Talk:Indo (Eurasian)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Indo (Eurasian) 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. How you can help: Indonesia Notice board - Discussion board
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Indonesian WikiProject • Indonesian notice board • Indonesian WikiPortal

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Indo (Eurasian) article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 Indo subculture 2 Disambig 3 removal bulk of article 4 Diaspora 5 english vs dutch wiki

[edit] Indo subculture

Instead of bashing the Japanese, the editor might want to provide more information on the subculture of "Indo's". we have our own flag now, we have our own customs and gave the netherlands the pasar malam and some culture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Christian Lebis (talk • contribs).

Can someone confirm that Erwin Koeman is indo? I never heard this before, and why isn't Ronald Koeman mentioned? (unsigned?)

[edit] Disambig

There are two 'other meanings at the top of the page - I think that deserves a disambig SatuSuro 09:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removal bulk of article

Weird to see that someone deleted a major contribution and replaced it with this original stub?? As per comments by others this stub doesnt really add any informative data. While the article I read last had many topics of interest confirmed by many other WIKI articles. Doesnt seem constructive to me to remove it in total. How can people like myself study and enhance the article if its removed and repaced with the stub? Looks to me that disturbs the whole point of Wikipedia. Suggest the responsible editor or contributor returns the page to its previous state.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.94.191.131 (talk • contribs).

The large addition i removed was only made a few days before i removed it - viewing the history tab will confirm this. By User:JAGO. As per my edit summary, it's because it is a major addition without 1 single reference. Again, as per my edit summary, please see WP:RS. Surely if someone can write that much they can provide citations? Also, such large one-off additions are often copy'n'paste copyright violations. None of the text should be replaced before such citations are provided - this is fundamental to wikipedia. I will notify the User:Jago. Merbabu 12:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the unsigned comment. The 7 feb addition by user JAGO that was removed by user Merbabu was of significant higher value then the stub status this article is returned to. I dont see the point of this kind of 'editing'. Suggest someone returns the favour. Adrian 213.160.193.50 17:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The 'point' of the removal is straightforward. It is based on at least two of wikipedia's 5 non-negotiable princples - not just some optional guideline. Please read WP:VERIFY, WP:NOR and WP:RS. The onus is on the WRITER to provide references. Wikipedia is to based on published reliable sources. If they can't provide it, the material shouldn't be there. Why can't the editor put such citations (preferably in-line) now rather than it being unsourced and others have to chase them later. It's about wikipedia's quality. Wikipedia is intended as a serious encyclopedia, not just any other web-site where people can write what they please. Try reading Wikipedia is failing. Note that the problem is poor (no?) referencing. Merbabu 20:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Just dropped in but would like to make the statement that wikipedia is not a encyclopedia that you purchase off the traditional bookshelf subject to conventional rules. I concur with the opinion that the whole point of wikipedia is the opportunity by the whole on line wiki community of thousands or millions even, including myself, to verify any content deliverd to the forum. We should be strict in removing non sense. But a stub is per definition non sense and we have enough of them. This is something we must take for granted. Wikipedia is living documentation under constant revision. This continued revision will eventually guarantee its data quality. This does require however that we should leave usefull material on and make it subject to revision. I have browsed the articles version mentioned in previous comments and I actually see nothing wrong with leaving it on for enhancements by others. The first person commenting on its removal appears to be interested in several topics of the article. So its likely that this is one of the people that will start potential revision of specific subjects in the article. And so Wikipedia lives on another day fullfilling its promise... Good luck with this article I hope it looks better soon. Gerry 80.120.189.158 21:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Given that it seems those in favour of re-inserting have not actually addressed the policy of verification, i will paste here the summary. Remember, this is one of only five compulsory 'policies', not an optional 'guideline'...

This page in a nutshell: Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources. Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it.

Merbabu 09:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks to the wikipedians that have left their comments and motivated me to continue contribution. Still convinced of the fact that I had not stated any unconventional claims that were likely to be challenged I do acknowledge the requirement of citing sources and have therefore looked up my main reading material which you can now find in the bibliography. I have also added peer reviewed academic journals and articles that should assist editors and readers alike to research or verify this wikipedia articles content in its current form and state. Pls revert to the external links. I hope the interested readers have not been deterred and will return to this topic to assist in its enhancement. Merci and Kind rgds, JAGO It's just HIS story... 01:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Ps. Pls feel free to contact me on my user page in case of specific questions.

[edit] Diaspora

Firstly excellent article contribution by responsible editor. It is overall well referenced and should perhaps even move away from its stub status. (Not sure yet how thats done though in Wikipedia.) To my knowledge and information I can confirm most everything covered. However believe Ive read that that are actually 6 distinctive waves identified w/rgds to the Indo Diaspora. Will try to look that up and present to editor in chief ; ) if still active in Wikipedia. Kind regards, JOHN NATHANN 18:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Well it was 5 waves afterall. Ill find something better to contribute... Krgds, JOHN NATHANN 15:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] english vs dutch wiki

Hi, just dropped in from another wiki world. Wanted to let the editors of this article know they did a very nice job. This article is even better then the Dutch language one. Keep it up guys. Marcel 194.151.13.225 19:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)