Software: Computing

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Template:V0.5

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Indonesia B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IndonesiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate:WikiProject IndonesiaIndonesia B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Cities B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Template:Indonesian selected article talk

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You are right, there are exactly three pixels that are sufficiently highlighted. :/ Someone should fix that... Coffee 20:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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? :)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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]

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)[reply]

Is it Bantargebang? If yes, actually Bantargebang is located in Bekasi not Jakarta.Aditthegrat 01:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

I've reverted the recent incomprehensible and uncited changes. (Caniago 00:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [1] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]