Talk:Chinese Indonesians

Reconstructed and rewritten
I have worked on this article on and off for more than a year in my sandbox. As you can, much of the content of the poorly referenced and occasionally contentious original article have been rewritten. I'm sure bringing this draft to the public will allow other editors to make improvements. Once the remaining sections are completed, I hope to take this on a fast track to the featured article process. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 21:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sometimes it's better to incrementally add it to the existing article rather than just paste it in one hit - ie, let's us see the changes. But I agree that the article needs a big revamp. I think there's a lot of rubbish in here. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * PS - oh, I didn't notice it’s already there. Sorry. Nice work! I will go through it when I can. Cheers. --Merbabu (talk) 23:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The last incomplete section (colonial period history) is now finished. Further input is always welcome, especially regarding the choice of images. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 08:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyedit July 2011
Hi

During the copyedit a few things came to light that may need attention:


 * Colonial period (1600–1900)
 * Coolies (para 4) - A derogatory term which should not really be here. I suggest using "workers (then know as Coolies) ..." or similar instead.
 * The literature often uses "coolies", so I had not seen it as derogatory. In Indonesia, the equivalent "kuli" is not really derogatory and is used commonly to mean laborers. I can replace it if you think it's out of place. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 17:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I read the wiki article and consulted some dictionaries. The Wiki article has this note Coolie which seems to be backed up by some online dictionaries I have read. I have two pre-1975 hard-copy dictionaries and both simply mention the term being 1. an aboriginal tribe from Gujarat, and 2. a term for Asian contract labour. It is up to you to decide what to do about it all though :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Divided nationalism (1900–1949)
 * "and manifested during" (para 3) - Which version of manifested does this mean, "came to light" or "pushed a manifesto"?
 * I intended to say that the Chung Hwa Congress was a culmination of the movement. I've made a clarifying change. Let me know if you think it's still unclear. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 17:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I will start my reply in a new section below. Chaosdruid (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Managing the "Chinese Problem" (1967–1998)
 * "A minority of the elites ..." - What are these elites?
 * These are the political and economic elites of Indonesian society, which may or may not be Chinese, since not one group is exclusively involved in the corruption. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 17:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I know what they are, but the general reader may not :¬) Do not forget that some readers will not have a great command of the English language. I would suggest that you put that very wording in "A minority of the political and economic elites of Indonesian society ..." Chaosdruid (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I will also link it to Elite Chaosdruid (talk) 11:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Demographics
 * The section is long, longer than the article that was listed as "see also", and may be better placed into the "see also" article, or a new article, with a short summary left here and the "see also" turned into a "main".
 * Which portion of the section do you think is excessively detailed? — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 17:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The point is that this section is longer than anything in the "see also". I am suggesting that you add some of this material to Demographics of Indonesia and/or some of the others in the following linked series. It is not excessively detailed, just the opposite, the other articles are starved of material and lacking in detail. If you follow the links:
 * This "see also" points -> Demographics of Indonesia "main article" points -> Ethnic groups in Indonesia *Chinese links -> Chinese Indonesian redirects -> Chinese Indonesians. Basically it is a big circle leading back here along which there are only three very short sentences in all of those articles. I would also change some of those links.
 * MoS is quite specific in saying that the sections which link to "main" should have a summary of that "main" article in them. Chaosdruid (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "1 percent or less of the total population" (para3) - which population, Chinese Indonesians or Indonesians?
 * "60.7 percent of the population" - same again
 * Clarified both instances. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 17:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * some estimated the number as high as 5% of the population, however it is hard to actually count their number


 * Emigrant communities
 * "Locally knowledgeable migrants" - This is a little bit of OR?
 * The source uses these words. I was at a loss of words on how to use an alternate designation to convey the same message. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 17:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a strange sentence to have in a book, though it is there! Perhaps it should be "quoted", as any attempt to explain it would be OR lol. Chaosdruid (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Gender and kinship
 * The "terms" peranakan and totok should probably be replaced with peranakan ("Chinese Indonesian") and totok ("recent Chinese immigrants") on their first use. After that they can be used on their own, but would not be italicised - e.g. "the Perakanan did this" (this is then a proper noun used as the name for the group and as such it is with a capital, as are all proper nouns).
 * The totok and peranakan are both considered Chinese Indonesians, though. It's possible to replace peranakan with variations of "indigenized Chinese", but characterizing totok as merely recent immigrants is a bit misleading. Peranakan as a proper noun and formal designation is more commonly found in Malaysia and Singapore not really used in Indonesia. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 08:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that they are both considered Chinese Indonesians, perhaps perenakan (ethnic Chinese living in Indonesia for numerous generations) and totok (recent Chinese immigrants)? Chaosdruid (talk) 11:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry I'm very late to this discussion. But I'd like to share that in my family and among my friends, the term totok is used for more than just those who were born in China. It is broadly used for those who maintain strongly Chinese culture in their family, which in most context is to mean they speak a Chinese dialect at home. Here's a reference from [|a book] by Leo Suryadinata. Julius.kusuma (talk) 14:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "In the 21st century the conceptual differences of the two groups have become dated and do not sufficiently describe the development of Chinese communities" - What does this sentence mean?
 * It means that the terms peranakan and totok have become rigid in their definition. These days, you can't really categorize Chinese Indonesians exclusively as peranakan or totok. It should be more of a spectrum where peranakan and totok are the extreme ends. I'll find some way to rewrite this later. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 08:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Political activity
 * "As part of a resinification effort" - This means "as part of an effort to turn into resin"?
 * The root noun was "sinification", which is an alternate word for "sinicization". "Resinification" was the word used in the source; I've replaced it with the latter since it may be a more modern term. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 17:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is unfortunate that resin-ification existed then :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Language
 * "Because of these factors, they play" - who are "they"? "... factors, these dialects ..."?
 * Clarified — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 07:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Architecture
 * "oriental (Chinese, Arabs, and other Asians)" - I have never heard of Arabs being referred to as oriental.
 * Arabs were considered oriental peoples under the Dutch colonial system. This was an official designation that was also used in the old censuses. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 17:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "the Chinese who lave lost their" - not sure what "lave" should be so have left it.
 * I think I intended on writing "have lost". Fixed to "had lost". — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 17:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * General
 * Many instances of Chinese were/are incorrect as the term should be "ethnic Chinese" - to differentiate between Chinese, people born in China, and ethnic Chinese peoples, those of Chinese descent and Chinese immigrants, living in Indonesia.
 * "Scholars studying Chinese Indonesians" - A few sentences use scholars studying or writing, but these scholars are not mentioned - it may be considered OR unless backed up with a quote or cites, though there are instances where individual sentences are ref'd.
 * After doing a thorough pass, I've reworked many instances of both issues. Let me know if you still find specific issues. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 07:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the thorough work, Chaosdruid. I've already begun preparing my response to your questions, but I will wait until you are finished. :) — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 23:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, finished, over to you :¬) Good luck with promoting the article, it is indeed an interesting read. Chaosdruid (talk) 01:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

CHH
Hi

At present the article says:

"In addition to the Sin Po group, which advocated Chinese nationalism, there was also a faction which argued for Chinese participation in Dutch political institutions such as the Volksraad and to improve their economic position while maintaining Dutch rule. This group criticized Sin Po's approach, and its movement culminated in the Chung Hwa Congress of 1927."

I think you have oversimplified the text.

The main points form the book are:
 * Some Dutch educated and rich CIs were in favour of Dutch rule and a Dutch nationality law. (this is the Dutch-oriented-movement)
 * They favoured participation in local politics and Dutch education as well as furthering the CIs economic position.
 * Kan Hok Huei was already the CI's representative on the Volksraad and he said that CIs were happy with Dutch rule and wanted Dutch nationality. (the Dutch-oriented-movement's representative and a spokesman for CIs)
 * KHH also said that CIs wished equality with the Dutch and Japanese.
 * The Dutch-oriented-movement's momentum culminated in the CHC in 1927 and the formation of the CHH in 1928
 * KHH was elected their president.
 * Kwee Tek Hoay, editor-in-chief of Panorama. showed some support for the CHH.
 * KTH criticised the Sin Po group for directing CIs towards China.

So it seems that (forgive the underlining, it is for highlighting only): the CI's "Dutch-oriented-movement already had representation on the Volksraad in the form of KHH; the culmination of the movement for Dutch-oriented-movement was the CHC and the formation of the CHH; it was not the CIs Dutch-oriented-movement that criticised Sin Po, but KTH.

I would probably rewrite it to something like this (bold is already existing text):

"The anti-Chinese sentiment spread throughout Java in 1918 and led to mass violence being carried out by members of Sarekat Islam on the ethnic Chinese in Kudus. Following this incident the left-wing Chinese nationalist daily Sin Po called on both sides to work together to improve living conditions because it viewed most ethnic Chinese, like most of the indigenous population, as poor. Chinese-Indonesians began to form into three distinct movements, each with widely varying views. "Sin Po" were the Chinese-nationalist movement which took their name from the newspaper that had advocated Chinese nationalism since 1910.

A second group was the Dutch-oriented movement, which argued for Dutch rule and Chinese-Indonesians to be made full Dutch citizens. This Dutch-oriented movement also wished for further participation in local politics, Dutch education for Chinese-Indonesians, and the furthering of the Chinese-Indonesian's economic standing within the national economy. Kan Hok Hui was was the Chinese-Indonesian representative on the Volksraad and a Dutch-educated Chinese-Indonesian would later become leader of the Chung Hwa Hui. He maintained that Chinese-Indonesians had no problem with Dutch rule, in fact he said that they wished to remain Dutch nationals. He went further though, saying that Chinese-Indonesians should be on equal legal standing with the Dutch and Japanese, something which proved him to be the most outspoken of the Dutch-oriented movement. The Dutch-oriented movement gained momentum and reached its peak with the Chung Hwa Congress of 1927 and the formation of the Chung Hwa Hui (CHH) party in 1928, with Kan Hok Hui elected as their president. The CHH received support from Kwee Tek Hoay, the editor-in-chief of the Panorama newspaper, who also criticised the Sin Po group for misguiding Chinese-Indonesians by pressuring them into a Chinese-nationalist stance."

I realise it is a little longer than previously, but I hope it make things a little more clear - it certainly does to me :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I've incorporated most of your proposed text into the section with some revisions. I've tried to stay away from using the term "Chinese Indonesian" until the history reached past the point where "Indonesia" as a nation is conceptualized. To prevent this article from becoming bloated, I've redacted Kan's personal views which may be more suited for his own article. You'll see this carried out with the general absence of names in the article, which I think would be more fitting for the list of Chinese Indonesians. Thanks again for the help. Feel free to edit it for clarity. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 12:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Pre FAC copyedit
Hi

I will take a look. I have compared diffs and it does seem like everything is pretty much the same apart from those two sections (lead and lit/media)

Once thing though, I cannot see any alt= on the images, at GA level all images should have alt=, to stop screen readers from reading out the file name, though there does not need to be an alt text. At FA the alt= and the alt text need to be there, i.e. thumb|alt=Alt text describing the picture for those who are visually impaired|The picture shows this and that I have added one on the second image on the page -


 * Lead
 * "They flourished in the period of rising nationalism" - Not sure what "they" is, the previous sentence deals with "Chinese society and culture" and the "three main pillars" - perhaps "These flourished ..." or if it refers to the society and culture "Chinese Indonesians flourished ..."
 * "... in the period of rising nationalism on the eve ..." - this is not clear if it is Indonesian nationalism. I would suggest "... in the period of rising Chinese nationalism on the eve ..." or "... of rising Chinese nationalism amongst the ethnic Chinese ..."

(Paragraph 1) (para 2)
 * Literature and media
 * "believing it "will be influenced by the virtues of Chinese culture and Confucian values"." - needs a reference as it is quoted, but without saying where it is quoted from.
 * "The lifting of the Chinese-language ban" - when?
 * "The rise of China became an impetus" - what rise? It doesn't tell us what this rise is, or when it took place. "The rise of China's economic standing during 1990-2000 ..." or "The rise of China's role in world trade during the last twenty years of the 20th century..." or something like that (I know my dates aren't accurate, they are just examples :¬).
 * "the overwhelming majority, if not all," - quote, so needs a reference.
 * "One debate took place in the media" - when?
 * "primarily around ethnic Chinese districts" - was the it only showing that was prominent in ethnic Chinese districts, or was the exception to the rule only primarily around ethnic Chinese districts?
 * The exception to the rule was only around Chinese districts. Do you recommend another wording? Everything else should be fixed (except for the quotes, which I addressed below). — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 06:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

On a general note, I went to look up the book Kesastraan Melayu Tionghoa dan Kebangsaan Indonesia, when I did I found that the author was different on Google books. I don't know if this is just something to do with the translation or not, but the article says Tan as the author; Google books says A. S. Marcus and Pax Benedanto?

Good job :¬) I really do wish you well for the FA! If you need any more help, by all means let me know and I will do whatever I can to assist you. Chaosdruid (talk) 04:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks again! I'll respond to the more general comments first. When there are quotes, the next citation that appears in the prose is where the quote comes from. Does policy dictate otherwise? I didn't realize alt text is an absolute requirement again because I didn't see it in the criteria, though I suppose I should put them in anyway. The source author is not the same author of Kesastraan Melayu Tionghoa dan Kebangsaan Indonesia. The source is a citation for the fact that the book exists and is a well-known monumental publication. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 05:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The alt= is part of MoS, and as MoS is something which all GAs and FAs have to comply with: "Alt text takes the place of an image for text-only readers, including those using screen readers. Images should have an alt attribute added to the |alt= parameter. See WP:ALT for more information"
 * To summarise those links, all articles have to have |alt=, though only at FA are they expected to have an accurate alt text added. It seems strange, I know, as I thought that GA would need the text, but there they are only interested in preventing the screen readers reading out those sometimes stupidly long filenames. AS for the quotes, I am pretty sure that if they are close to them you will be ok.
 * FA reviewers are pretty precise and specific so good luck once again! Chaosdruid (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Numbers
How many Indonesian Chinese are actually there? since 2000 estimate was 2.4million however the number might actually be higher as Chinese still afraid to identify them self due to anti Chinese riot in 1998 and some Chinese are actually more Indonesian in identity however 2006 estimate was 7.670.000 (including ancestral) Chinese and some ranged around 3-5% of the population — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.82.84.216 (talk) 11:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Forbes list
Forbes previously had a list of Indonesia's 40 richest people in 2011. Of these 40, how many are Chinese Indonesians? I know that Anthoni Salim (#5), Low Tuck Kwong (#4) and Eka Tjipta Widjaja (#3) are a few of them. It would probably be good to mention within the article the number of Chinese Indonesian billionaires and millionaires, to explain the socioeconomic situation. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 13:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The list doesn't seem to indicate their ethnicity. I see several probable Chinese Indonesian names, including the ones you indicated, but no RS on their ethnicity = no inclusion in the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

History of settlement in java
http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/befeo_0336-1519_1972_num_59_1_5126

Rajmaan (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Chinese muslims in indonesia during the Ming dynasty
http://www.mei.nus.edu.sg/publications/mei-insights/the-spread-of-islam-in-southeast-asia-c-1275-c-1625

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=DD19A62ED493B6EA46C7A588F959148B.journals?fromPage=online&aid=5725636

http://books.google.com/books?id=vIUmU2ytmIIC&pg=PA239#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=vIUmU2ytmIIC&pg=PA240#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=XNsk7tLkMU4C&pg=PA137&lpg=PA137&dq=chinese+java+hanafi&source=bl&ots=amZGUjblKQ&sig=v6o5dg7fj2BZ73bW8h0aMpJvD8o&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1CDSUPvNGbS00AHcyYHgDg&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=chinese%20java%20hanafi&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=h1Btk6a3n0AC&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=chinese+java+hanafi&source=bl&ots=jt8PkNR8Kk&sig=2NMMDqtLai2_nrNT08iWLcJGMLA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1CDSUPvNGbS00AHcyYHgDg&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=chinese%20java%20hanafi&f=false

http://www.islam.org.hk/eng/malaysia/ChineseMuslim_in_Malaysia.asp

http://www.eastjava.com/tourism/surabaya/chenghoo-mosque.html

http://www.bt.com.bn/art-culture/2010/07/13/zheng-he-and-islam-southeast-asia

Rajmaan (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Population Numbers Don't Match Up
The 8.8 Million Estimate comes from a Jakarta News Article that cites a 3.7% percentage of the 237 Million population to be Chinese, however, the news article cites its numbers from the 2000 Indonesian Census. The census reports only 1.739 million Chinese, or 0.86% of the population. However, the figure does not include figures in 19 provinces. Ananta, Arifin & Bakhtiar (2003) would come to recalculate the numbers from the raw census data to 2,411,503 Citizens, or 1.20% of the population with an additional 93,717 or 0.05% as foreign nationals. Using a 1.25% to 237 Million, it comes out at ~3.0 Million Indonesian Chinese. In other words, the 8.8 Million is unfounded and should not be used. Either we pick the most plausible estimate (census data), or we list the several credible estimates. 68.49.104.218 (talk) 06:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you've misread the article in The Jakarta Post as it clearly states it is from the latest census: "Indonesians of Chinese descent make up 3.7 percent of the country’s population of 237 million, based on the 2010 national census." The number 8.8 million was calculated backwards from the 3.7 percent figure given. Until an update from the 2003 study is available, we don't have a more specific number and thus are using this calculated figure. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 09:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I didn't misread, I know what Jakarta Post stated and explained it in my post. However, according to the 2010 census, there were only 1.739 million Chinese, or 0.86% of the population.  In other words, that 3.7 percent is unaccounted for.  You can't use data that's unaccounted for.  The census report is accounted for, Ananta, Arifin & Bakhtiar's calculations using census data is accounted for, and RoC estimates are accounted for, or at the least credible.  You can use any of those numbers, but not one that's unaccounted for.  68.49.104.218 (talk) 11:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Based on the newest 2010 census (http://sp2010.bps.go.id/files/ebook/kewarganegaraan%20penduduk%20indonesia/index.html), the population of Chinese Indonesian was 2.832.510 or 1.20% of the total population of Indonesia. This number includes figures in all 33 provinces and exclude Chinese of foreign nationals, which is in line to Ananta, Arifin & Bakhtiar's calculations. Hand15 (talk) 06:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Borneo massacres in the 1960s at the start of the New Order
Dayak massacres against Chinese.

http://books.google.com/books?id=gzycUFzE9MsC&pg=PA146#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=EUDii8kvQYAC&pg=PA63#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=OrdM8X7CBTAC&pg=PA294#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=37VaZmxM4gAC&pg=PA130#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=I2RZAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT243#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Languages
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3351254?

The Chinese of Indonesia and the Development of the Indonesian Language Dédé Oetomo Indonesia The Role of the Indonesian Chinese in Shaping Modern Indonesian Life (1991), pp. 53-66 Published by: Southeast Asia Program Publications at Cornell University Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3351254 Page Count: 14

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2055313?

Languages of the Chinese of Java--An Historical Review Ellen Rafferty The Journal of Asian Studies Vol. 43, No. 2 (Feb., 1984), pp. 247-272 Published by: Association for Asian Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2055313 Page Count: 26

Rajmaan (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Indonesian Chinese vs Chinese Indonesians
If an Indonesian Chinese is someone of Chinese descent born in Indonesia (similarly to an Australian Chinese which is of Chinese descent born in Australia) has this article confused matters in the opening paragraph? If not... what do you call someone of Indonesian descent born in China (similar to a Chinese Australian which is of Australian descent born in China)? The same person cannot be both Indonesian Chinese and Chinese Indonesian right? unless they were of mixed descent born on the border of both countries... I bring up this point because neither Indonesian nor Chinese is of more significance to the other - one is the country of descent and the other is the country they are born (or perhaps naturalised).

ZhuLien (talk) 02:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.142.84 (talk)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chinese Indonesians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090126222251/http://en.inti.or.id/ to http://en.inti.or.id/
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130615214254/http://www.psmti-pusat.org/ to http://www.psmti-pusat.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chinese Indonesians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726181718/http://www.insideindonesia.org/edition-95/a-new-political-animal-11011165 to http://www.insideindonesia.org/edition-95/a-new-political-animal-11011165
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090617213902/http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/06/12/chineseindonesians-quiz-vice-presidential-candidates.html to http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/06/12/chineseindonesians-quiz-vice-presidential-candidates.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110614085048/http://www.iseas.edu.sg/trends992.pdf to http://www.iseas.edu.sg/trends992.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Tone and sources
The place of people of Chinese descent in Indonesia is contentious and this article has clearly undergone many revisions which have improved factuality and tone. The article still has two problems. One is that a significant number of sources cited are tertiary, i.e. authors who have read the academic literature and digested it, sometimes exaggerating or misunderstanding points that were made more carefully in the secondary (research-based) literature. The second is that the article deviates from NPOV by focussing on a narrative of Chinese victimization. Victimization is part of the story, but putting stress on it is a political narrative, not consistent with the principles of Wikipedia.

Both these issues arise in a recent edit by Davidelit, who has inserted "Dutch colonial rule saw the beginning of anti-Chinese policies, including killings and ghettoization.[22]"

The reference here is a 2010 article in the Los Angeles Times which focusses on the failure of the Indonesian government to address the violence committed against Chinese Indonesians in 1998. The only reference in the article to the colonial period is as follows: "Discrimination against ethnic Chinese here dates back centuries to the Dutch colonial era, when thousands were killed or forced into ghettos." This article is a poor source, both because it is vague and because it mistakes two separate phenomena, the 1740 massacres of Chinese in Batavia which took place under the VOC, and the laws restricting Chinese residence that were introduced in the colonial era (i.e. after 1815). The sentence introduced by Davidelit (""Dutch colonial rule saw the beginning of anti-Chinese policies, including killings and ghettoization" is tendentious, because it elevates a negative judgment over factual information. It is factually incorrect because it implies that killing Chinese was a matter of policy in colonial Indonesia (and that the policy dates from the start of the VOC period); this was never the case in the VOC or colonial periods. The mention of ghettoization is factually incorrect because the system of community-based government described in the previous sentence was not intended by the VOC as anti-Chinese (it applied to all ethnic groups); nor did Chinese in the archipelago experience it as anti-Chinese.

Davidelit's insertion needs to be reverted. There is a great deal more work to be done to bring this article to a standard that reflects the situation of Chinese Indonesians factually and in a balanced way. Atla5Atla5 (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The over use of the word fact and assertions that are not backed up apart from opinion, leave this above comment somewhat problematic. May I remind the editor that requesting reversion, and simply asserting an unbacked up fact this and fact that, is neither any use to a reviewing editor or outsider, as there is nothing to back up the assertions,  some clear indication of sources to predicate the assertions is sorely needed here for anyone to go anywhere with the issues. JarrahTree 09:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The information you deleted is cited. Your opinion of the source is not pertinent to this. The deleted section is a paraphrase from a source. Your contention is unsoured. Regards Davidelit (Talk) 11:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not want an edit war. I am disappointed that Davidelit reversed my edit without addressing the issues I raised above. Davidelit has misrepresented the source, which does not claim that the killing of Chinese was policy. The article 1740 Batavia massacre makes clear the complex circumstances of these killings. There were no other such killings in the colonial period, so referring to killings as policy or suggesting that they were commonplace is misleading. I take your point on the need to provide sources on the nature of Dutch rules on segregated residence and on the way in which Chinese experienced segregation. I will address this issue in edits when I have time. Atla5Atla5 (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * For heaven's sake, bothering about Davidelit totally misses the point.

The two main english sources on the 1700s in Java, have interpretations from individuals that have very different takes on the materials available, having read the books and the reviews of them, I would suggest that there is no such thing as a clear 'fact' on the era as we would expect in usual western historiographical traditions, simply interpretations of the material available.

Also to make assertions no other such killings in the colonial period, hello? Says who? In view of such comments, with nothing to clarify or backup - really require a more rigorous examination here on talk pages, not in text, otherwise there will in all likelihood be edits wars and blocks.

Please do not address the issue in edits - you will need to have your exercise here, on the talk page for third parties to review. In WP:AGF. Otherwise the conversation will not be possible, and the nuances of the claimed 'facts' will never get explored adequately. JarrahTree 23:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)