Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Chinese Indonesians/archive1

(Disclosure: I participated in the peer review for this article and did some edits) I will put my comments here as I find them.
 * Comments from Crisco 1492
 * Lead:
 * "Indonesia, formerly a colony of the Netherlands known as the Dutch East Indies" -- Chinese immigrants pre-date the Dutch East Indies. Perhaps the fact that it is a south-east Asian archipelago instead, or move the Dutch East Indies bit further down?
 * "... Chinese Indonesians gained newfound political and social freedoms as a result of policy reform efforts." -- Mainly from the regime change, but that's not mentioned (you deal with it later, but it may be better to have it upfront, perhaps "Although economic collapse from the 1997 Asian financial crisis severely disrupted their business activities and caused the government to collapse, Chinese Indonesians gained newfound political and social freedoms as a result of policy reform efforts." or something like that
 * "These flourished in the period of rising Chinese nationalism on the eve of the Second World War;" -- Flourishy. I suggest "preceding the Second World War" (without the Wikilink, per the MOS)
 * "... government of the New Order ..." -- "... New Order government ...", perhaps?
 * "... although significant rural and agricultural communities also exist outside the main islands." -- Outside Java, certainly. But I think Borneo (Kalimantan) would be considered a main island, and its Chinese population seems to be a bit more agrarian. At the very least we should qualify what "main islands" means.
 * "Emigrant communities emerged in more industrialized nations in the second half of the 20th century." -- Pardon? Emigrant communities of Chinese Indonesians? Perhaps "In the second half of the 20th century, Chinese Indonesians emigrated to more industrialized nations" or something like that. The shift from population pyramid to immigration is a little shocking.


 * Unless my English comprehension is poor, I don't think the first sentence implies that. It only means to place Indonesia in a historical context as a former colony of a European power. Part of the objective of the lead is to hook the reader into reading the rest of the article, not to provide every information the reader wants to know in those four paragraphs. I made some changes in . — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 03:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Identity
 * "Such treatment also persisted in Indonesia with a majority of the population referring to them as orang Cina, orang Tionghoa (both meaning "Chinese people", 中華人), or hoakiau (華僑)." -- Seems to still be quite common, at least by non-ethnographic studies (see Putri Cina by Sindhunata for a 2007 example of the term Cina being used to describe Javanized (?) Chinese.
 * "Chinese Indonesians must produce an Indonesian Citizenship Certificate (Surat Bukti Kewarganegaraan Republik Indonesia, SBKRI) when conducting business with government officials" -- There is also a tense conflict between this sentence and the next one (this is present, the rest are past.
 * Totok is more 'pure' than 'new'; 'pure' should probably go first (to be honest, I've never heard Totok used in a context where it would mean new)
 * (歸國華僑) -- Perhaps pinyin could be used as well, considering Tionghoa and hokiau above include both a transcription and the Chinese text
 * "In order to identify Chinese Indonesians, Tan contends they must be separated by citizenship into those who are citizens of the host country and those who are resident aliens. They are further broken down by cultural orientation and social identification." -- reads fairly awkwardly to me. Perhaps "In order to classify Chinese Indonesians, Tan contends they must first be separated by citizenship into those who are citizens of the host country and those who are resident aliens, then further broken down by cultural orientation and social identification."


 * I refrained from using the busy zh template because it introduces significant overlinking if I were to use it for every instance of Chinese text, which does not occur often because it is actually not needed to understand the article's message. All information is referenced to its source, and I have avoided too much commentary on terminology to prevent editorializing. Changes are in . — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 03:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Early interactions
 * Scholars believe that the Chinese Muslims became absorbed into the majority Muslim population. -- Who?
 * ... including the pepper port of Banten." -- Only Banten?


 * Neither source provides additional information. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 05:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Tan herself writes only that scholars believe them to have been absorbed? (I am away from home and can't check my copy) Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've reworded it; she's vague on made the hypothesis. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 00:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Colonial attitudes (1600–1900)
 * Traders and merchants should probably not be wikilinked
 * ... has been renamed as Jakarta. -- Is the as necessary?
 * ... like cloves, nutmeg, and mace. -- Names of spices probably shouldn't be wikilinked, as it is in a direct quote and both wikilinked spices are fairly well known
 * ... "foreign Asians" ... -- Perhaps a little explanation on what this included, as it may not be fully understood just by reading it (if I'm not mistaken, Arab Indonesians were included too)
 * By 1819 they came into conflict with the new Dutch government and were seen as "incompatible" with its objectives. On the other hand, the local government considered the Chinese population indispensable for the development of the region -- perhaps "By 1819 they came into conflict with the new Dutch government and were seen as "incompatible" with its objectives, yet indispensable for the development of the region


 * To be honest, I know little about spices and don't even know what the plants look like; that's why I left them linked. The articles can also provide a historical context of their cultivation and why they were valuable. Adjustments can be found in . — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 05:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Divided nationalism (1900–1949)
 * ... because it viewed most ethnic Chinese, like most of the indigenous population, as poor. -- perhaps "because it considered most ethnic Chinese, like most of the indigenous population, to be poor."
 * The editor-in-chief of the Madjallah Panorama news magazine criticized Sin Po for misguiding the ethnic Chinese by pressuring them into a Chinese-nationalist stance. -- What was Madjallah Panorama orientation? Was it aligned with Chung Hwa Hui?
 * In 1932 pro-Indonesian counterparts founded the Partai Tionghoa Indonesia to support absorption of the ethnic Chinese into the Javanese population and support the call for self-government of Indonesia. -- Would assimilation be better than absorption?
 * When the Dutch returned, following the end of World War II, the chaos caused by advancing forces and retreating revolutionaries also saw radical Muslim groups attack ethnic Chinese communities. -- Some of the attacks on the Chinese Indonesians seem to have been perpetrated by revolutionaries or the Dutch


 * I made the change on the first point. The source does not indicate Panorama's alignment; it also uses "absorption" over "assimilation". The source for the fourth point only mentions the radical Muslims, so I cannot make any changes there. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 06:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Loyalty in question
 * One of its provisions was the ability to renounce Chinese citizenship for those who wished to solely remain Indonesian citizens. -- Was the provision to renounce Chinese citizenship, or affirm Indonesian citizenship? Small yet important semantic difference.
 * Subsequent migrations occurred in 1960 as part of a repatriation program... -- Should the 1959 law banning Chinese from doing business in rural areas be mentioned here? Setiono considers it a major reason why so many were repatriated
 * The second and third paragraphs may need to be reorganized, as they discuss many of the same issues.
 * The use of massacre may not be NPOV


 * The treaty's provision is unambiguous; a person who renounces one citizenship automatically affirms the other, as written in Article III of the treaty. The second paragraph deals with the foreign effects of the agreements and regulations, while the third deals with the domestic effects of the issue; I don't think there is any confusion. "Massacre" ("pembantaian" for Indonesian equivalent) is used in many academic sources, so I don't believe there is any NPOV issue. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 06:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Social policy reforms (1999–present)
 * Suharto unexpectedly resigned on 21 May 1998, one week after he returned from a Group of 15 meeting in Cairo following the riots -- He returned on the 14th? That would have been during the riots. Or did he come back less than one week before resigning?
 * Despite Habibie's efforts he was met with skepticism because of remarks he made, as Vice President and later as President, which suggested that the message was insincere -- Remarks like what?
 * ... the terms "pribumi" and "non-pribumi" ... -- Why are these in quotations but peranakan and totok above are in italics?
 * ... reaffirmed a 1996 instruction which abolished the use of the Indonesian Citizenship Certificate (Surat Bukti Kewarganegaraan Republik Indonesia, SBKRI) ... -- SBKRI is already explained above; you should probably just use SBKRI here.


 * The dates are correct. Suharto left Cairo early on the 14th and arrived later that day as the riots died down. (Though if he were concerned enough, he could have returned a day earlier because the meeting ended on the 13th.) I didn't want to delve too much into Habibie in this section to keep the focus on social policy; his most eye-opening remarks can be found in the middle of the third paragraph in the Economic aptitude section as a footnote. This instance of SBKRI was written before the above section; I have made the adjustment. See my comment on italicization below. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 06:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To debate semantics a little, if he arrived as the riots were dying down they weren't quite finished yet. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Origins
 * Nearly all Chinese Indonesians are either patrilineal descendants of these early immigrants, or new immigrants born in mainland China.[73] -- How early is early? 1200 AD? 1600 AD? 1800?
 * ... rapid growth of Batavia (now Jakarta) and ... -- You explain that Batavia is now Jakarta twice in the article; I don't think it is necessary to have it here.
 * ... they migrated to Java about the same time as the Hakka, but for different reasons. -- Such as?


 * I no longer have access to the primary source of this section, but as I recall the dates and reasons are not specified, else I would have included them. I have removed the redundancy. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 06:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Demographics
 * ... published in the Harian Indonesia daily in 1973. -- Perhaps ... published in the daily Harian Indonesia?
 * Estimates within the past decade placed the figure between 6 and 7 million, ... -- Why not Estimates within the past decade have placed the figure between 6 and 7 million, ?
 * Fourth paragraph -- When is this? If it is for the 2000 census, maybe the present tense would be more appropriate
 * With a life expectancy of 75 years, those born prior to this regime change will completely disappear by 2032.[88] -- Seems questionable; 1997 + 75 is 2072. Perhaps "With a life expectancy of 75 years, those with significant experience in the New Order will completely disappear by 2032" or something similar.


 * "Daily" is also a noun. I'm not understanding what you're looking at in the fourth paragraph; in any case, 2000 is 11 years ago, so past tense should be appropriate. Ethnic data from the 2010 census has not been processed. The regime change means from Sukarno to Suharto (1967). — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 06:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I misinterpreted the source on the last point. The authors were assuming that the age of 10 is when children began their formative years and would be aware of their surroundings. This would mean that, in 1967, persons older than 10 would be part of the Old Order generation and persons younger than 10 would be part of the New Order generation. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 07:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am using Daily in the newspaper sense as well. It seems awkward to me to use the title of a newspaper as an adjective.
 * From my experience, I've never seen it written the other way around. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 19:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess it is a style thing... although you have "the English-language daily The Jakarta Post" later on.
 * Sentence flow reasons, otherwise "the" would have been too close to each other and read unnaturally. Personally, I think both are correct and can be used interchangeably depending on the flow of reading. I have seen nothing that would indicate otherwise. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 23:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.


 * Gender and Kinship
 * "... and polygyny is strongly frowned upon." -- This seems to imply that polyandry is allowed.


 * Hm... I didn't see it way. The source specifically used polygyny, and there was no mention of polyandry. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 19:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Any sources that show they don't practice polyandry?
 * Not that I've seen, though perhaps because the Skinner's work has aged. However, despite the age of its information, it was considered to be the first comprehensive study of Chinese Indonesians and became a starting point for many subsequent academic sources. Because it drew upon observations made in the 1950s and 1960s, it gave a perspective of peranakan and totok society before they became diluted through assimilation. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 23:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Another thing to consider is that one would not expect groups that have inherited Chinese culture to practice polyandry. Such a custom is highly frowned upon for females while polygyny had a certain cultural precedent (e.g. concubines in the imperial court). — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 00:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's ridiculous, but using one specific term sort of implies that the statement doesn't apply to other related concepts. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Economic
 * "... practice of "guanxi", which ..." -- Should this be italicized (first time in text)
 * "... crisis finally hit the country ..." -- Finally implies that it was something that they waited for. Might be better if dropped.


 * Indonesia did kind of see the crisis coming. It suffered the worst effects of the financial crisis a few months later than the remaining ASEAN countries. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 19:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Language
 * Additionally, an estimated 20,000 spoke varieties of the Indonesian language.[126] -- Is that exclusively? I'd be quite surprised if only 0.1% of the Chinese Indonesian population spoke "varieties of the Indonesian language"


 * Ethnologue's introduction: "In this edition, we tally 6,909 languages which are known to have living speakers who learned them by transmission from parent to child as the primary language of day-to-day communication. These languages are commonly referred to as a person’s 'first language' or 'mother tongue'." I have made the necessary adjustment. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 19:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Religion
 * Perhaps a mention that all Indonesian citizens are required to have a state-recognized religion, to help readers understand why the Chinese didn't just practice Confucianism and ignore the authorities.


 * I have made additions in . — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 19:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * General
 * The use of peranakan should probably be standardized (i.e. all peranakan or all peranakan)


 * Peranakan, totok, and pribumi are italicized in their first instance because they are foreign terms. Every instance after is not because the copyeditor felt that the use of italics throughout was too much. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 06:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Summary
 * I will continue giving feedback after I return from class (around 10 am UTC). I will probably have more to add later. I'd be happy to support, but a little bit of clean-up (nitpicking, generally) is necessary. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)