {{WP:CCC}}

Tuai 11:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Alternative Proposal

Why don't you replace the image with the one used in the society section? The disputed image has no relevance to the "history" section and in fact looks like nonsense. I am certain Dayak history can be better expressed with the image in the society section.

That way we build consensus WP:CC and move forward with this project.

I am looking forward to a positive response.

Tuai 21:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Banjar

Just to let everyone know, that I am going to erase "Banjar" from the list of Dayaks. Banjarese are a different entity as they are made of the native, the Malay, and the Javanese into a completely different culture. In fact, they more apparent side of the Banjarese are their Malay (Ethnicity) side seen from the customs and traditions point of view. Dayaks and Banjarese are truly related, but not the same thing.Matahari Pagi 08:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Matahari,
I am going to re add the term Banjar into the list of Dayaks. The Banjar were, in the past, generally made up of Islamized Dayak Bukitans, Bakumpais and Manyan groups and before the arrival and addition of earlier migrants like the Javanese and Sea going Malays, were regarded as indigenous to Borneo.
The confusion here is the use of the term Malay, and unless the Banjars are explicitly Melayu laut in language, customs, traditions and history, then for now, no changes should be made to the term Banjar.
Also, if I am not mistaken, the Banjar and the Dayak are culturally and ethnically the same group in origin and this linkage goes back to the Hikayat Banjar and Lambung Mangkurat. I fail to see any similarities between Banjars and the original Sumatran Jambi Malays, as I fail to see any similarities with the Sundanese, Javanese, Bugis, and Brunei with the Malays. To be fair, the article on the Banjar in itself makes no reference to a "Malay" cultural origin and I feel the link between Dayaks and Banjars has been acknowledged in academia, so there is no need to concentrate on slight differences in their ethnic groupings.
For the purposes of neutrality, the article on Dayaks (a loose term in itself) must not be an exercise of contemporary "Malay" Nationalism, rather a brief explanation of those groups categorically heaped under the term Dayak and Banjar in the 20th and 21st Century.

Tuai 22:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Tuai 18:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tuai (talk • contribs) 18:17, 31 March 2007.

Hi Tuai, from your way of expressing things, I can tell that you are a Malaysian. I admire and appreciate your point of view, but I'm going have to erase the Banjars from the list again for the reasons I will explain to you.

I am from South Kalimantan, the soul cradle of Banjarese culture. You see, what you read in Wikipedia is not at all correct, I was going to edit it, but I wait until I have enough resources. I can tell you this: The first kingdom in South Kalimantan is Nan Serunai, and its definitely a native (proto-deutero Malay) AKA a member of Dayak. But it was too weak and failed to keep up with the wave of the Malay immigrants from South Sumatra. Later, these immigrants set up the Buddhist Kingdom of Tanjungpuri, a Malay kingdom. Later on, it was the Javanese Kingdom (Hindu) of Negara Dipa its successor Negara Daha that prevailed. Hikayat Banjar and Lambung Mangkurat are two prominent features of the Javanese-styled Courts.

As you can see, Banjarese are comprised of the natives (Dayak Bukit, Bakumpai, etc), the Malay, and the Javanese. I hate Malaysians who thinks all of the Austronesian people are Malay. But I gotta admit that Banjarese is closest to Malay culture. You can see that in their language and culture.

Although separated by the sea and in different countries, I can understand what Malaysian speaks in their TV stations (unlike other Indonesians), because I understand Banjarese. I recently surprised to know that we have the same cakes and pastries with the Malaysian Malays, like the Bingkas. Ask an Indonesian Javanese or an Indonesian Dayak, he/she wouldn't know of it. But Indonesian Banjarese do, even they are not Malaysian. You can even see it in their traditional costumes, they also wear baju melayu teluk belanga and baju kurung and kebaya. Banjarmasin, the capital city of South Kalimantan was derived from "Bandar Masih", which means "The Port of the Malays".

In language, if Banjarese want to say "Eat first", they would say "Makan dulu" (as in Bahasa Melayu), but their neighbor the Dayaks would say "Kuman Helo". You can see how they are closer to Malay.

The second strongest influence in Banjarese culture would Javanese, as it is the culture of the court. Our aristocracy used names similar to the Javanese. Also, you can see it clearly in Banjarese architecture which take Javanese influence. You can also see it in Banjarese language as "Iwak" (fish), "Gawi" (work), "Talu" (three), etc. And again, in clothings.

The least influence came from the Dayaks (Bakumpai and Dayak Bukit). Some words in Banjarese are similar with Dayak words, such as "aruh".

So you see, Banjarese are not Malay, Javanese or Dayak. It's actually a combination of the three of them. The strongest feature is Malay, followed by Javanese, and then various Dayak tribes in South Kalimantan. So, although I admit that Banjarese are related to the Dayaks (that's why I didn't erase the Banjars name from "related ethnic groups" section, but they are quintessentially not Dayaks.

Cheers!Matahari Pagi 09:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well that sort of answers my question on the Banjarese Language talk page. Lots of information I have never heard of before. I had been planing something like adding lots more to the Borneo history section, as I have the impression that is more important at the moment than histories of single regions. At least giving a basic but rather complete overview from the first inhabitants until now, naming all the important historic territories and powers involved, nicely linked of course for more detailed local information to the related and/or local articles. Anybody interested in starting something like a basic timeline/collection of involved subjects? Maybe best on the Borneo talk page? (Is there any idea yet how the Cham people got to the Niah Caves region for example?)--T.woelk 10:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Mr. Woelk! I've answered your question in the talk page. I've edited both the Banjar people and Banjar language, if you're interested. Your idea is very interesting. I've made some basic timeline concerning the arrivals of the ethnicities that formed Banjarese (Dayaks, Malay, Javanese)in the article of Banjar people. Matahari Pagi 12:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear MataHari Pagi

Thanks. I found your personal point of view interesting. If anything, there were a few weak points made. I am not going to cover those points now, so let me point out your admission here. You admit that the Banjarese possess clearly marked Dayak Origins. But, for the purposes of clarity, this particular ethnic group is related to the Dayak. Would it not be fair to say, that for the period of Old History from the 13th Century, in Borneo, the term Banjar or Dayak was not used then, but instead those native to the coastal regions, were in fact one people with their own various Kingdoms but without the split in identity?

To be fair, we both agree on the salient point, that the Banjar are a closely related group to the Dayak and vice versa the same is reiterated.

However, unlike you, I am not prepared to go against the Indonesian Official Census, and say this people are, for some unknown fait accompli, Malay. It's also amusing to read your reasoning with regards to the Banjar Culture, basing on some Kuih Bingkas. It made for some light reading. Thanks again.

I look forward to your courtesy, and urge you to mempertingkatkan lagi jawapan anda. Janganlah membakar rumah kerana satu tikus.

Tuai 12:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm supposed to give more factual information? All that I've wrote whether it's here or on the articles are based on academic references. I've provided the sources of my writings, while you haven't.
Concerning the Banjarese, they were separate ethnicities in the past: Dayaks, Malay and Javanese. But now they are only Banjarese, a whole new entity with its own culture and sphere of culture.
If you can't except that a culture can sprout from several cultures into a new one, maybe we shouldn't talk about Banjarese, Dayaks, or Malay altogether, and just concentrate on Taiwanese Aboriginal as the mother of all austronesian ethnicity. Or better yet, how about focusing on prehistoric Homo Erectus, as every human race can trace its origin from Africa?
The fact that you even put "Banjar" name in "East Kalimantan" proved you are both ignorant and clueless. You're starting to irritate everybody here, trying to enforce your own way of thinking without significant reasonings. Better work on that first before you diss anyone's work ever again. Matahari Pagi 05:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

To MATAHARI PAGI

Your comments do not address the points raised. You have made a personal attack. {{WP:ATTACK}}

Tuai 19:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Err.. you might want to read it yourself, cause apparently you just don't get it. You have no point whatsoever. You ain't got any significant question that I haven't answered with my writings, both in this page and in Banjar people and Banjar language.202.180.52.37 03:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

MATAHARI PAGI

Please stick to the rules. You have been advised.WP:ATTACK

Tuai 12:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

NPA, and attack warnings are very serious, yet you are handing them out like candy. If you do indeed have an issue with someone then it is about time you took it to an administrator. If not, then it's time to be quiet. It appears to me that you are really the one making attacks. Telling some "they have been warned" is uncivil - keep it up and I suggest you won't be able to edit much longer. I'm certainly happy to take it to another level (third party) if you would like. I can also make a list of your personal attacks an incivilty. kind regards Merbabu 12:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Government's Involvement

I have erased part about forced convertion until anyone can present the prove that it is really happening because I am from Kalimantan and I never heard that the Indonesian Government gives out incentives for those who would convert. The fact they're maintaining their tribal life is actually good for Indonesia's tourism Matahari Pagi 08:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I am going to revert this, as the earlier version is neutral.I suggest this could be expanded elsewhere. Further Islamisation of Dayaks does take place in Borneo, and I find it unusual for someone to suggest otherwise. It's highly likely that this is less casual in the Kalimantan provinces, but otherwise, inducements can be subtle in employment, education, media, etc. I also find this point of view about encouraging certain groups to "dress up" and entertain tourists, denigrating to the article as a whole. The article is on and about the Dayak and the various beliefs (Islam, Christianity, Kaharingan) impacting in their communities.

Tuai 18:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I am going to erase it again. If you want to write this kind of thing, you have to give citations. You can't just write things based on your assumption alone. Refer to the policy, pls.

Did you base your assumption based on Malaysia? You don't even know Indonesia. If our government want to convert the Dayaks, they will do it shamelessly, until recently we were a totalitarian state you know. But we don't. We even let Catholic Missionaries convert the Dayaks to Catholicism. Here, we let tribes such as the Bataks, Mentawai (Sumatra), Dayaks (Kalimantan), Badui (Java), Torajans (Sulawesi), Dani, Amungme (Papua), etc to practice their own religion. Most of these tribes converted to Catholics and Protestants by the effort of missionaries. Others chose to stick with their own traditional beliefs.

Employment? There are a lot of these people who reached high position, even became high officials to the level of minister. Education? I have brilliant Dayak friends who are accomplished by their achievements. I have favorite teacher and lecturer who is of Dayak ethnicity (and some least-favorite ones, hahaha...). Media? We have them as pop stars, such as the beautiful Sheren Regina Dau.

If you want to hate Malaysia for pushing their "Malay-ism", it's up to you, I couldn't care less. But if you don't have the prove to disregard my country Indonesia, you better behave. I don't have any sentiment toward Dayaks, and I still respect you in the honor of my Junior High School love, a pretty Dayak girl ;) Matahari Pagi 10:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

MATAHARI PAGI

Please refer to WIKIPEDIA's guidelines. No Personal Attacks WP:ATTACK

Tuai 19:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation is needed

Tuai, please read again WP:V, our policy about verifiability. When you write/edit an article, please always supply with reliable source. Otherwise it is considered as original research. Original research is strictly forbidden. For statements/facts that are already in the text without sources, other editors may challenge them with {{cn}} tag. In this way, the editor has two options: (1) supply it with source, or (2) remove/rewrite the facts, although you can discuss with others in the talk/discussion page that the citation tag is unnecessary. However, you didn't discuss it first, but eliminate the tag without proper explanation. — Indon (reply) — 08:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/a/y/Talk%7EDayak_people_6321.html"