Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palembangese

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus to delete, which defaults to keep. Article needs improvements, expansion and citations though if it is to survive a future deletion nomination. Tagged as such. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Palembangese

Palembangese (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

The ethnic group does not exist according the Indonesian census and the academic publications I've looked at. The ethnic groups in South Sumatra, the location of Palembang are, according to the last census are in fact Malay, Javanese, Kerinci, Minangkabau, Banjarese, Sundanese, Buginese, Madurese, Betawi, Bantenese ... Caniago (talk) 14:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Just because someone took the city Palembang and added -ese on the end does not automatically mean an ethic group by the name exists. You can similarly add an appendix to the names of most cities (Sydneysider, New Yorker, Melbournite, ...), , but that does not mean we should have an article on these names. You can't do a search of Google, pull out all the books containing a certain word and go ah ha, here's proof. You need to have some understanding of the topic at hand, in this case ethnic groups in Indonesia, and specifically Sumatra. For those of you without knowledge of this topic the Indonesian census, which asks all citizens which ethnic group they belong to, is the clearest and easiest means to see that this ethnic group is not considered to exist. (Caniago (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC))
Comment. The very first of those sources which I supplied is a table of the ethnicity of the Indonesian military elite, which treats the Palembangese as an ethnic group. Reliable sources determine what is included in Wikipedia, not the Indonesian government. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
What you need to find a reliable and authoritative source, I haven't seen any authoritative sources among the ones you have quoted above. A publication about the Indonesian military is certainly not an authoritative source on ethnicity. If you want to criticize the accuracy and authority of the Indonesian census you again need to find an authoritative source which indicates the data can't be trusted, we certainly can't disregard the data it provides just because you have anti-establishment views. (Caniago (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC))
Comment Judging a "reliable source" also needs to take into account to what ends the sources are being used. For example, I have no reason to doubt that The Military and Democracy in Indonesia: Challenges, Politics, and Power is indeed a reliable source on that topic, but that doesn't mean it can necessarily be used to say that this is an identifiable ethnic group - as Caniago says, there needs to be something authorative, on that particular point. Like the rest of the sources provided, it’s just a mention of the word with no elaboration of what it might mean. --Merbabu (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete A few passing but non-elaborative uses of the word Palembangese from Google doesn’t actually make it an ethnic group. While I agree that the Indonesian government shouldn’t necessarily always be the arbiter of what is or isn’t an ethnic group, there is nothing further here that provides any notion of exactly who, what, where these people are – except that the name suggests that they are somewhere around Palembang.
Is this perhaps simply a writer's/researchers original research or coined term that others, none of which I note seem to particularly authorative) have picked up on? I think it is more likely a term of convenience to describe someone who comes from the Palembang area. We have a few googled tidbits – mere mentions – but nothing explanatory or expansionary. If indeed there was such a group, then where are the equivalent reams of info explanatory info available on other groups in Indonesia such as Sasak, Madurese, Balinese, Timorese, Acehnese, Batak, Bugis, Toraja, etc, etc. Further, most of which are much smaller than the 20m + this article suggests exists.
And 20m?!?!?! That would be one of the biggest groups in Indonesia, and in 15 years of study, work and travel in and about Indonesia, I’ve not come across the term before. Even now, it’s only a mention, not explanation. Do those supporting 'Keep' have any further info? --Merbabu (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: A "Palembang language" is listed, with approx. 500,000 speakers, in in D. T. Tryon (ed.) Comparative Austronesian Dictionary: An Introduction to Austronesian (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter), fasc. 1, p.227, in the chapter "Listing of Austronesian languages", and in Ethnologue ([8]), as "Palembang Malay". Nothing about the alleged name "Wong Galo" though, and nothing about 20m speakers. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment - What's the date of the book? If there is such a language, it would be called Bahasa Palembang in Indonesian. "Palembangese" also translates to "Orang Palembang" in Indonesian, which rather than an ethnic group simply means someone from the city Palembang, in the same vein as "Orang Jakarta", or "Orang New York". That's not necessarily an ethnic group at all. --Merbabu (talk) 11:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Book seems to be from 1995. Google books. id:Bahasa Palembang has an entry on the Indonesian wikipedia and gets a few more google book hits too [9]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm - from considerable experience I can say that Indonesian wikipedia comes in at "pretty damn lousy" on the reliability index. :-) Anyway, I will wait for our in-house Sumatra expert to come along. --Merbabu (talk) 11:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
There's also this book, apparently a descriptive grammar. Of course, all of this isn't really saying much about the separateness of an ethnic group, nor even about the notorious language-vs.-dialect issue. (For all we know, it could simply be the regional variety of Malay, without any ethnic ramifications). (disclaimer: I can't read a word of it.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Although I've voted delete, this was in the context of the article stating categorically that there was an ethnic group. Perhaps there is a place for this page saying something vague like "...is a term sometimes used by x and y to refer to z people/language." As I've stated above, if this really was a discernible group (and not just Palembang residents), then there would be a lot more info on the group, such as there is for the groups I listed. We are really scraping the bottom for references - just mentions of the people. Yes, the source you listed talks about it being a Malay-based language (which is the same as many Sumatran languages, and Indonesian itself). The rest of the paragraph goes on to talk about two levels of the language - the refined, and the everyday levels. Anyway, hopefully User:Caniago can shed some light on this again. --Merbabu (talk) 11:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment A very unhealthy over reliance of such sourcces as amazon, google shows how wikipedia can get caught up in these astonishing conversations - Indonesians are extraordinarily adept at inventing things on the internet and running with them for all they are worth - and good luck to them - their acronym usage and their inventiveness in folk etymology is nothing short of brilliant - and an outsider with limited cultural context could well believe some of the material - and with no mediation by independent researchers sources of the more difficult to prove items - have allowed trends and terms that have crept into common usage in Indonesia media and internet culture with no form of mediation or checking devices for the outsider to know where they came or where they might be going either - I would strongly suggest that the language has been given a label and probably used to be known by the earlier term - and insufficient scholarship has appeared to clearly outline the change and the runaway internet based usage SatuSuro 13:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC).
Comment. All of the sources quoted here have been book sources, not the result of "inventing things on the internet" Phil Bridger (talk) 14:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Books or not, what seems to be obvious to the 3 Indonesianists here, but not others, is that this term is vague, obscure and not one source definitively shows it to be a recogniseable and distinct ethnic group. The sources concern themselves with other topics and include only mentions. Internet or not, the term does smack of a very loose coining of terminology that is indeed prelevant in Indonesia as SatuSuro points out. If not deletion, then at least the article needs to show this lack of authoritative definition. --Merbabu (talk) 14:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep seems to be notable [10], but the contents are not enough for an encyclopedia , this article must be made larger . Pearll's sun (talk) 12:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
That's hardly an authorative source. Just more fleeting mentions. Thus, it's interesting that you suggest the article be made much larger - with what information? --Merbabu (talk) 13:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
    • my suggestion was to improve the article with more info's , but for sure this article is a needed one . Pearll's sun (talk) 13:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.