From IBWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Wait, wait. Why are you tossing out what's already QSS about Majapahit. This is entirely wrong. I'm sorry, but did you look at the conculture archives before writing this up? Majapahit was established NOT as an Islamic state. I didn't know we were going against what was established and making it an Islamic state now? Roger Mills currently oversees this area of IB. -- Doobieous

Ok, I edited it somewhat so that now the majority of people are Budhists. I don't know where to find conculture archives, so I just checked that there was nothing written about it in this wiki Abdul-aziz 04:33, 5 November 2005 (PST)
Until not long ago, it was the main meeting place for IB people. Only after we moved to this wiki, most of the discussion has moved here, too. Before that, most of the fact we ever discovered about IB are in the archives of that group. I suggest you subscribe, because there are still IB discussions from time to time. Also, news items are usually presented there. --IJzeren Jan 04:51, 5 November 2005 (PST)

Roger established that there was little to no Islamic influence anywhere but Aceh. You cannot have the royal family overthrown by a small minority (which I doubt is even as big as 10%). That is absolutely agains established QSS. I don't know why you insist that Majapahit is a lot like our Indonesia. IB follows this world closely, but it doesn't mean you have to have a parallel situation. I HIGHLY reccomend you join conculture (search for it at and get in touch with Roger Mills, because he was worried about your edits when I mentioned this to him. Until Roger says so, your edits violate QSS for Majapahit entirely. -- Doobieous

On the other hand, I would also recommend Roger to make a few edits himself! But for the rest, I agree with Barry: it would be best if we discussed this on Conculture.
BTW, the name Majapahit was changed to "Mazapahit" at some point. That's also what most links are pointing at. I'm now going to rename this article, and the current one ("Majapahit") will be a redirect instead. --IJzeren Jan 08:42, 5 November 2005 (PST)
Well, Roger says he's unsure how to work within the Wiki, but this definitely needs to be discussed on conculture since I know some who would respond there, really don't play much here. -- Doobieous

OK, changed some more, it will be a Budhist republic now. While in real world Budhism does not have serious radical forms, in IB Budhism is a "stronger" religion, practicised in nations which had a stronger influence to history and it also had more clashes with nations of other religions, therefore I understand a more radical form (such as e.g. Orthodox Judaism or Wahabist Islam, or maybe Christianity as praciticised by Amish) would probably have developed; this could also be that "Javanese Budhism" which was mentioned, but it could also be so that there are minorities of radical Budhists in other Budhist countries as well. I did not decided on exact differences of such form of Budhism with usual forms of Budhism however; or perhaps it might be not distinct form but rather that just there are some Budhist groups who are less tolerant to other religions and such - that I will perhaps leave for others to decide, or think about later. Abdul-aziz 13:05, 5 November 2005 (PST)

Much better, however you'll still need to discuss with Roger what he thinks before you settle on this. He may have had a different idea for Majapahit than you do (as far as I know he never mentioned a revolution or radical Buddhism). He was also unsure if Mazapahit was Buddhist or Hindu or some sort of syncretic blend. -- Doobieous


My idea about all this

... is that we are making it much more of an affair than is necessary. I'd just like to make a few points:

  • Abdul-Aziz is a fairly new member of IB, and he is in fact the first who joined us directly from the wiki. He can hardly be held responsible for not knowing the details of discussions that took place three years ago on Conculture. Especially taking into consideration how hard it is to find something in the archives.
  • In spite of appearances, this wiki is only one out of several places where IB can be found. IB has been around since 1996, and before February 2005, the main sources of information about it have been a number of websites and the Conculture group.
  • Traditionally, every IB member has been "in charge" of something. You can still see how is in charge of what on The List. All this has undoubtedly become less important in our current wiki construction, but I still think we ought to respect each other's property (which, I want to stress, does not mean that it's forbidden to make edits). And the proprietor of Indonesia, is Roger Mills. There's not much point in discussing Indonesia and making decision about it without him.
  • In order to make things easier, I still suggest Abdul-Aziz to subscribe to Conculture, and Roger to make a few edits in this wiki.
  • More about Indonesia in IB:
  • We'll see what we can dig up from the Conculture archives. In the meantime, I think it would be best if Abdul-Aziz would temporarily suspend his work on Indonesia.

--IJzeren Jan 05:19, 6 November 2005 (PST)

Perhaps my way of being direct and not sugarcoating how I say things makes it seem like i'm being uneccessarily harsh. You be the judge. However, I understand he is new, and that anyone can make edits. I've never said he can't. I'm saying he needs to join the conculture mail list and get in touch with Roger who is the "overseer" of this area. I agree to your above points. I do sometimes wonder if there should be a directory somewhere directly on the wiki that gives new members an idea of who is the main proprietor of each area and a way to get into contact with them. I also think there should be an area for new members to see the general "rules" outlined simply so they know where to look should they consider editing something to see what QSS there is about it. I'm sure of course what I suggest is too "burdensome" by many here, so take it as you please -- Doobieous

Actually, that's a good idea. Most of our user pages give the areas that we're "in charge" of, but there's nothing which goes the other way- i.e. from territory > person. Deiniol 06:18, 6 November 2005 (PST)
This is true. I'm fairly new here myself and actually learning who is in charge of what is somewhat daunting. Zahir 08:03, 6 November 2005 (PST)

Comments from the Boreanesian

Alright, as it stands now, it seems to be alright, except that the islamic names of the first monk and general needs to be changed into buddhist names. Otherwise, I kinda like the idea of a radical Buddhist dictatorial theocracy. Reminds me of one of the earliest proposals we had for Russia. Speaking of religion, I have always thought that Mazapahit was a Hindu state. The Majapahit empire *here* was certainly Hindu. Should we change that? Boreanesia 09:17, 6 November 2005 (PST)

Comments from Rfmills

OK, this is much less upsetting than the original version. While I haven't been active here, and so remiss in posting information, there was a link (given again below by Jan) to the IB page at my website (true, it took me a while to find it here in the wiki...). The material there, AFAIK, has been accepted as QSS; although it was rather tentative, I believed it was in keeping with the general themes of IB, and it had realistic POD's and reasons why the area could have developed much differently than it did *here*.

I don't know that Buddhism in IB is a "stronger" religion; frankly, the idea of "radical" or "fundamentalist" Buddhism strikes me almost as a contradiction in terms (and note that the Russian experiment has not survived). I also suggested that Mazapahit could be mixed Buddhist/Hindu; the first princely states on Java followed both traditions (and various schools of Buddhism, at that). A strong reaction against a corrupt ruling family would not be impossible, but to my view would more likely be caused by some new upstart wannabe dynasty or an intra-family squabble (aid from the military in either case likely, of course), rather than by any religious differences.

I could be wrong, but it has always been my feeling that while IB has wars, territorial disputes, this that and the other-- one thing notably lacking was religious strife. If I'm correct, even a little, let's keep it that way.

(For that matter, is Islam in IB quite the same as Islam here and now? Of course there will be sects, some of them assuredly quite puritanical; but would e.g. Wahabism be anything like so influential in IB as it is here?)

I have to agree with Boreanasia about the Arabic names; there is little reason for extensive Arabic borrowing into IB's Malay or Javanese. Likewise "Jemaah"-- a native (at least Malay/Indonesian) term could be "golongan" or perhaps "gerakan".

Some other minor quibbles: (1) while Javanese may be the official language, I'd bet that some form of Malay is still the lingua franca; some of *here's* out-islanders have never been happy with "Javanese exploitation", though perhaps with a different history they would have adjusted better. (2) The capital is more likely to be Jogjakarta or Solo, traditional centers of Jav. culture. (3) The set-up of the legistative system seems to me...shall we say, out-dated?-- just perhaps not the sort of thing any self-respecting country would have in IB's modern times. Seems to me a lot of those 170m citizens would be quite unhappy with such an arrangement.

Why is it still here?

Over *here*, the decline of Srivijaya came about due to Majapahit's dominance. Majapahit's decline came about due to Chinese support of Malacca. --Sikulu 16 December 2005, 14:33 (GMT)

Short answer: QSS. Roger established that they should exist *there*.
Their quick decline *here* all boils down to the fact that none of them had centralized their rule like the Chinese. The opposite is true in IB.
Mazapahit's rise did affect Xrivizaja *there* (read History of Filipinas), but not as drastically as *here*. Boreanesia 02:05, 14 February 2006 (PST)

Buddhist --> Hindu

I'm changing the article so that it says that Mazapahit is a Hindu state rather than a Buddhist state. Mazapahit *here* was a Hindu state and I see no reason why it should be different *there*. Also, I'm changing the Muslim names and titles to reflect this. Boreanesia 02:38, 14 February 2006 (PST)

I like your changes. It also makes the overthrow of the government more plausible. I like the tetracameral government with each caste represented. Changing the Dharmaraza to just a head of state also modernizes the country a bit (not that there aren't kings these days who have absolute power in our world). Doobieous 15:26, 15 February 2006 (PST)
Personal tools