Talk:Jakarta

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jakarta article.
Article policies
Jakarta is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.
Peer review This Geography article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Selected article star Jakarta is a selected article on the Indonesian Portal, which means that it was selected as a high quality Indonesia-related article.
Indonesian WikiProject • Indonesian notice board • Indonesian WikiPortal

I don't think article is anywhere near bad enough to need the cleanup tag! I'm not a regular editor of this article, so I'll leave it for someone else to remove it or not.. -- Chuq 02:45, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)


I think this picture should be merged into the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jakarta_slumlife65.JPG


Contents

[edit] Skyline

This article could use a good daytime picture of the Jakarta skyline. TheCoffee 13:53, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Orang Betawi

Minor edit on Orang Betawi, the ethnic group which has inhabited what is now Jakarta since the 17th Century. Were referred to as "Betawinese" and incorrectly described as anyone born in Jakarta. Google records less than 60 hits for "Betawinese", and it is not a term I had seen used elsewhere. I have therefore used the Indonesian term for the group. --Kutu 05:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why introduce an indonesian word? It has no meaning in english. The translaton would be "Betawi people" or Betawinese, like it was. I vote for "Betawi people" if the "-nese" looks too pretentious. --216.116.87.110 18:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The word Betawi are from batavia. That means they are people living (they decendent) in there since batavia era. Daimond 13:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Not necessary, for example
the 'peranakan' (Tionghoa, Arab, India) in beginning of 20th Century didn't call themselves as Betawi.
The term also didn't applied to Minang and Ambonese of 20th Century who lived in Batavia.
In my opinion, Betawi is a tribe, result of asimilation many tribes in the past who lived in Jakarta, against the government-segregation-policy-based-on-tribe, using east-malay-dialect as the foundation of its language. And Betawi itself is the name of the tribe, there are no use of introduce "people" or "-nese" since it never refer to place. Kunderemp 02:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
yeah that's right. I have Minang, Jawa and Bengkulu blood. My ancestors from Minang side have live in Jakarta from mid 20th Century(1973) but they don't call themself Betawi. They call themself Orang Minangkabau. And Betawi are tribe from 15th Century that come from assilimation of Melayu , Sunda, Jawa, and other tribe. And the Betawi are great at Silat!Fanatic terrorist 13:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tanjung Priok / Tandjung Priok

Hi @all, can anybody indonesian expert have a look after Tandjung Priok? I added a hint to the sailship fleet. And I am a littel bit unsure about the name´s spelling. Regards BerndB 17:12, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but I've moved it to Tanjung Priok - "Tandjung Priok" is a valid, but outdated, spelling, just like "Djakarta" is an old spelling of "Jakarta". (See Indonesian_language#Writing_system). I've got some reasonable pictures of the pinisi sailing ships - I'll see about digging them up eventually. CDC (talk) 17:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stupid

Image:IndonesiaJakarta.png

I'm probably going to make myself look pretty stupid here, but I can't see Jakarta highlighted on the "Map of Indonesia showing Jakarta". It doesn't help that I don't know where Jakarta is in Indonesia, but it is not obvious to me. Am I missing something? Can somebody put me out of my misery, please? Cheers TigerShark 17:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Jakarta is on the northwest coast of Java, which is the second large island in the southern chain of islands, counting from the left. If you look reeeealy closely, you can see maybe three bright green pixels highlighting Jakarta. Obviously, this needs to be fixed, but I don't have the tools right now. If someone wants to do it, you could look at the map for Yogyakarta for one possibility. Oh, and don't feel stupid - it's the map's fault. CDC (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
You are right, there are exactly three pixels that are sufficiently highlighted. :/ Someone should fix that... Coffee 20:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
It seems to have been fixed, because I see more than 3 pixels. But I still think we should create a better map. Any ideas on this? I'll have a go on it if we pick a way to draw it. I was thinking of a normal Indonesia map, then expand the west java region and highlight Jakarta there. --Steax 01:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the current version is OK - i.e., it shows where Jakarta lies within Indonesia - many don't know that, and we should cater for that. But, if you can have a dual map as you seem to be suggesting that is OK. --Merbabu 01:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I've created a new map with the zoomed portion. I've still got the source, so we can tweak it to our needs. Here it is so far. --Steax 07:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, one thing. I made the zoom from a retraced enlargement of the Java region, and therefore I had to take some liberties and possibly reduced the map's accuracy of shape. As you can see some areas are deformed and smoothened. If this is a major problem, provide me with a map with a better scale and I will fill in the Jakarta region and paste it there. --Steax 07:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:IndonesiaJakarta_zoomed.png

[edit] The Map

Looks like you're using an old map! Because nowdays, the Goverment of Indonesia have split some provice (like Riau now become Riau and Kepulauan Riau). Can you update the map???

Who's "you"?  :-) Wikipedia depends on contributions from everybody. If you feel strongly about this, why don't you make an updated map and upload it? Please sign your comments by using four tildes '~'. Julius.kusuma 14:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have the newer map, but I just want to suggest the maker of this article to search or make a newer one. Ali Wardhana 07:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC) 7:35 27 April 2006 (UTC) NB: Now I put my sign...right? :)

I can tomorrow. Insya Allah Fanatic terrorist 13:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lists

The education and shopping mall sections contain lists that are unwieldy and in my opinion are not very useful. If there are no objections I intend to edit the lists out and replace it with something more verbose, and hopefully more meaningful. Jakarta is a large city, and listing every university and "shopping mall" is just unnecessary. Thoughts? Julius.kusuma 20:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I absolutely agree - most other articles about major cities and national capitals don't list every school and mall. Instead, text describing a few highlights of each is much more informative. So let's mention the U of Indonesia, Blok M, or whatever places are unusual or of national repute (I don't know what those would be; I hardly know Jakarta), but that's it. CDC (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of image?

User 24.199.83.253, why do you insist on removing the image Image:Jakarta slumlife71.JPG ? Julius.kusuma 04:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


Reply =>I'm terribly Sorry for deleting the Pictures but I believe together we should promote Jakarta as a Beautiful city so please do not post pictures of Slumlife,Poverty,Economy Crisis and all that is bad in Jakarta.as those Pictures give bad Images/Bad Reputation of My City,Jakarta in The Worlds Eyes.And I reqest to remove the Problems Topic and the Econmoy Crisis 1998 Link as they give bad Reputation to Jakarta. Do Post Pictures of Beautiful Jakarta.Skyline,Entertainment,Culture,etc. Thanks and Enjoy Jakarta!


Fahrian, Please sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
I understand your sentiment, but it is misplaced here. There are millions of images of Jakarta that show its negative side. What are you going to do about those? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the objective here is to present . You may want to start by reading the welcome page and the following two pages: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and be bold in editing pages. Julius.kusuma 01:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Is it Bantargebang? If yes, actually Bantargebang is located in Bekasi not Jakarta.Aditthegrat 01:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Uh... I live here in Jakarta too, and I have to say that this city isn't really that beautiful... ^^;; But I love Jakarta, I really do, it's just that what Julius.Kusuma said is true: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we have to lay things how it is. Now, maybe it is a good idea to have people know the negative side of Jakarta (poverty, mountains of garbage and all) and the side which Jakarta-lover up there talked about. Anyway.... did I missed it or there's no section about the demographic and social life? I founD it interesting, just too bad I don't have enough facts, and I'm no expert. 202.73.122.227 22:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I know that wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, but I also find that it is unfair to portray Jakarta in such bad shape. For instance, cities with similar development level as Jakarta such as Bangkok and Manila are portrayed so beautifully in wikipedia articles, with the absence of images of slums, pollutions, etc - a feature that is certainly existing in those two cities. Why should Jakarta be the only one who has slum pictures? Jakarta is a beautiful, modern, and thriving city, and I think there should be more images that promote that aspect. EriqueG 23:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The problem is, here in Jakarta these problems are escalating and have come under debate and discussion of late (especially connecting with the floods and such). All cities have their dark sides, and I think we can be proud to just show our city boldly. There's nothing wrong with showing it, and it's telling the truth. In my opinion, lets just keep it. And don't forget about the positive side - it might also raise awareness and understanding of this problem. That's helpful for Jakarta citizens too, right? --Steax 01:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, jakarta has many bad sides. I can look from the mesjid . The Tebet Forest is has many garbage there! Fanatic terrorist 13:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Metro Area

Why is the population of the Jakarta metroplitan area not listed as with other major cities on Wikipedia? It seems the 2004 population figure is only for the physical province of Jakarta (DKI Jakarta). The provincial area of 660km2 became saturated in the early 1990s and the population of this area is no longer growing, whereas the surrounding urban area has exploded in terms of population growth. There is not even mention on the page of Jabodetabek, and attempts to rectify this have been met with revision reverts.

[edit] Senator Barack Obama, D-Illinois

The senator grew up in Jakarta, ages 2 - 10.

[edit] Twin Towns

New South Wales, Australia is not a city. Its a state. Avalon 13:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

.... and I don't know which city in NSW is the twin to Djakarta. Avalon 13:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The relationship is with the state New South Wales, not a specific city. Caniago 07:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] three in one rule

Is the three in one rule equivalent to HOV in the states? If so it might be better to say "requiring passengers" A google search didn't bring up any relevant information. Not An IP 17:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  • There three in one rule, but idon't know what HOV? certain main streets ( main street sudirman) are not allow private car/mobil pass the street if the private car have less than three person/passenger around time 7:00 until 10:00 in the morning and around time 16:00 to 19:00 too.Daimond 07:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Motorbike new rule

wow when i look in this suara pembaruan this day 29 november 2006, I look this new rule like a very stupid rule. When many country try save and conserve energy indonesia do oposite about that. and this do when our country have problem with electricity. i would like to see how this would burden more to pln when they recharge the accu.Daimond 12:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Object vital

okay we forgot about object vital in jakarta like istana negara dan gedung dpr mpr. the problem where are finds data about all jakarta object vital? anyone know? recently i know that my area become vital object from regular montly pay for security? the problem there people not belive that glodok area become object vital. so where we find all data about object vital in the jakarta? Daimond 16:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


Image:IMAGE0001.JPG
100px

[edit] More history

Has essentially nothing happened in Jakarta since the early 1600s? That's the impression this article gives. For starters, here's a Dutch article that fills in some of the gaps, if someone is able to translate it. Biruitorul 23:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] February 2007 floods in Jakarta

You need to to add in an artical about the recent floods in this city. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.136.52.218 (talk) 05:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Something about the floods was added. However, the English is so garbled that the text is nearly incomprehensible. Somebody needs to work on it. I'd like to but due to the incomprehensibility of the text I don't think I can. --Maxl 21:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted the recent incomprehensible and uncited changes. (Caniago 00:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC))

1996 flood data sorry this still in indonesia langguae, cause we still under suharto regim in that time. http://www.hamline.edu/apakabar/basisdata/1996/02/12/0029.htmlDaimond 18:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Population stats don't make sense

The population statistics in the first paragraph of this entry don't make sense. First it claims there are 8.7 million people in Jakarta as a whole, then it says there are 23 million people just in the metropolitan area. Either the stats are wrong, or its entirely unclear what each of them refer to. Bruce.Williams 01:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggest that stats if from reliable sources are not incorrect, rather ill-defined or just not clear. It is perfectly reasonable for a city to have a certain population within its administratively defined borders, but for the total developed urban area (ie, metro area) that might not be administratively defined as 'Jakarta' to extend a lot further. Sydney city for example has only a few 100,000 in the City of Sydney but the metro area (ie, Sydney) is 4million + which is thus the commonly quoted figure. Merbabu 01:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I live in Jakarta, and even I think the entry doesn't make sense. I do agree in some point that there are approx. 20 million people living in Jakarta as a whole, but not in the Metropolitan area. It is basically spread all around the province itself. The only common explanation is that the population in the metro area is 8-9 million, give or take. It is very hard to determine the exact stats because it is always changes rapidly (probably every week due to migration). Until we have a correct source, I suggest we put the one with the clear source.HoneyBee 01:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree there are problems with the population stats. The link at the bottom of the page doesn't lead to anywhere with stats. There is a lack of consistency on the page. According to official Indonesian statistics at http://www.kependudukancapil.go.id/ the population is lower than that given here, but List of cities by population gives yet another figure. Meanwhile, the urban figure in List_of_metropolitan_areas_by_population is naturally higher. As well as inconsistency, there is therefore confusion about how to define population. Any thoughts about what to do? I'd go with the officials figures for the city and the Wikipedia metropolitan figure for the conurbation, but make the difference clear... Davidelit 06:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
so we have three number of population, 8.7 million (2005 from Jabodetabek article, don't know where it come from), 8.8 million(2004) and 7.5 million (2007 - from authorative site). I couldn't imagine a million people die only in 2 years no matter how worse the crime rates was or how large the number of immigration. I prefer the official number (eventhough they are not free from mistakes -- seen by the controversy of last Jakarta governor election last month).
I link Metropolitan area in the article in hope seemed-look-like-controversies will be clear. Indeed the number of population of metropolitan areas is naturally higher due to the definition itself.Kunderemp 15:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Here in Jakarta there are many Illegal people. Under the Pluit Tol example. And in Jalur (Tebet) . No wonder the Sensus has many mistakes Fanatic terrorist 13:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, friends :). Obviously, there are many unregistered residents in Jakarta, hence the resulting difficulty in reaching an accurate population figure. This is why I placed 'official' in front of 'population' in the first paragraph. Some estimates about the actual number of people in the city reach as high as 12 million. Maybe an additional few words regarding the confusion about this statistic would be appropriate. Wikimuppy 06:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC) -wikimuppy

[edit] Shanty towns

Are there any pictures available of the shanty towns? Mallerd 11:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

See [1] for pictures —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mallerd (talk • contribs) 20:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Issue of a merging and how to incorporate information into main article

  • List of shopping malls in Jakarta needs a merge issue to be resolved and no doubt cleaned up - and from that - a section needs to be incorporated into the main article- any suggestions? SatuSuro 11:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I think, if there is list of statues in Jakarta, it will be more useful than list of shopping mall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kunderemp (talk • contribs) 02:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Utility and the usage by Jakartans of shopping centres as poltical social and economic indicators of their community makes them notable - statues are usually reflections of political power and notions of history imposed. just my 25 rupes worth SatuSuro 03:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree if there are mentions of number of notable malls as indicator. However, seeing the list, I couldn't say agree. For example, Pondok Indah Mall and Pondok Indah Mall 2 was basically one entity under the same management. There are too many Carefour and who can guarantee it will stand for another 10 years? We have already seen the fate of Golden Truly as example how volatile such a list was.
Instead the list of Shopping Mall, I prefer the list contains shopping area and then, in each area, you can mention the shopping mall. For example, Senayan have "Plaza Semanggi", "Senayan City", "Plaza Senayan", "Senayan Trade Center", "Ratu Plaza", and of course "Carefour Ratu Plaza".
that was just my 200 rupiah coin Kunderemp 03:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Don't you think the history section is too long?

I create a new article, History of Jakarta. Perhaps we can trim the section.Kunderemp 04:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the history section is excessively long. Perhaps the first half could be trimmed a little bit. THe big problem for the first half though is lack of references. There is no need to create a new article - unless you have a lot more information that is reliably sourced (Indonesian wikipedia is not a reliable source, by the way). Anything unsourced can be removed at anytime. cheers --Merbabu 05:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe the part from 1596 to 1619 can be traced in Adolf Heuken's "Sumber-Sumber Asli Sejarah Jakarta Jilid II: Dokumen-dokumen Sejarah Jakarta dari kedatangan kapal pertama Belanda (1596) sampai dengan tahun 1619 (The authentic source of history of Jakarta part II: Documents of history of Jakarta from the first arrival of Dutch (1596) to year 1619) ".
I had the book in my desk and I've just read a third of it ( page 56 of 158 pages ). I'll try to match the article with the book (but I need a time due to my daily work).
The previous paragraphs (about the treaty between Kingdom of Sunda and Portuguese) seemed like MC Ricklef's version although I'm sure Heuken should be mentioned them (complete with the documents) somewhere in his books.
Is Adolf Heuken reliable enough? The book which I mentioned above seemed to be written directly in Indonesian and I am not sure whether it has counterparts in English although the same author wrote other books with the same topic in English.
Kunderemp 13:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Banten had close relationship with Dutch?

The relationships between both Prince Jayawikarta and the English with the Banten government then became worse and resulted in the Sultan of Banten's decision to capture Prince Jayawikarta and move him to Tanara, a small place in Banten, until his death[6]. This assisted the Dutch in their efforts to establish a closer relationship with Banten.

I found the last sentence of the above quotation is weird. I believe the poster try to paraphrase from BeritaJakarta.com article (quoted below)

The Dutch army was about to surrender to the British when in 1619, a sultan from Banten sent soldiers and summoned Prince Jayawikarta for establishing closed realtionship with the British without first asking an approval from Banten authorities. The conflict between Banten and Prince Jayawikarta as well as the tensed relationship between Banten and the British had weakened the Dutch enemy. Prince Jayawikarta was moved to Tanara and died in Banten.

The Dutch felt relieved and tried to establish a closer relationship with the Banten. The Dutch fortress garrison, along with hired soldiers from Japan, Germany, Scotia, Denmark, and Belgium held a party in commemoration of the change in situation. They name their fortress after Batavia to recollect the ethnic group Batavier, the Dutch ancestor. Since then Jayakarta was called Batavia for more than 300 years.

As far as I remember from all of what I had read and the article from beritajakarta.com, none of them said about the capture of Pangeran Jayawikarta help the Dutch establish a close relationship to Banten. Beritajakarta.com's article could probably means the banishment of Pangeran Jayawikarta motivated the Dutch to establish a closer relationship not the otherway around. It is not mutual. Kunderemp 16:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is BeritaJakarta.com reliable?

The site itself claimed as Media Online Pemprov Jakarta (Online Media of Jakarta Provincial Government). Some part of history (such as the involvement of Banten in the demise of Jayawikarta) was taken from the site [2] but ironically, by inappropriate sentence modification which also change the meaning of the some sentences and become a confusing paragraph. Kunderemp 15:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need help, first English house in 1615

The article said:

Prince Jayawikarta apparently also had a connection with the English and allowed them to build houses directly across from the Dutch buildings in 1615.

In Adolf Heuken's book, in 1615, the English source state

  • Captain Saris took provisions as Jacatra would afford; 19-1-1613


  • To confer with the King of Jacatra about a place there for a factory and settled course of customs with liberty to build a strong house 'free from fire', to confer also with the Flemings to join with the English in leaving Bantam and removing wholly to Jacatra or elsewhere.


  • 2-1-1615 Must not build any house in Jacatra for that he will not leave us to have two houses, whereupon we leave left to proceed any further until we find him in a better humor. The king of Jacatra has given them a piece of ground ... The Hollanders in matter of trade worse enemies to the English than the Portugals
(Sainsbury, W.N., 1870; vol. 2 no. 636, 739, 862)

I wonder what the quoted statement means. Did it mean, the English was allowed to build one and only one house in 1615?

In the book itself (p.48), Heuken stated (and included a map) the first English house (Rumah/gudang Inggris pertama) -- without mentioning the year it was built -- directly across House of Mauritius owned by Dutch. The English was in the west bank of Ciliwung River (pre-1632) while House of Mauritius was located in the east bank. The second English house was built post the demise of Pangeran Jayawikarta on the ruin of Pangeran Jayawikarta's house. Kunderemp 14:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I changed the plural word (houses) into singular (a house). Kunderemp 16:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Issue higher up on talk list worthy of careful consideration - added to foot of page

[edit] Orang Betawi

Minor edit on Orang Betawi, the ethnic group which has inhabited what is now Jakarta since the 17th Century. Were referred to as "Betawinese" and incorrectly described as anyone born in Jakarta. Google records less than 60 hits for "Betawinese", and it is not a term I had seen used elsewhere. I have therefore used the Indonesian term for the group. --Kutu 05:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why introduce an indonesian word? It has no meaning in english. The translaton would be "Betawi people" or Betawinese, like it was. I vote for "Betawi people" if the "-nese" looks too pretentious. --216.116.87.110 18:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The word Betawi are from batavia. That means they are people living (they decendent) in there since batavia era. Daimond 13:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Not necessary, for example the 'peranakan' (Tionghoa, Arab, India) in beginning of 20th Century didn't call themselves as Betawi. The term also didn't applied to Minang and Ambonese of 20th Century who lived in Batavia.

In my opinion, Betawi is a tribe, result of asimilation many tribes in the past who lived in Jakarta, against the government-segregation-policy-based-on-tribe, using east-malay-dialect as the foundation of its language. And Betawi itself is the name of the tribe, there are no use of introduce "people" or "-nese" since it never refer to place. Kunderemp 02:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


In my opinion,
the Betawi cannot be equaled with Javanese or Balinese where the latters needed to be add "-nese" since Java and Bali also the name of Island. The Betawi case is similar to Minang. If you read Minang article, they use the word "The Minang".
The origin of Betawi is debatable. Some (like Lance Castles) said they are descended from immigrant living in Batavia. Others (like Ridwan Saidi and Muhadjir) said, there had been Melayu-spoken people in Sunda Kalapa and the culture enriched by the immigrant. In either case, the Colonial government started to recognize The Betawi as one entity, one tribe around 18th-19th century (need more source citation). In 1923, Husni Thamrin founded Kaoem Betawi Kunderemp 03:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Structural adjustment in Indonesia

All sides use the phrase "structural adjustment"; not just its critics. E.g. the World Bank, here touting its imagined success in Indonesia: [3] Or here's an OECD version: [4] The IMF and WB are proud of structural adjustment programs; critics of development such as Arturo Escobar (anthropologist) feel that they are violence against the poor. But people on all sides use the phrase. Also, it captures not just one policy (dereg., for example), but a whole list of actions. --Smilo Don 19:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC) P.S. The point of the revision is to show that not just 'financial dereg.' led to the real estate boom; specifically, it was a variety of factors; see my updates on Bang Ali for more on that. For better or for worse, Sadikin literally paved the way for some of the changes to come. --Smilo Don 19:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The term "Structural adjustment" and its linking to a disputed and tenuously relevant article is inappropriate to this context and smacks of WP:OR, specifically WP:SYN:
  • It implies World Bank or IMF assistance in exchange for certain changes - where is the reference to IMF/World Bank conditional assistance?
  • It is much better to simply say what it was with a specific npov term - ie, "Structural adjustment" is clearly a loaded commentary term - Smilodan himself has used it over the last few weeks as a tool of derision for what he claims is gross POV. Ditto to words such as "oligarchy". Lots of commentary and value judgements, little on hard facts.
  • Linking it to the structural adjustment article shows no direct relevance or understanding of the late-1980's changes, nor do the links you've just provided above.
  • The links you provide in the article also do not show any direct relationship to the point - ie, discussion of an urban centre. This is not a political/economics article - given that the term is clearly debated, and this isn't even directly political/economic article - rather the mention of the reforms is merely trying to set up the real estate boom background, then i suggest further insistence on sloppy use of the term 'structural adjustment' is a distraction and time waster. Time which could maybe spent on resolving the Structural adjustment article itself.
See WP:SYN. Once again, wikipedia is not truth - it is verifiability. --Merbabu 02:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Easy now. Back up a step and holster that gun. The point, going back to the edit, was to try to point out the financial dereg. was not the sole factor in the real estate boom--that it emanated from a variety of sources. I put "structural adjustment" as an expedient way to depict a variety of neoliberal changes that were effected. Above, I offered links, not in support of the real estate issue, but to show that 'structural adjustment' is not a left wing slogan--it's a term exchanged by all parties. I think you misread my wholesome intent above as something rather deceitful. Now, let's all use some good faith here. Back to the original edit--the aim was to broaden the scope of events that led up the boom. I saw an oversimplification of events and tried to parsimoniously fill in the gaps. It's a shame that the WP entry to structural adjustment isn't better, but that doesn't change it's relevance to Jakarta. Cheers --Smilo Don 21:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

On a related point, the description of "Land distribution" is problematic. It is indeed an important point but the supplied Sajor reference does not make this specific point. It needs further explanation that must be succinct, and while it can be paraphrased this must not be at the expense of accuracy. The Sajor reference has interesting points, but they are not accurately represented here. --Merbabu 06:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Modernist freeways? Fun with Harvey and Kusno

Hey folks. Quick note here about the word "modernist." I'd like to keep it. Why? It's very illuminating--in a single word. It speaks volumes about orientations, objects, and an era. Modernism is something which began in earnest during the Sukarno years and flowed through the bulk of the New Order. Modernist freeways? Oh heck yeah--Robert Moses is pretty much the definitive proponent. A postmodernist freeway? I'd nominate the destroyed Embarcadero Freeway, without going into the details. For a really fun read on this stuff read David Harvey's Condition of Postmodernity. Or read a bit about Le Corbusier. Anyway, modernism was a HUGE part of Jakarta's history. But don't take my word for it. Have a look at Abidin Kusno's fabulous work. Anyway, with that said, I think that single word--"modernist"--really helps to clarify, expand, and inform the transformations of Jakarta from 1945-present. Regards, --Smilo Don 01:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No, unless you can provide a reliable source that those all projects mentioned in the article are having modernist architecture style. It's not only just a word of "modern", but it's an architecture style. I'm not going to debate about this, but please just give the source. — Indon (reply) — 03:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
It's a really interesting history, stemming from Sukarno. Here's a quick overview of Kusno's chapter 2: "In this account, as this chapter will show, the building of a stadium, monuments, grand avenue, and vast public spaces... why was so-called modernist architecture and urban design chosen... How could modernist architecture...ultimately represent a national polity...? This chapter suggests that, in harnessing modernist architecture to the cause of his nation-building project, Sukarno's aim was to put into place..." (pp. 51-2 from Kusno 2000). There's heaps more from Kusno's wonderful work--he goes into great detail about modernism in Jakarta. See also the chapter conclusions, 67-70. Virtually all major projects were undertaken with a modernist bent. Basically, for Kusno, the question isn't whether Sukarno and Suharto implemented modernist style architecture and planning, the question is why they did so. I hope that clears things up. Cheers, --Smilo Don 14:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Listing references here that refer to the topic in general, is not the same as accurately representing those references in an article. The current use of 'modernist' is still sloppy and should be changed. Indeed, the (selected) quotations suggest that you use the term 'modernist' far more loosely than in Kusno. That you like the term, find it interesting, or believe it would be convenient "single-word" that "speaks volumes" doesn't really matter if it isn't accurate. No doubt the Kusno reference contains valuable info that could go in here - but once again, the use of referencing is sloppy and self-serving, requiring ongoing examination. Furthermore, modernism was a huge part of all architecture in the 50-70's. Specific Indonesia/Jakartan discussion would be more useful than sloppy generalisations. --Merbabu 05:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
(Let's try to use our nice words, okay? 'Self-serving' and 'sloppy' are pretty harsh, at least where I come from.) Kusno indeed is very careful about the word "modernist," but uses the word to capture the sense of an intellectual-philosophical-political orientation. He uses the word dozens and dozens of times to describe Sukarno's approach. Again, it's not a question of whether but why. Even Monas (which has architectural references going back to India) has a strong modernist element. Sukarno's modernism isn't exactly shocking news: Sukarno himself was trained as a modern architect. He was a socialist of an era when socialism and modernism were closely linked. Kusno's work is a rather definitive work on the subject and Kusno very specifically shows how Jakarta was to be a modern ornament for the world to see--a sign of "progress," "development," "socialism," and so forth. Moreover, it has been well-received and sustained in the literature. There are also a couple of very good essays in Peter Nas' Urban Symbolism and some helpful remarks in Bishwapriya Sanyal's Comparative Planning Cultures. I think I've used Kusno very faithfully. It would be more faithful still to explain the discursive problems contained in the word "modernist" but that would be a project for modernism, not Jakarta.
The point of adding the word "modernist" to the description of Sukarno's Jakarta is to highlight Sukarno's agenda and his application of the idea in Jakarta; and to inform the reader of lasting and indelible characteristics in the city's physical geography. Sukarno was an unapologetic modernist, and Soeharto to varying degrees continued with the program for very different reasons (though he was interested in 'diversity' and in the invention of tradition much more than Sukarno). 'Hope that helps, --Smilo Don 20:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Sloppy is a perfect apt word when you misrepresent sources even as you type them here. To further insist on such an interpretation against at least two other editors is worse than sloppy. --Merbabu 21:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
(Can we make this about modernism in Sukarno's Jakarta and not make it personal?) Have I misrepresented a word of Kusno? I'm a bit dumbfounded. I thought I'd tried, in good faith, to show that modernism was the presiding style for Sukarno's planning and architecture in Jakarta. Am I in error or have I done injustice to Kusno? I think this is an edit of intellectual integrity. If you have a substantial, referenced, objection, please say so. If I've misread Kusno or this period of Jakarta's physical design, please let me know. --Smilo Don 21:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
It's been explained already - read it carefully and specfically to the points. --Merbabu 22:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Hey brother--please don't bark orders at me. I've given you several sources already, okay? Here's one more, at no extra charge: "In Indonesia, architect/president Sukarno's guided democracy was symbolized by a phalanx of Modernist buildings including a national monument, the Hotel Indonesia, the Independence Mosque, the Asian Games Complex and the Jakarta bypass..." (New Directions In Tropical Asian Architecture,Philip Goad, Anoma Pieris, Patrick Bingham-Hall. Periplus. 2005. pp. 24-5). Instead of being so dour about this, why not see it as an interesting contribution to WP:Jakarta? We all have different skill sets and knowledges, so let's appreciate one another and make this page in a cheerful, collaborative manner. It's the Indonesian way. --Smilo Don 13:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That is the first time you've actually provided a quotation that is a little close to supporting your point - "a phalanx of modernist buildings including...the Jakarta bypass" Even that is poor English - a bypass is a building? really? I don't think that was their intent. --Merbabu 01:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concluding sentence of History section

The concluding sentence of the History section read: "Jakarta has since been the center of Indonesian popular protest and national political instability, including several terms of ineffective Presidents, and a number Jemaah Islamiah-connected bombings." I separated the ideas from each other. The former sentence accidentally pushes a statist perspective (a la Soeharto, Hobbes, James Madison, etc.). E.g. popular unrest is bad, and frequent transitions of rule are bad. It's a very legit POV, but it does carve out a distinct ideological agenda. I tried to put a more neutral "remains a center of political activity;" without connecting bombings to the other two (even though they might arguably be linked). I also deleted the "weak" presidencies b/c I think that's very loaded and b/c SBY has been around for 3 years, with more to come. Granted, the end could still use some work, but that was my reasoning. Cheers, --Smilo Don 01:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

How can we separate protests and political activity (such as short presidential terms)? Are they independent and purely coincidental? Not at all - they are inextricably linked. As for a "statist POV" I think that is pulling a very long bow and smacks of looking for issues where there isn't one - paranoia? Like structural adjustment, linking to pigeon box or definitional terms on wikipedia is problematic - even if the term is appropriate in the first place.
While there is a point in separating out Islamist-inspired bombings/murder, it clearly is related as it is the same time period, same city, and part of the same unstable atmosphere brought about by the weakening of the Indonesian govt and security forces (of which I intent to make no value judgement here). Keeping protests and political instability in the same sentence as User:Indon has restored, with the Islamist bombings separated is thus appropriate for now. --Merbabu 03:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
(Maybe it's just me but I'd rather you didn't use the word 'paranoid.' I don't think that's very nice. If you could mollify your language, I'd be glad.) My only point is that "instability" is pejorative, when applied to multiple elections and a climate of mass demonstrations. As I said before, it follows a particular philosophical trajectory in the West--one famously articulated by Hobbes, and echoed right through the present. Another more libertarian/anarchist perspective might celebrate the mostly peaceful democratic events since '98--many observers from around the world are cautiously optimistic about democracy in Jakarta. --Smilo Don 19:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
P.S. RE: Theodore Friend. I could not find an instance where Friend links protests and instability, but (a) his book was written 5 yrs ago when things seemed more tumultuous and (b) it's a pretty value-laden assessment of the events. Friend does however verify the count of buildings and dead. I'll replace the LP source on those numbers with Friend's more scholarly citation.

[edit] Population vandalism, but WHY?

Am I missing something? Why do people keep vandalizing the population figures here and on Indonesia? I'm perplexed. It's a regular occurrence, via many users, so it forms a pattern. But what and why? Is there a politics being played out here? Smilo Don (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)