Talk:Dutch East Indies/Archive3

Consensus gained... now let's make this a good article !

I'm gonna be bold and remove the dispute tags because it seems the edit wars have finished and thus I conclude that consensus has been reached over what is left of this article.

I have edited the infobox so as to use it in the way it was intended. Pls. don't try to make that template do things it can't, as this results in syntax errors and/or very illogical presentation. I would like to make it even simpler but hope to find some support or even help for that.

The big job here is the text of the article itself. I think everybody will agree it needs a lot of work and I think the road is clear for a good look at the structure and content! Pls help :-) DeVerm (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't see a change that I agree with here. I will recheck, but all bad as far as I can tell. Each individual change needs discussion. I don't have the time right now, but I can bring some specific points later.

Take that as consensus prematurely proclaimed. --Merbabu (talk) 00:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Merbabu. I would welcome your help to make this page better very much. I had removed the dispute tags because article history shows that you removed or changed all that you didn't agree with and nobody reverted that. This sounds pretty much like consensus to me :) If you find more incorrect information in this article, pls. correct or discuss it here. But, as long as nothing gets disputed, we can safely state that there is no dispute :) I'm happy to see you realized that too and reverted your change. I do agree that there is probably a lot of incomplete or too simplistic information in this article.. but the lack of comments indicates that what there is, is basically correct, or at least not disputed.

The infobox: I did find that the Japanese occupation during WW2 was kind of worked into the flags pre/post events in the infobox. This wasn't excepted by any nation other than the Axis nations. The occupation needs a bigger role in this article as I think it was the most difficult period for many people in Indonesia... but this spot in the info-box is not the place for that. We need good content in the article sections itself.. an infobox can not replace that.

Also, I did some editing removing the words "Indonesia" or "Netherlands". Like for example in "Japanese occupation of Indonesia". AFAIK, Indonesia was never occupied by the Japanese.. it was the Dutch East Indies that were occupied. Also, as this article is about the Dutch East Indies.. it is not needed to add who was occupied or gained independence.. so instead of changing, I removed. DeVerm (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Did you read my edit summary? "Reverted to revision 408092337 by DeVerm; I can't address this right now. restoring to poor version. Will revert to good version once I have time to explain why this version is so poor." --Merbabu (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes I did read that, but assume you will discuss the matter before changing. I see no good version of this article anywhere in it's history so imho it is impossible to revert to "a good version". In the mean time, I'll work on making it better and hope you will be able to join me in that effort soon :) DeVerm (talk) 15:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

This change.

Much of the info removed has been discussed above as a compromise/consensus position - that's how wikipedia works. It doesn't create problems with template functionality as DeVerm suggests.

• Reinstate link to Dutch East India Company in Indonesia. This is about an "era" in Indonesia. Not just the VOC as a company which the VOC page is about.
• Reinstate the lifespan info: |life_span = 1800-1942<br'''Bold text'''>1945-1949 and the flags that went with it. This was the consensus (compromise?) version established previously (and consensus is how wikipedia works). To suggest that the DEI survived unscathed after 1942 is disingenuous. The Japanese all but exterminated the Dutch colonial state during their 1942 occupation. Even putting in 1945-1949 is stretching it - the Dutch may have captured most of the cities and towns, but the villages and farmland where the masses lived was never re-captured effectively under Dutch control. If you'd like to make it simpler, remove the 1945-1949 part (the Dutch government now acknowledges 1945 anyway - as mentioned in the article).
• Reinstate the link to Japanese Occupation of Indonesia removed by DeVerm. Why was that removed?
• Reinstate Dutch recognition of Indonesian sovereignty - important distinction removed by DeVerm
• Reinstate the important: |footnotes = Between 1945 and 1949, the Dutch tried to re-establish their colony although Indonesia had proclaimed its independency in 17 August 1945.
• Removed silly flags: see WP:ICONDECORATE
• Removed non-English translations. They dominate the English version, when this is afterall English wikipedia. --Merbabu (talk) 13:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD and WP:3RR, please do not revert or change back in any way without prior consensus being reached. --Merbabu (talk) 13:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

None of the changes I made to the infobox are in conflict with the "consensus" reached before as seen in previous discussion. In fact, every point discussed there was still present without any modification. So, my edits to the infobox should be considered as valid, good intentioned contribution to this article and not just reverted.

• This article is not about an era in Indonesia.. it is about the Dutch East Indies. Of course it is an important article for the history of Indonesia, but it is not the Indonesia article.
• The lifespan really is 1800-1949. The Japanese occupation did NOT terminate the existence of the Dutch East Indies... they were just occupied by Japanese forces. It doesn't matter how many people they put in camps or killed or how much they destructed. The world considered it the DEI occupied by Japanese forces and never recognized it as part of the Japanese empire. You are absolutely correct that the archipelago was in turmoil... the whole world was... but it was a wartime occupation and the Japanese were defeated and surrendered and they never gained any form of (think world or UN) recognized posesion of the archipelago. It doesn't matter if the DEI survived unscathed after 1942 or not (I agree it didn't).. it only matters that it still existed until the official transfer to the Indonesian government in 1949. In other words: I agree that the Japanese occupation was an important event, one that should be expanded in this article, but it just doesn't belong in this spot of the info-box, which should state what the archipelago was before it became the DEI (debatable either a big collection of Kingdoms, Sultanates etc. or "VOC") and the state(s) that were formed after it's collapse.
  • At this point I want to include that the contribution you did about the Japanese occupation is not objective at all. It all but states that the Japanese liberated the archipelago, while in fact it was one of the worst times for all the people living there, including the Indonesian population. So, while I agree with the content you added, it became biased by leaving that part out... may be you can have another look at it and correct this?
• The flags.. here you put back in Japanese flags which is wrong as explained in my previous point. Also, you removed the Netherlands Guinea flag which is wrong.. I think you even contributed part about Netherlands Guinea not being transferred to Indonesia in 1949.. why would you delete this fact here?
• The link to Japanese occupation in the infobox. Yes, I removed it because I think it belongs in the article and not in the infobox. However, I have no problem with it so let's keep it then unless more editors agree with me that the infobox isn't the place to describe the full history.
• Dutch recognition... are you sure? With the Dutch recognition, the world recognized the state of Indonesia and that is the important event. If a new state is only recognized by one other state most will argue that this new state isn't formally recognized at all. Your edits sound very pro-Indonesia (I am more pro-Indonesia than pro-Dutch too, even though I was born in Holland and speak the language) and thus I think we should both agree that a full and official recognition of Indonesia is what counts and not any individual nation (or you would need to put a huge list of nations in?).
• The footnote you reverted to is wrong. The Dutch did not try to re-establish their colony.. they tried to get it under their control again while the nationalists were fighting their war of independence. Again, you try to put detail into the infobox that doesn't belong there. There should be good solid content in a section of the article itself about this.. any attempt to put that inside the infobox is sure to fail.
• removed "silly flags"? excuse me? Do you not agree that the DEI is now (part of) Indonesia? You can't remove correct information from a valid infobox category just because you think it's "silly". If you think so, take that discussion to the infobox project itself and try to find consensus to get it changed. But while this is a field in the infobox, you can not block it's valid use.
• You removed the native names of the Dutch East Indies. They were 100% correct and part of the infobox so your removal was invalid. This is a valid field for the English wikipedia.
• You removed the statistics for population and surface area of the DEI. You can't do that. If you think it is incorrect data, pls correct it.

Merbabu, on my talk page you told me to read WP:BRD. Please know that I am not a newbie editor or some kid fooling around here. I am well aware of all the Wiki guidelines, just like you. In fact, I want to bring your attention to this part of WP:BRD:

BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense.

It also looks like you and me are the two editors that are now on top of this article and doing all major editing.. so it is between us that we must find consensus. I propose we both stick to the letter of WP:BRD and keep the quality of the article above everything else. Like the last time, I will not revert your contributions in an attempt to show you my goodwill and prevent edit warring which is the last thing we need to make this article better. I will just correct where needed and in a way I think we can both agree to. It would be beneficial if we both do that instead of reverting. DeVerm (talk) 15:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I must oppose in this flag predecessor and successor issue. It is widely accepted that DEI are ended in 1942 by the Japanese invasion. After the end of WWII Netherlands face a new and completely different situation in East Indies (esp. in Java and Sumatra) with rising of Indonesian nationalist freedom movement and liberation warfare. The 1945-1949 are not considered DEI era anymore but Indonesian National Revolution. Indonesian era are started in 1945. Sovereignty acknowledge by Netherlands in 1949. And yes Netherlands New Guinea are should be placed on right side (successor) of Japanese occupation era, since West New Guinea handed to Indonesia later in 1962-1963. (Gunkarta (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC))

Hi Gunkarta, great to see a 3rd party here :) About DEI ending in 1942 being widely accepted; That is not true, the DEI was dissolved in 1949. I do know what you mean but for this infobox, data must be in line with WP guidelines for them as defined in the templates. Infoboxes are developed to bring consistency among WP articles in a way that readers don't get confused. For this case, the template states:

For most cases, the main and/or official predecessor/successor (under international law) is sufficient, since that is what most readers would expect to see. In the case of any potential confusion, list only this.

and I think that should clear this issue. Japan did -not- dissolve the DEI (like they did with the Philippines for example) and thus, for so far the infobox is concerned, the DEI did not ceased to exist with the Japanese invasion.

For the period 1945-1949: yes, this was the Indonesian National Revolution. But again, that only changes the status when that revolution is won (think under international law again). There are countries where revolutionaries have been fighting for decades (and still are, like in Colombia etc.) but that doesn't mean that Colombia as a state doesn't exist.

I agree with much (almost everything really) you state here.. but all that info belongs in the article sections, not in the infobox of former countries. I think it's good when everybody who wants to edit the infobox, (re)reads the template again. When I first edited there were infobox syntax errors visible on-page (yes Merbabu, you must have overlooked it), and the template is pretty good in describing what kind of data is expected to be in there and what not. For example, it clearly describes that deleting items just because they are optional or one doesn't "fancy" them does not comply with the guidelines. It's as easy as following these guidelines here. If one doesn't agree with those guidelines, it needs to be discussed at the talk page of the template so that any changes are made WP-wide. Only then do they provide the consistency that they were designed for (see Template:Infobox_former_country). I did see some mention earlier in talk about not having to conform to structure of other articles.. which is true.. but not for the type of data entered into infoboxes because consistency for the reader is one of the main reasons for their existence.

as a matter of compromise, I let the life-span field in place so that the asterisk to the comments field can be shown. I think commenting the period like this should be acceptable to all.. if Japanese flags are really insisted upon, they must be followed by the Dutch flag again for the period 1945-1949, where the line finally ends with the Indonesian and Netherlands Guinea flags. The template clearly guides towards "clean and tidy" infoboxes and I am pretty convinced that the use of the comments field is a lot cleaner than that many flags... Also, before Japanese flags are introduced again, pls. cite the source that confirms this under International law conform WP guidelines. DeVerm (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

p.s. Sorry for being so direct and blunt in my reply above... I welcome any and all editors wishing to contribute for article and discussion... I just don't know a more friendly way of writing the above. Be assured though that it's meant as positive criticism :) DeVerm (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Merbabu: I don't understand why you removed the flag from "today part of Indonesia" in the infobox. Template:Infobox_former_country clearly shows to include them and Wikipedia:ICONDECORATION which you mention as your reason for removal, clearly states that it is limited to "general article prose" which is -not- the infobox. I have to conclude that your removal violates WP guidelines but will check other, similar, articles to see if removing the flag here has become general practice.. before reverting your edit. DeVerm (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you do not “revert”. Irrespective of how correct you think you are, you need to gain consensus. You don’t have consensus. You just push your changes through. That’s not consensus. If you continue to edit war and force your way, I will seek administrator advice and other dispute resolution techniques. I did not put the 1942-1945-1949 flags in – other editors do. But I agree with them, and so does Gunkarta. Except, you get your way because other editors do not revert as much as you. Consensus doesn’t mean discuss and then DiVerm does what he wants. Please do not continue this way.

As for the actual issue, flags are not for decoration. An example of removal. WP:FLAGCRUFT and WP:ICONDECORATION. --Merbabu (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Avoid flag icons in infoboxes. As a rule of thumb, flag icons should not be used infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many. The guidelines for a number of common infoboxes (eg. Template:Infobox company, Template:Infobox film, Template:Infobox person) explicitly ban the use of flag icons.

Icons should not be added only because they look good, because aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder: one reader's harmless decoration may be another reader's distraction. Icons may be purely decorative in the technical sense that they convey no additional useful information and nothing happens when you click on them; but purely decorative icons should still have a encyclopedic purpose in providing layout cues outside of article prose. Consider using bullet points as an alternative layout marker. Avoid adding icons that provide neither additional useful information relevant to the article subject nor navigational or layout cues that aid the reader. Icons should serve a purpose other than solely decoration.

Seems pretty clear to me. But I'm sure you have a very long explanation of why your way is the only way. --Merbabu (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Merbabu, I checked the history and found that it was indeed you who put the Japanese flags in for the first time on 7 june 2008. You might as well seek administrator advise, because I supply a lot of arguments in this discussion while you seem to ignore them and only try to tell me what to do and what not to do without valid arguments. WP policies clearly state that you can't force your personal view upon other editors.. you can only bring forward your arguments and/or references that prove your point. I did just that.. ignoring them like you are doing now will not impress administrators at all. Also, you talk about me reverting but it is actually you who are reverting my edits, often without valid arguments or even none at all. Let's keep things clear here.. it is me who is contributing and you are reverting it :) Also, I feel I need to repeat my reference to WP:BRD that states that you can't revert my edits just because you don't like them. You -must- provide valid arguments, common sense etc.

I did not undo your deletion of the flag and I'm actually happy with the way it is now. But if somebody points to enough articles that use this field and include the flag, I still believe we should change it to preserve the intent of consistency of the info boxes. Your citation and references to/from WP:FLAGCRUFT and WP:ICONDECORATION are just invalid for this issue we have here. This article is about the nations itself and use of their flags is absolutely and overwhelmingly used throughout WP. The guidelines you refer to are valid for things like a place of birth of a person etc. but not for the nations themselves. Still, I accept your revert because I see it as the encouraged experimentation with the template. If others follow it might even lead to a change for the template.

About the flag of Netherlands New Guinea: you are right that this flag didn't exist in 1949. However, WP practice is to use the latest flag used for a state in the period and for NNG that is the Morningstar. If I'm not mistaken, I saw you use that argument yourself in earlier discussion, plus Gunkarta agrees with me on that point too. If you really feel that the WW2 occupation by Japan must be brought to the flags/succession part of the infobox, I already indicated to be willing to go along with that for the period of occupation until the Japanese surrender in 1945 and add a 3rd period 45-49 that shows DEI as Dutch colony again with succession to the Netherlands New Guinea and the Indonesian state (I will not press for the interim periods before it actually became the Republic of Indonesia (like United States of Indonesia etc.) even though I see that as the same detail level as the Japanese occupation). I think I did my best to make the infobox tidy by moving these details to the remarks field... I didn't just revert, I tried to find a solution that works for all three of us. You might have missed my edit for the remarks field so please have a look at it. If you and Gunkarta still think my edit isn't enough, just let me know and I will put the extra periods and flags in.

About your revert of my contributions and small edit on the Japanese invasion: you don't disagree with my contribution but you reverted it because you don't like it? That is in violation with WP:BRD again and I find it highly surprising that you kill/undo my good intentioned and solid, big improvement of the article, in such a blunt manner. With just a little extra effort you could have edited my contribution to make your point clear without doing this kind of damage. I'm sure you agree that the Japanese invasion was a strikingly important event in the history of the DEI (and thus Indonesia) and I strongly disagree that it is irrelevant to name the two combatants and their commanders. I also disagree that this article is too long... I will be contributing much more to it (incl. "politionele acties" which I see you are planning too?), and to other related articles. Note that we are talking about 300 years (or more) of modern history and you just can't put that in a couple of sentences. Before I contribute, I read the related articles and make sure not to repeat unneeded information; but key facts/events do belong here. The only part that was lost in my edit as about "the population not supporting the Dutch army during their fight with the Japanese". There are several things wrong with that. First, during invasions like this one in WW2, the defending party was an army which was never "supported" (whatever that means) by population. Does this mean support as in combat or does it mean moral support? I read it as combat support and I think you as moral support.. so we're both right. I will edit so that we'll both be happy. The 2nd thing that is wrong is "Dutch Army". The Dutch army was never involved. The defending combatant was the KNIL, which was the DEI army and it had many troops from "the population". This is from the KNIL article:

in December 1941, Dutch forces in Indonesia numbered around 85,000 troops, a combination of European and indigenous regular soldiers, locally organised militia, territorial guard units and civilian volunteers.

So, from a combat view, the population did directly support the defense of DEI against the Japanese invaders. I hope you understand my reason for editing now... it is wrong or at least very confusing/half truth like it is now. I also feel strongly that the article about the Japanese invasion of DEI is the first and most important main article for this section so I will put that back in. I do agree that the "See also" can be handled by wikilinks in the text, so I agree with your revert of that.

About your removal of statistics from infobox: yes I didn't include the reference. You could have put that in instead of reverting :( It's ok, I'll do it then. DeVerm (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I just got confirmation that the Dutch half of New Guinea became part of the Dutch East Indies by proclamation in 1828. The Eastern border was defined at 131 deg. longitude. DeVerm (talk) 04:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Dutch Indies a former country to be included in the categories for lists of former countries... or not ?

I think this is more complicated than it seams. We need to look at these categories to find what "countries" should be put into those categories. We might also need to study the definition of "country". I looked at both and strongly think this article belongs into those categories. I would appreciate some discussion before removing information that has been an undisputed part of this article for a long time. If somebody is sure it wrong: go ahead and remove it, but point to your source that shows it's clearly wrong.

ps. Look at the Netherlands today: the Kingdom has 4 countries if I'm correct: Netherlands, Aruba, Curacao and St. Maarten. They all have their own (independent) government and last time I was on Curacao, there still was a Dutch Governor. Just to show how complicated it can become because a governor is normally associated with a colony while an own government indicates a country. DeVerm (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

call to move sections within this article.

I would like to see the sections "Economic and social history" and "Removal of the colonial state" integrated into the new History sections I contributed. This would greatly improve the overall structure of this article. Before doing so, is anybody against doing this? If so, why? DeVerm (talk) 18:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

This article is divided into topical sections - not just by chronology. The first sections were about the military conquests that established the DEI from the 1800 thru to the early 20th century. Then, the Economic and social history is just that. There's no point in separating that all and spreading through out a "history" section.

As for your new pre-1800 sections, I put them under "Background: Dutch East India Company --Merbabu (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I see and can live with that. However, you are also removing small parts that now and then change the content into something illogical or even incorrect. As I agree with most you did, I will not revert but just edit to make the needed corrections. The problem I face is the section title "Background: ..." as it only covers part of it. I get the feeling that trying to squeeze centuries into one section will prove to be inadequate but I wasn't really happy with my sections either. Let's see where we end up as the article gets expanded more. Also.. citations need to be added and I'm currently building a list of sources to include.

I am surprised that my sometimes clumsy English seems to hold... it's my 2nd language... DeVerm (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The "Fall of the colonial state" section

I just did my 2nd attempt to edit this section again. I did my best to accommodate the objection of Merbabu to a detail left out with my first attempt. Do you agree with the current wording and style Merbabu?

Also, this section now has 4 paragraphs: invasion, occupation, surrender and Netherlands New Guinea. As of now, I think the invasion paragraph is good, the occupation and surrender paragraphs need some extra work but it is the 4th one about NNG that catches my eye as being very long in comparison to the first three while it is about a much less important event than those first 3 paragraphs. I think it can be compressed and hope somebody with better English skills than me will step up and attempt that :) DeVerm (talk) 03:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's too long given that there's at least 3 or 4 articles on the 1942-1950 period. However, it is indeed natural that often too much info gets in and then it's later compressed and split into other articles. I could "compress" it as in the wikipedia collaborative manner, but when I compressed the VOC Background section, you expanded it again to essentially what you initially wrote. Hence my scepticism. --Merbabu (talk) 04:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I've gone through this section - no I don't agree. Just like your additions to the Background, I edited it to compress it and remove irrelevant details (names of generals, etc), and you reinserted them, and removed material that I added. What you say on the talk page, and what you do on the article are very different - ie, your words here are worthless. You continually revert. It's getting to the point where I will seek dispute resolution. BRD says you can be bold and add material. But when it is reverted, you must discuss AND GET CONSENSUS before re-adding. You just keep reinstating yours, and removing mine. --Merbabu (talk) 05:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking at your last edits, I see that you DO agree with my rewrite of the part of the sentiment of the population during the invasion/occupation. Pls. let us not resort to personal attacks ("my words are worthless" etc.) because I expect the same respect from you as I give you. I actually appreciate your critical view of my work as you should do with mine. We obviously both are knowledgeable about the subject and our sparring is resulting in a MUCH improved article imo. Your statement about consensus is true of course but you overlook the fact that some of your reverts of my contributions are invalid as per BRD when the reason for revert is just that you don't like them. I have quoted that before so no need to repeat it again. We both add, revert, edit etc. but not all and I think we have come to a much better section than it was a day or two ago... and this is the way WP is supposed to work. We are in no way in a dead-locked position and progress is made. Your call for dispute resolution is not just premature, it is irrelevant because it doesn't take an administrator to recognize the improvements realized by our efforts and he/she would only encourage the both of us to continue and we might even lift this article to higher status. I just wish you would realize your uncalled-for mentioning of administrators to me works counter-productive or only the first time you did it at best. Now, hold on to you chair because I can tell you now that I concur with your compress edit I just found because I feel enough of the content is my contributions is left and this round of compress-edit left a coherent section with all the key facts intact. DeVerm (talk) 05:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You can't just say my opinions are "invalid" and then write yet another long section about "improving", "constructive criticism", "consensus". "both of us", etc, etc, blah, blah. Yet you force your changes, and remove mine. Again your long winded nice word are not matched by your actions. I think dispute resolution is the only way. You are speaking some untruths and twisting some facts about my actions. It is useless to discuss content if you cannot be straight with process. see straw man. Please cease. In future, please provide diff as proof of your claims. --Merbabu (talk)|

I did not say your opinions are invalid.. I said your removal of my contributions were in violation of WP:BRD and thus invalid. You keep stating I remove your changes but ignore my acceptance of your latest compress-edit. However, you can not ignore the plain and simple truth of the article history which shows that I did NOT revert it at all, regardless what you write here. You have now entered into non-constructive discussion without a single on-topic reference or citation that shows that my contributions were wrong. So I will not further discuss this until you do cite your sources. If you still want to revert my contributions without any reasoning conform WP practice, you should indeed call for dispute resolution, but we both know it will not block well intentioned and correct contributions like mine as contained in the current version of this article. As long time editor of this page, I don't find you very welcoming towards my efforts to improve this article and WP. DeVerm (talk) 12:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

In what way did I "violate BRD"? Please provide diffs for any future claims. and please try and be succint. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 12:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense. DeVerm (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

p.s. the above is a direct quote from WP:BRD, not just my POV DeVerm (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, thanks for confirming that you revert my edits because you think they are "invalid" as they are not based on "policies, guidelines, or common sense.". --Merbabu (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry Merbabu, this is getting very confusing. I think we're both discussing something different and getting excited over what is miscommunication. I did take your response on my initial contributions on this article as a bit harsh and may have over-reacted because of that. My apologies if I offended you in any way; pls. be assured it was never my intention to do so. I don't know what more to say to show that my intentions are good, so I better stop this discussion and just go forward editing, hoping that my work will convince you some day. --DeVerm (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

1942 or 1949?

Which year is considered the "true end" of Dutch East Indies? I think it was 1942. As I've read before in soo many history book, it was the defeat of DEI navy on Battle of Java Sea that deliver the death blow and sign the fate of DEI end, and DEI officials onconditional surrender to Japanese force in Kalijati, Subang, north of Bandung. It is considered "de facto" end of the colony, that DEI lost its control on the area in 1942. Japanese occupation is the turning point that upset the hundred of years colonial order established in DEI, and East Indies never be the same again eversince. Netherlands itself already fallen to Nazi Germany forces by then. I think 1949 is the official recognition of Indonesia sovereignty by Netherlands, not the dissolvement of the DEI that already destroyed then. (Gunkarta (talk) 11:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC))

I agree with 1942. As DeVerm points out, I put this in the infobox article some time back (by the way, i've always wished we could just remove the rigid infobox, but that's not today's topic). Then, there was discussion that 1949 was the real date. Somone else came up with the solution to put 1800-1942 and also 1945-1949 (here) which while not ideal, was a great compromise in the spirit of collaboration - one which I accepted, hence consensus. And it shows another editor is supportive of this. There is no reason why the info box cannot do this - DVerm's argument that they can't is a red herring.

IN the last few days, DeeVerm has unilaterally removed this and insists that he has consensus.

So, my personal order of preference:

1. Remove the infobox altogether - like most infoboxes, they are inflexible, don't allow nuance, and normally have really trivial things (like currency's and densities) while misrepresenting facts by trying to simplify complexity. But, i don't think i will win that battle (although there is another who agreed with me above, and there are some very clever wikipedians who also agree about infoboxes.
2. state 1800-1942. There are ample independent and scholarly sources (ie, not Dutch or Indonesian), who clearly illustrates Gunkarta's point above. Perhaps it could be argued that this is just the Indonesian POV (apart from the many British, US, and Australian sources on my bookshelf that agree)
3. state 1800-1942 & 1945-1949 which was unilaterally removed and reinstated by DeVerm in the last few days.
4. 1800-1949. The Dutch POV, interestingly overturned by the Dutch government in 2006 who say they now accept 1945.

Which is right or wrong is less important that achieving a collaborative consensus. In that spirit of collaboration, I would love to have my first preference, but to aid consensus, I can accept my 3rd preference. --Merbabu (talk) 12:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

you will find no reputable reference stating that the Dutch East Indies were dissolved prior to 1949. You will also not find a reputable reference stating that the Republic of Indonesia was formed before 1949. You will find many sources confirming 1) the Japanese occupation, 2) the dissolving of the Dutch East Indies in 1949 and 3) the recognition of the Indonesian independent state in 1949. It does not matter what the situation in the streets of the DEI was between 42 and 49.. like the infobox template states, it is the recognition of events under International law that are to be put in the infobox.. and this is what readers expect to find.

I already agreed to include the Japanese occupation, move it from the remarks field up to the period/flags area of the infobox. It will then show 3 periods: 1800-1942 (VOC pre, Japan post) / 1942-1945 (Netherlands pre, Netherlands post) and 1945-1949 (Japan pre, Indonesia and Netherlands New Guinea post).

Mentioning the 2006 statements of the Dutch government is trolling imo (I'm immune). We all know this was part of Dutch admission of their unfair/harsh treatment of the DEI population before and during the Indonesian Revolution, admitting guilt and trying to establish better, new-style and respectful diplomatic relations (toenadering). DeVerm (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

DeVerm, the only reason that it your change is in there is because three other people who don't agree are not reverting - you continue to revert. Mention of the 2006 statements is "trolling"? That's a very silly comment. --Merbabu (talk) 13:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with 2nd choice 1800-1942. It is not about law or reputable references, I'm more interested with "de facto" politic and power situation and condition of 1942-1949 period that clearly Netherlands lost their control on their former colony in East indies. (Gunkarta (talk) 13:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC))

I tend to agree. But a bare minimum, the earlier compromise version (3) should be reinstated until a new consensus is reached. --Merbabu (talk) 13:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

As for the request for references. Start with Merle Ricklefs. However, I added one of his last night on a different point, and DeVerm explained why he didn't like it. sigh. --Merbabu (talk) 13:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me start with some relevant quotes from the guidelines as stated in Template:Infobox_former_country:

1. For most cases, the main and/or official predecessor/successor (under international law) is sufficient, since that is what most readers would expect to see. In the case of any potential confusion, list only this.

2. In some cases, most readers would expect to see every state that was formed, not just the official predecessor/successor. If so, list all states.

5. If the entity did not exist for a period before reforming (specified when you use the life_span parameter above), do not list the intermediate states.

6. If the predecessor and successor are the same - and this predecessor/successor continued to exist during this period - do not list either. Instead, make it clear what this state was somewhere in the events section (if necessary).

Now, let's look at this infobox in this article; point #2 clearly indicates that upon dissolving, Netherlands New Guinea must be listed as well as Indonesia for succession.. even when it is argued that it isn't an official successor, which it was. point 1, 5 and 6 all indicate that the period of Japanese occupation should not be included. Point #5 and #6 steer towards listing only 2 periods: 1800-1942 and 1945-1949, when the "entity did not exist for a period". #6 states to put the period of Japanese occupation into the events section instead (if necessary, which it's obvious it is). The guidelines tell us that in this case, a separate article should be created for the 1942-1945 period for the DEI under Japanese rule, instead of adding it here.

Even though including the Japanese occupation does not conform to the Template:Infobox_former_country guidelines, I have already stated that I will be glad to accept it when you feel strongly it should be included (as I removed the Japanese flags, I'll put them back in again). I just say that an infobox showing the 1942-1945 period in the article Japanese occupation of Indonesia would be better and in conformance with the guidelines. But Merbabu's hatred of this infobox makes that unlikely (no offense intended, but eradicating this infobox from WP should be attempted on the infobox page with the workgroup of the infobox, not in every individual WP article's discussion that uses it). DeVerm (talk) 14:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Mea Culpa. I just realized the option with the 2 periods I discussed above is the same as what Merbabu meant, except for the addition of Netherlands New Guinea. I just did the edit.

p.s. I like all the edits you're doing now Merbabu, I think we've passed a hurdle. DeVerm (talk) 15:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I have left the footnotes of the infobox as they were. Pls. feel free to compress in your preferred wording. DeVerm (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

After deciding to research the Indonesian POV on this matter, I found the following document from the Indonesian government:

World Recognition and Indonesia's Sovereignty

The Round Table conference was opened in The Hague on August 23, 1949, under the auspices of the UN. It was concluded on November 2 with an agreement that Holland was to recognize the sovereignty of the Republic of Indonesia. On December 27, 1949 the Dutch East Indies ceased to exist. It now became the sovereign Federal Republic of Indonesia with a federal constitution. The constitution, inter alia, provided for a parliamentary system in which the cabinet was responsible to Parliament. The question of sovereignty over Irian Jaya, formerly West New Guinea, was suspended for further negotiations between Indonesia and the Netherlands. This issue remained a perpetual source of conflict between the two countries for more than 13 years. On September 28, 1950, Indonesia became a member of the United Nations.

It was kindly put on the www by the Indonesian Embassy in Manilla. Here's the link: http://www.kbrimanila.org.ph/about_indonesia/history-republic.html. As this clearly shows that the conference was under auspices of the UN (and thus International Law), mentions world recognition and the 1949 date, plus the fact that this is the presentation of the history of Indonesia by her own government, I hope this clears this issue so we can go forward again. DeVerm (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The infobox looks like a dog's breakfast (hence my preference 1). But, that's often what one gets. --Merbabu (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think #4 looked pretty lean too; The problem is the infobox formatting. How about we ask the workgroup to have a look at that on the project page? DeVerm (talk) 11:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The whole infobox is a dog's breakfast. One can't even put citations in it. I've maintained from the start that the infobox causes more problems than it is worth. I prefer to write articles.--Merbabu (talk) 11:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Background: Banda Islands sentence

When I wrote this: In areas where local rulers were considered too weak, like the Banda Islands, the VOC used violence to gain control and these became the first truly colonised areas.

it was changed to this: In areas where local rulers were considered too weak, like the Banda Islands where they exterminated the local population, the VOC used violence to gain control and these became the first truly colonised areas.

so what was added is: "where they exterminated the local population" and there's a list of problems with that. It is 1) not true, there was a massacre, not extermination, and most or at least many survived it either on the islands themselves or were deported to other islands, 2) much of it had to do with the murder of the Dutch admiral and 40 of his men earlier (which is why they beheaded 40 Bandaleze), 3) it is not neutral and 4) also the tone isn't what it should be.

I have 2 options for editing: 1) remove it or 2) correct it and work it towards the required neutral view. I would normally opt for 2) but as we just finished some compress edits, I don't think the subject is "big enough" to warrant the amount of article space it requires to make this neutral. Also, the events are well explained in the Banda_Islands article which already is linked. Ergo, I opt to delete/compress. DeVerm (talk) 19:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed it. That second paragraph is not the article's strongest. Picking a (flimsy) example, the representativeness of which is dubious, doesn't improve it. And when one does click on the link to Banda, the point being made in the DEI article is not obvious. The solution will be finding the time to clarify the intent and scope of that paragraph such that no example is needed. Ie, how the VOC controlled parts of the archipelago. Violence sounds like they hit people. military conquest, treaties, and patronage to local rulers might be more closer to it. --Merbabu (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Completely agree with your removal. I had initially put it in as an example of removing local leadership & the first true colonization (as the rest before this was just trading posts and some forts really). Your first hit at re-formulating this part of the 2nd paragraph is right on target. DeVerm (talk) 11:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think it's that good. But I knew you'd like it. --Merbabu (talk) 11:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you --DeVerm (talk) 05:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Lead

I edited the 3rd paragraph of the lead. I'm happy with the improvement but think it still needs some tweaking. I don't think the original formulation would have passed GA review :)

Still, I wonder if the ceding of New Guinea to Indonesia must be mentioned in this 3rd paragraph. It somehow feels incomplete without it, especially because I think the (relatively small) lead amazingly covers the rest completely. --DeVerm (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC).

Edits

In this edit: [1] I removed a sentence because it belongs in the "fall of the colonial state" instead of "Establishing a hegemonic state". However, there is mention of Islam being used as a vehicle which isn't mentioned at all in "fall of the colonial state". Is this important enough to include there?

Also, I left this sentence in place: "There were numerous wars and disturbances across the archipelago as various indigenous groups resisted efforts to establish a Dutch hegemony, which weakened Dutch control, tying up its military forces and slowing expansion.[9]" although I'm not so sure why it is there and what that reference ("Schwarz, A. (1994). A Nation in Waiting: Indonesia in the 1990s. Westview Press. pp. 3–4. " has to do with it. It sounds like this should also move to "fall of the colonial state" or be deleted. I mean, there wasn't a single colonial expansion in history where there wasn't resistance to it which tied up armies and slowed expansion. I don't think it's worth including. --DeVerm (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC).

Removed it --DeVerm (talk) 03:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC).

I reinstated it because you you said you wouldn't remove it, and most importantly because the standard for inclusion is not uniqueness but relevance and this is highly relevant. It's not like the Dutch were welcomed with a red carpet (for the most part anyway). If it happened in other colonial histories, then lack of uniqueness doesn’t make it any less relevant and vital to the Dutch-Indonesia histories. It is highly relevant that there was opposition to Dutch rule across the archipelago and across the centuries. I can't imagine how it's not relevant - can you explain? We can’t list all opposition here, but it’s a good summary statement. There were rebellions and opposition (sometimes successful, sometimes not) that should eventually be incorporated into wikipedia, somehow and somewhere. --Merbabu (talk) 04:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the sentence is just a filler and not notable enough to be there. There was resistance to military conquest... sure, but I think every reader will understand that without this sentence. Also, in the following paragraphs of this section, this resistance and the wars are described in much more detail, which makes this sentence more like a lead.. but this section doesn't have a lead. So it is also redundant information. Third and last point I have is that there are also many other, more notable, aspects, like how the Dutch used conflicts between indigenous rulers with great success by choosing sides in those conflicts and signing (cunning) treaties with the chosen side to gain control. If we would follow your reasoning, we should list all that here too, even if it's described again later on. I brought this forward for deletion because I think it was attached to the previous sentence that I deleted, plus it is wandering away from the focus as described in the MoS --DeVerm (talk) 05:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC).

I don’t understand how the statement...

numerous wars and disturbances across the archipelago as various indigenous groups resisted efforts to establish a Dutch hegemony, which weakened Dutch control, tying up its military forces and slowing expansion

...is "just a filler and not notable" - indeed, in my mind it's the opposite. It is key to the topic and highly notable, and I don't see how something so key is off "focus". Indeed, I’d remove all the description of events (which cannot be not complete due to space) before I removed this statement.

There is nothing wrong with having introductory sentences to paragraph, and this one introduces the following paragraphs perfectly.

The Dutch manipulation of local conflicts is perfectly notable and a summary of that would be most helpful in the article. I’d be open to any suggestion you had. However, it doesn’t have a bearing on the inclusion of passage above.

The sentence is a summary of a key characteristic of the history (as is the “rule was tenuous” sentence, and also your Dutch manipulation of local conflicts) – I have no problem with the text saying it plainly and I don’t assume that readers understand.

And, even if you don’t’ agree, does it really do harm? Because, removal changes the meaning of the section. --Merbabu (talk) 05:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't harm at all because like I said, it's true. Following your suggestion of an introduction for this section, I changed the order of two sentences so that it makes much more sense imo and now it also reads as an introduction for me. I knew I was gonna have to come up with the prose about manipulation of local conflicts :) I'll see to it :) --DeVerm (talk) 15:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC).

Merbabu, about this revert: [2] - I did leave the link to VOC in Indonesia as was your initial suggestion. The only reason that I wanted the link to VOC added was because of the "start-up" state of the "VOC in Indonesia" article. Now that we made that a redirect to the VOC article until the other one can be expanded, logic dictates that the link to VOC article can be removed. I mean, only the VOC activities in Indonesia is relevant for this article, not what they did in India, Africa, Sri Lanka etc. So basically, I changed it to your preferred link which will automatically become the right one later on? --DeVerm (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC).

Yes. I changed it back. I had thought you did the reverse. --Merbabu (talk) 02:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm.. looks my new UK English dictionary in Firefox still allows some US English spelling.. and my dictionary is US too :S But on the subject of taking control, I have some doubt still. I agree that it is correct to write to "take control from a ruler" but I doubt that it's correct to write to "take control from a Kingdom": are you sure it shouldn't be to "take control over a Kingdom"? I think it's the ruler who had control, not the land itself? --DeVerm (talk) 03:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)