Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1740 Batavia massacre/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 19:41, 20 January 2012.

1740 Batavia massacre

 * Nominator(s): Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it fully meets the criteria. This is my first featured article nomination, although I have participated as a reviewer in several others. This article is about an important event in Indonesian history, one that led to an all-out war throughout Java and caused tensions between Chinese Indonesians and native Indonesians that are still felt today; it represents a good balance of Dutch, English, and Indonesian sources. I would like to give heartfelt thanks to Drmies for his help with the Dutch sources and users Ohconfucius and Mark Arsten for their help copyediting. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The links on FNs 53 and 57 are not working correctly
 * be consistent in whether or not you provide publisher locations, and if so how these are formatted
 * Don't mix different types of citation templates - standardize on either citation or the cite family
 * Be consistent in whether initials are spaced or unspaced
 * All ranges should use endashes. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Everything should be fixed now. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments: I like history articles, particularly those that deal with events of which I have absolutely no prior knowledge, so I will enjoy reading this. Meanwhile, here are some prose issues from the lead:
 * I suggest "activated" rather than "called into force", which is clumsy just after "deadly force".
 * Full stop rather than semicolon after "50 Dutch soldiers".
 * "In response the Dutch sent over 1,800 troops and supporting units, leading to the Chinese populace being stripped of all weapons and put under curfew." First, by "sent over" do you mean "dispatched", or "sent more than"? I suspect the former, but this should be clarified. Secondly, there is an unnecessary lapse into passive voice. Suggest: "In response the Dutch [dispatched] 1,800 troops and supporting units, who stripped the Chinese populace of their weapons and imposed a curfew."
 * "called another meeting of the Council" - no previous mention of an earlier meeting, and what is this "Council"?
 * What is "Kali Besar"?
 * "...until Valckenier called more forcefully for a cease of hostilities on 22 October". I think you probably mean "until, on 22 October, Valckenier called more forcefully for a cease of hostilities".
 * "The massacre is generally agreed to have killed 10,000 ethnic Chinese; only 600 to 3,000 survived." This is expressed a little vaguely for an encyclopedia article, and is also oddly worded; the massacre is the killing, not the means of it. I would suggest something more definitive, e.g. "Historians have reckoned that the massacre resulted in around 10,000 ethnic Chinese deaths. Estimates of the number who survived vary between 600 and about 3,000".
 * "...is credited for the etymology of several areas in Jakarta." This should be stated rather more plainly, and I'm not sure about "credited" in this context.

I'll read the rest over the next few days (in between the cigars and brandy), and will add further comments later. Brianboulton (talk) 14:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I instituted most of the changes you suggested, but for the curfew etc. I did a different rephrasing to make the meaning clearer. Thank you for your comments, and enjoy the brandy! Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Further comment: Sorry, although I found the subject-matter interesting, the prose needs quite a lot of attention, especially in the "Aftermath" section which is very confused at times. This is disappointing, since the article has been through GA and peer review. Here is a selection of the problems I found, reading through:-
 * Background


 * You have linked "natives", but you need to say "native Indonesians" in the text, rather that making readers use a link to find out who these natives were.
 * As Indonesia was not independent at the time, I feel uncomfortable using "Indonesians" in that sentence; there was no "Indonesia", and the word wasn't even coined until the 19th century.
 * OK, but you had better amend "1,594 Dutch and Indonesian forces" in your text. And perhaps "During the early years of the Dutch colonisation of Indonesia" is maybe suspect, too? Brianboulton (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, changed.


 * "extort" is a transitive verb, so it can't be used as you have done. People can't be extorted; "extortion" is something done to them. I suggest you change "extorted" to "exploited"
 * Isn't it intransitive verbs that cannot be used in the passive voice? Either way, changed.


 * "British explorer and historian of Java Stamford Raffles notes that..." is a very clumsy formulation. Suggext: "Stamford Raffles, the British explorer and historian of Java, notes that in some..." etc
 * Done


 * "among other circles": "other" suggests a previous "circles", which isn't there. Suggest "among some circles"
 * Done


 * "These measures caused unrest"; it is not clear what measures are being referred to here
 * Done


 * "changes in worldwide supplies to the European market" - why is this factual statement in quotes?
 * Because it's verbatim from the source. I'll rephrase.


 * "some councillors" - again, you need to identify the council (there's a reference later in the paragraph to the "Council of the Indies"; perhaps give this name earlier.
 * Done


 * "This continued to be contested" → "This policy continued to be contested"
 * Done


 * "accepted increduously" → "received incredulously" (note spelling "incredulously")
 * Done


 * Again, unnecessary quotes around "extraordinary measures"
 * Done
 * Massacre


 * "Kali Besar": for clarity, I suggest you say "the Kali Besar stream"
 * Kali, literally translated, is stream. As we don't say "Sungai Mahakam River" I'll change it to Besar Stream like in the lede.
 * OK, understood.Brianboulton (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "Chinese settlements elsewhere in Jakarta" - should the present-day name "Jakarta" be used here?
 * Changed


 * "Tanah Abang survivor Captain Jan van Oosten" Reformulate: "Captain Jan van Oosten, a survivor from Tanah Abang"
 * Do we need "local time (UTC+7)"? UTC wasn't invented then.
 * Just local time. I had included UTC to show which time zone it would be


 * "...only dying on 12 October" I think this should be "dying out".
 * Done
 * Follow-up and further violence


 * "two ducat" → "two ducats"
 * done


 * "bandits" doesn't need quotes
 * I had put quotes as it is possibly POV. I'll remove them.
 * If you're worried, a more neutral term might be "irregulars". Brianboulton (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Done


 * "Native Indonesians" → "native Indonesians"
 * Changed to natives (per above)


 * Terms such as "Bugis" need explaining; don't make your readers link to another article to get a definition.
 * Added "ethnic"


 * "On 8 November, 2,000–3,000 native troops were requested from the Sultanate of Cirebon." Requested by whom, and for what purpose, seeing that a cease-fire was in force?
 * Added.
 * Still doesn't say who requested the troops. By "reinforce", do you mean "protect"? Brianboulton (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Addressed.


 * Aftermath


 * More unjustified quotes ("almost without interruption") Quotes should be use for striking or memorable wording, not commonplace or everyday phrases
 * Had quoted as it was verbatim. Removed
 * Generally, you quote verbatim only memorable phrases, or longer extracts where use of the original wording is thought justifiable  to emphasise a point. Otherwise, simple paraphrases of commomplace expressions is preferable. Brianboulton (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Gotcha.


 * "Early 1740 Valckenier asked permission to be dismissed." It's "Early in 1740; but what does "asked permission to be dismissed" mean? I could understand "asked to be dismissed", though probably "asked to be replaced" is nearer the mark. But "asked permission to be dismissed" is simply nonsense; you ask permission to do something yourself, not to have something done to you.
 * This was added a little after the nomination, so I'll touch that up.
 * See comments below Brianboulton (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The meaning of "vote of no confidence" is obvious, so no link necessary.
 * Done


 * I am losing the thread here: "In January 1741 Van Imhoff was sent to the Netherlands to face charges of insubordination. In October 1742, after these charges were dismissed by the Lords XVII (preceded by Lieve Geelvinck), Van Imhoff was sent back to Batavia as the new governor-general of the East Indies and arrived in May 1743." Can you render that in plain English?
 * Better?
 * See comments below Brianboulton (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "It seems Valckenier had left the Indies..." "It seems..." is not particularly encyclopedic. How does the source make this conjecture?
 * Fixed


 * "Seven months after Valckenier had left, he was locked up in the prison of Fort Batavia and three months later the trial began." I'm confused again. He was locked up in Fort Batavia seven months after leaving the place?  And then "three months later the trial began". Presumably Valckenier's trial, though you don't say so. What were the charges? Who was conducting the trial?
 * Looking into it (has been rephrased).
 * The encyclopedia of biographies has it for his involvement in the massacre and for "selling out the office" ("geweest ambtsverkoop").

Note: These paragraphs are still very confusing. The reader will want to know:-
 * Who appointed Van Imhoff, and why was he appointed when he was evidently already on his way beck to the Netherlands to face charges of insubordiation?
 * Why did Valckenier go to Capetown? When did he arrive there? When was he returned to Batavia?
 * "12,333" is a very large number; please give some instances of what these items consisted of - were they all documents?
 * What was the date and cause of Valckenier's death? Brianboulton (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Done
 * Done
 * Nothing about what it consisted of in the source. Logically it should be documents, but evidence could just as well be a goodly number of witnesses.
 * The source doesn't give a cause, just that it was in his cell on 20 June 1751. Should we include the date, or just the year?


 * "he was condemned to the sword". This may be what the source says, but you should render it in plain English: "He was condemned to death"
 * Fixed


 * "Nine months later the trial was reopened when Valckenier had produced 12,233 articles to defend himself." Extraordinary; what do you mean by "articles"?
 * Fixed
 * See comment above. Brianboulton (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Considerable further work needed to achieve featured status. Brianboulton (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that should do it. Thanks for the review! Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the remaining grammar issues. For the comprehensiveness issues, it'll have to wait about an hour (I'll need to go to a web cafe). Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comprehensiveness issues should be fixed. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, you've done good work, and most of my concerns have been addressed. My final prose comment: "a 12,233 article-long diatribe" is clumsy, and the word "diatribe" is pejorative. Why not just say "a lengthy statement" and avoid difficulties? I am leaning towards supporting this promotion; I don't have time to do the final polishing, but it sees as though Dank is prepared to to this. If he gives an  all clear, and an image review (currently lacking) produces no further issues, I will be ready to give full support. Brianboulton (talk) 12:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Changed to your suggestion. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Outside of those points its an interesting read, well done Gnangarra 14:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * observations by Gnangarra
 * Background section the term running amok wasnt used until the 1770's after observations by Cook, also its meaning at the time doesnt jel with its usage
 * Background section At the same time native occupants of Batavia are these Javanese people or some other group
 * aftermarth alternatively, the Lords XVII instructed that he be replaced by van Imhoff as punishment for sending too much sugar and too little coffee in 1939. wow sanctioned for sending too little coffee 200 years after the event :)
 * effects section historian of Java Stamford Raffles writes that Dutch historical records are "far from complete or satisfactory" Raffes is deceased should it not be he actions are past tense ie wrote rather than writes.
 * As amok is from the Malay term amuk, it may be justifiable here even if it predates English usage. Otherwise, would you object to "rioted", "fought against the crew", or other such wordings?
 * I have some ethnic groups listed further down, rather than put a comprehensive list (which is not all supported by sources). I'll rejig it.
 * Total typo. Mind you, he was released from his death sentence after he was dead so...
 * Fixed. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I made an adjustment moved slaves from Bali and Sulawesi, and Bugis and Balinese troops, back to masscre section
 * Support. I have no further concerns please consider this a support for its promotion to FA Gnangarra 13:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your support. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I'd like to see a little more support before I copyedit. - Dank (push to talk) 04:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Understood. I've worked on some comments with BrianBoulton but he seems to be extremely busy this week. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Murder of the Chinese': See WP:MOS. Search for and replace single quotes throughout.
 * Double quotes. I'm used to putting definitions in single quotes for my linguistics classes.
 * Understood; single quotes are common outside the US, but double quotes have consensus at FAC. - Dank (push to talk)


 * "at a meeting of the council": which council?
 * Fixed
 * Not fixed, because I don't know what the "Council of the Indies" is. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Further clarified


 * "the massacre resulted in around 10,000 ethnic Chinese deaths": I changed this to "around 10,000 ethnic Chinese were massacred"; is that right? - Dank (push to talk) 02:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine.


 * "rumours ... that they died when running amok on the ships": Readers rarely click on links of uncommon terms if they think they know what term means, and few readers will know that the term "amok" comes to us from Malaysia, or that "running amok" has a psychiatric meaning separate from the meaning in dictionaries. So, you've got some judgment calls here. Rumors are unimportant more often than they're important to encyclopedic content, so unless the rumors themselves had an impact, you could delete this bit.  Or, you could explain that "running amok" means going on a "killing spree perpetrated by an individual out of rage or resentment over perceived mistreatment" (per the link, and that's my sense of the term ... actually, don't include all of that, condense it).  Or, you could say "killing spree" and leave out "amok".  Your call. - Dank (push to talk) 02:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Changed to rioting
 * That works. - Dank (push to talk)


 * "Along with the economic boom caused by trade between the East Indies via Batavia and China, the number of ethnic Chinese in Batavia grew rapidly": I don't follow.
 * Added
 * Still not following. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Made clearer


 * "At least another 15,000 lived outside the city walls, with numbers reportedly as high as 80,000.": "Reportedly" raises but doesn't answer the question of why the spread is so large and why you doubt the larger figure.
 * Changed. Setiono says "more than 15,000", while Armstrong, Armstrong, and Miller give the (much) higher number. The number may be influenced by how far outside the wall they are counting, but it doesn't say in the sources "up to Tangerang" or "up to Bandung" etc.
 * "Between 15,000 and 80,000 lived outside the city walls.": Not fixed; that's not encyclopedic writing, any more than "Between one and eight typhoons hit Malaysia in 1740." The spread is too wide, and suggests either that the sources don't know what they're talking about, or that there's missing information.  In this case, there's missing information that explains the spread; fill in the information. - Dank (push to talk)
 * As the sources are unclear as to why there should be such a horrid clash in numbers, I've worded it so that it is undeniably factual "Thousands more lived outside the city walls."


 * "The Dutch colonials required them to carry registration papers, and initially sent back to China those who did not carry such papers.": Did all of the ethnic Chinese immigrate from China? If not, then "back" is wrong. When is "initially"?
 * Reworded.
 * Looks good. - Dank (push to talk)


 * "With both natives and the Dutch increasingly suspicious and resentful": You're reporting on states of mind here; better is to say what they said and did that suggested those states of mind, and either skip "suspicious and resentful" or use it in a topic sentence or conclusion.
 * Turned into topic sentence
 * No, you didn't understand my objection, and and your new sentence doesn't have a verb. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Sorry, added verb. I've also tried adding a bit more to make it clearer.


 * "and their economic prowess": What was being interpreted as prowess? Do you mean their wealth, or maybe their work skills?
 * Wealth. Changed


 * "deported to Zeylan (modern day Sri Lanka), where they would provide manpower for cinnamon harvesting.": What does "would" mean here, the future-in-past tense, or "were to", or "would have provided"? If the government is sending them off to do farm work, is that forced labor?
 * Made clearer
 * Not entirely. - Dank (push to talk)
 * "Should ... were to be" changed to "would ... would". I'm not sure what else you find lacking... a suggested fix would be great.


 * "the Dutch were told by the local Chinese captain": What's a "local Chinese captain"? Local to what?
 * A person put in charge of the Chinese populace by the Dutch. Expanded on in-text.
 * Better.


 * "the Chinese were seen as occupying some of the most prominent neighbourhoods": Did they just fantasize that the Chinese lived in prominent neighborhoods? Would ""the Chinese occupied some of the most prominent neighbourhoods" not be right for some reason?
 * Well, there's the thousands of poor millers living outside the walls who would not have lived in prominent neighbourhoods. Most were poor and would not have had access to the "nice neighbourhoods". However, the locals and Dutch did not notice or possibly did not care. In another period, before 1998, the press reported extensively on the Chinese konglomerat (conglomerates, uber-wealthy) while ignoring the poor Chinese spread throughout the archipelago, such as at Singkawang; it's a common way to stir up antipathy against the Chinese.
 * Not fixed. - Dank (push to talk)
 * To address your question directly, in my opinion "the Chinese occupied some of the most prominent neighbourhoods" would imply that all Chinese were in these neighbourhoods, while it was actually a misconception. I'll change "seen" to "perceived".


 * Oppose for two reasons: the problems here can't be fixed by copyediting, and my past experience has been that when I'm not sure of the meaning of so many sentences, it has turned out that the nominator wasn't sure of the meaning, either. That may of course be unfair, you may know exactly what you're talking about, but I can't be sure. - Dank (push to talk) 04:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've worked on redressing your comments here. As for the sentences you aren't sure of the meaning on, a lot of it depends on historical context which perhaps 99.9% of our readers don't have. Having lived in Indonesia for 4+ years and done my bachelour's thesis on discrimination against Chinese Indonesians, I've been reading up on the issue for a while now. Regarding the Chinese captains, that is probably worth an article at some point. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Never mind that second part. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm out of time on this one, sorry. - Dank (push to talk) 13:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Notice: I will be leaving for Australia for the RecentChanges Camp on the 18th local time (UTC+7); I'm not sure how much time I'll have for editing Wikipedia, but I will do my best to reply to any comments promptly. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.