Talk:Dutch East Indies/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Wording

the article says that "Indonesia declared independence". This should be changed into something like "a group of nationalists among others Sukarno declared the indepence of Indonesia." I am not an expert in this matter, but the current wording sounds incorrect and logically impossible. Andries 12:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

importance

I would support the change of importance as it is basically an earlier part of indonesian history SatuSuro 11:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Infobox is misleading

The info box in question

Use of the info box forces information to be shown in a misleading manner. It removes any nuance and provision for complexity - so simplistic its inaccurate. It's like putting an elephant into a baby's suit. Ridiculous. I've tried to put the required complexity in, but the technical parameters of the box don't allow it.

• The Dutch were thrown out during the Japanese occupation (Mar 1942 to Aug 1945). The Japanese destroyed almost all of the colony's economic, administrative and social structures. All the renowned Indonesia scholars I've come across thus put 1942 as the end of the colony.
• Indonesian nationalists declared Indonesian independence in August 1945 and received wide-spread support across the archipelago and internationally.
• That the Dutch recognised Indonesian sovereignty in 1949 doesn't meant that is when the colony was finished. See points above. Indonesians argue convincingly that the Dutch only recognised Indonesian sovereignty, ie it wasn't up to the Dutch to grant.
• The Dutch government later recognised 1945 as the date of Indonesian independence.

I'm trying to make all this fit into the info box, but I'm not having much luck. If i don't succeed, I will remove the box and only support it's re-inclusion if it can be made to cater for the complexity listed above. --Merbabu (talk) 03:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not a fan of these infoboxes for former countries at all. The Spanish Empire had the same issues and it was eventually just removed. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Ps, I should have said since my last post here I did update it here. it's certainly a poor compromise as far as I'm concerned. I spent ages trying different approaches and for technical and editorial reasons it still contains POV and is actually less clear. I'd rather not have it, and there is nothing that cannot be expressed much better in a simple lead and which caters to the nuances and all POV's in a neutral manner. Wait and see how we go. --Merbabu (talk) 13:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Dating issue

To Merbabu and other editors on the issue of start to end date of the NEI

From the point of few of the international community and the UN the NEI ended on 27 December 1949. There were two breaks in the international communitys opinion, one was from 1811(ish) to 1814(ish) when the NEI was occupied by the British. The other was from 1942 to 1945 caused by the Japanese occupation during World War II.

As for accual control of Indonesia after the Japanese surrender I would like to point out that those with loyalty to the Dutch dint just drop dead after 1945. Forexample the New Guinea and the Moluccas were under Dutch majority control. And New Guinea even went on to become the Netherlands New Guinea. But even if the territory was tiny it would still have been the NEI. The Byzantine Empire did not stop being the Byzantine Empire when all that was left was just the city of Constantinople. And the same is true of the Netherlands East indies.--SelfQ (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Who says the international community recognizes Indonesian independence as being 1949? The reality is, the Japanese ended in the Dutch East Indies 1942-45, and depsite their best efforts, the Dutch never got it going again. Even the Dutch government now recognizes 1945. That's the problem with these info boxes. Their inability to cater for even the slightest bit of complexity makes them misleading. If I had my way, there would be no infobox. Please read Indonesian National Revolution which is based on some of the most well respected scholars of this period - and covers the period in more detail than this article.--Merbabu (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Who says the international community recognizes Indonesian independence as being 1949?

The United Nations do.

The reality is, the Japanese ended in the Dutch East Indies 1942-45, and depsite their best efforts, the Dutch never got it going again.

You are correct in that they never regained full control. But they did gain partial control. See my Byzantine analogie.

Even the Dutch government now recognizes 1945.

Did you just pull this out of a hat deliberately or were you lied to?--SelfQ (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you just pull this out of a hat deliberately or were you lied to - Please show some respect. [1] --Merbabu (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

With the support of the government, I can make it clear to the people of Indonesia that the Netherlands understands that the independent Republic of Indonesia in fact began on 17 August 1945 and that we - sixty years later - fully accept this both morally and politically. (Your source)

Yes the Netherlands of today recognizes Indonesian independence as 17 August 1945, with is a great piece of trivia. And can be seen as a sign of health bilateral relations. But in 1945 a war was started, territory was gained and territory was lost and in 1949 a new independent nation was recognizesed by its enemy AND the world. Ending that enemys claim over that nations territory. If Germany today accepts its territorial boundaries does not mean that germany 1939 accepts those same boundaries. In the time period 1945/1949 Indonisia was a war torn colony just seeking to become independent. Just like colonies of the British, Belgian and French.--SelfQ (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

we both know it's not "trivia". in your last post you disputed recent Dutch recognition of 1945. Now you acknowledge it but dispute its meaning. Which one is it? As for your musings, how do you propose that they be incorporated into the space of an info box in a manner that is not inaccurate or misleading? And, your position still ignores the writings of the best regarded historians of this era (eg, cribb, Reid, ricklefs - which admittedly aren't so well referenced here but are in the other article I linked too.). Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and not musings or reasoning no matter how rational or logical. Again, this just illustrates the inappropriateness of infoboxes. They reduce complex events into labels and pigeon holes - at best they are misleading, at worst downright inaccurate. --Merbabu (talk) 22:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

also, insisting it was a colony from 45-49 ignores the events of 42-45. The Japanese didn't just change the flags, but systematically destroyed most aspects of Dutch rule. again, the problem is more the infobox format rather than our dispute. --Merbabu (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

"we both know it's not "trivia"."

Well yes it is, it would go great in Indonesia–Netherlands relations, with strangely enough doesnt exist yet, or at the end of this article. But it doesnt in anyway have anything to do with the goverment of the Netherlands from the 40's. note that dont mean to cause offence by that statement, it just doesnt have anything to do with 1945 reality.

"in your last post you disputed recent Dutch recognition of 1945. Now you acknowledge it but dispute its meaning. Which one is it?"

The one in bold.

"position still ignores the writings of the best regarded historians of this era"

And you seem to be ignoring the Dutch that returned. There was a administrator, Hubertus Johannes van Mook. There was a army, Eerste Divisie 7 December. There were plantations, shipping goods back to the Netherlands. I mean there were even war crimes trials against the Japanese beaing held.

"also, insisting it was a colony from 45-49 ignores the events of 42-45."

No it doesnt, there is a entire article explaining the situation. All I am trying to do is make it look similar to Kingdom of Hungary to give a clear indication of what happend. That there was indeed a gap, and that the Dutch did indeed partialy return.

I would like to point you to Encyclopedia Britannica that even says in the first line of text "one of the overseas territories of The Netherlands until December 1949,"

As for a solution I dont know. Maybe wait for a 3rd party's opinion?--SelfQ (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

"which one is it?" was a rhetorical question. You can't vehmently say something was rubbish then when proven wrong, say it's trivial. You can't have it both ways - which only shows the inconsistency. The problem with the info box (once again) is that it cannot cater for complexity or nuance. That's why I opposed it's insertion. On the other hand, I am sure that the differences of opinion above could be very handled in the prose. The problem is trying to fit that fit that into a single number field in a box. It doesn't work - never will. It remains misleading and inaccurate. Ps - are you saying cribb et al got it wrong? --Merbabu (talk) 23:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I would remove the infobox. Most of the "history" timeline content is duplicated in the Template:History of Indonesia immediately below. The image can do just fine outside of the infobox. That leaves very little real information, all of which is better covered in the text. CDC (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

indeed, I think the prose is much better able to deal with this info without being misleading. And user:selfq could play a part in fixing up the article as appropriate. Thx. --Merbabu (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me first get out of the way something that is being overlooked entirely and that this is the date for the END of the NEI, not the date of the beginning of Indonesia. About the template, it does not show in any way the 3 way split that happend, the creation of the Netherlands New Guinea, United States of Indonesia and the Republic of Indonesia. And thats presicely what I am trying to add.--SelfQ (talk) 09:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Scenario comparison

I skimmed the discussion. I think we can all go back to the Encylopædia Britannica entry again. There, we can find some facts:

1. "[It was] one of the overseas territories of The Netherlands until December 1949, now Indonesia."
2. "During World War II the entire Dutch East Indies, excepting a part of southern Netherlands New Guinea, was occupied by Japan."
3. "The years 1945–49 formed a transition period in which The Netherlands unsuccessfully tried to regain control of the islands."

If I were to look at precedent, Britain did not recognize United States independence (declare in 1776) until the Treaty of Paris in 1783. Between 1776 and 1783, the U.S. coexisted with British America (BA). BA, which included more than the Thirteen Colonies, ceased to exist in 1783 when it was split into the U.S. and British North America. Now consider that the Dutch East Indies (DEI) also included Netherlands New Guinea (NNG) and State of East Indonesia (SEI). The DEI ceased as an entity in 1949 when the United States of Indonesia was established, which included SEI but not NNG. (Because NNG became a formal "new" colony in 1949, I should then note that the dating in the NNG article infobox must be changed. For the purpose of stating that NNG is an actual separate entity, I should also note that many Dutch documents consider the DEI and NNG separately, e.g. the copyright law.)

Now look at both cases together. The world now recognizes 4 July 1776 as the date of American independence, just as the Netherlands now recognizes 17 August 1945 as Indonesia's date of independence. Just because an independence day is recognized, it doesn't mean that either BA or the DEI ceased to exist. Arsonal (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You have brought into words, to the letter, exactly what I was thinking. This is why I move to change the date to 1949 inline with other articles like British America. And add links to its successor states, Netherlands New Guinea, United States of Indonesia etc.--SelfQ (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Its been a week, are there anymore issues that need explaining? If not I will be changing the date to 1949 inline with other articles about former colonies on wikipedia.--SelfQ (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

While what Arsonal describes *in words* is perfectly reasonable - the problem was with SelfQ's recent changes to the the info box that tries to squeeze these into the box. Indeed, the problem is the info box, and the events only makes sense when described in prose. If we insist on squeezing it into the blunt instrument of the infoxbox template it is both inaccurate and misleading. Indeed, lower down in the box is this information. What other pages do is kind of irrelevant as wikipedia values accuracy over precedence (and the BA infobox also fails at clarifying nuance). I will look at what else can be done - I wish that was removing the info box, but I know that is too radical for some. Former country info boxes have been problematic for a long time. --Merbabu (talk) 21:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a dog of a template in that nothing can be changed. Once again the mad rush for consistency over-rules the need for accuracy and nuance. I will look at changing the template. --Merbabu (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Info box

I don't get this comment? Why is it that the first and last governors of any greater importance. Sure, the template allows for their insertion but the first and last governor of the Dutch East Indies had no particular influence or role in either its creation or demise. If they did, then please correct me. cheers, --Merbabu (talk) 10:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Off-course they were significant, they were the first and the last Governors. The creation of a new State is always significant and with that goes the honour to the appointed Governor. The ending of a State may or may not be as significant but it is certainly the end of an era and the last Governor is thus also significant by association. Are you trying to say that they were not significant? --Cyber Fox (talk) 12:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they are insignificant and hence my removal. Certainly no more significant than other governors - unless we are considering their coincidental numeric significance. Are you saying that these were the two most significant governors? In arguing their significance, have you actually considered the specific history of the Dutch East Indies? Or have you just considered "the creation of a new State" in general. Ie, a non-thinking one-size fits all approach? (which seems to be the philosophy of info boxes. --Merbabu (talk) 12:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

PS, surely if they were significant, it would be natural to include them in the article. I note they are not, and that the article is none the worse for it. --Merbabu (talk) 12:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Wiki is all about consistency and to not show at least the first and the last Governor-Generals is a lacking. Maybe we should show all 36? --Cyber Fox (talk) 12:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary - there is not point repeating something purely because "other stuff exists" - particularly when it's not required in a specific case. Consistency is the worst argument. As for listing the other 36, funnily enough I was going to ask you the same rhetoric questions - ie, why chose 2 out of 36 just because they were first and last? The fact that you changed the last one shows their insignificance. --Merbabu (talk) 12:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary my good man because it was very significant that he had to operate under what was Japanese rule. Now that is significant! --Cyber Fox (talk) 12:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

He was a POW during the Japanese Occupation of Indonesia. Have you considered the rest of the DEI history? Are you sure that they are the two most significant governors of DEI? Once again, it's a very inconsistent pigeon-hole result. And please don't patronise. --Merbabu (talk) 12:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

He is by no means the most significant as Thomas Stamford Raffles was the most notable, see Governor-General of the Dutch East Indies ..and I wouldn't dream of patronizing you! --Cyber Fox (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's keep a cool head here. Why not just link to the list of Governor-Generals. Clearly the information is already available. In that case, it will be up to the reader if they want to find out who the first and last Governor-Generals are. Arsonal (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I like that idea better. --Merbabu (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

OK... so long as every other similar article is dealt with in the same way. Good luck! There is no point in creating a non-consistency between similar types articles. They should all read the same. --Cyber Fox (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I see you are new to wikipedia. No - not all articles should read the same because all topics are different. Note there is no WP:Consistency. --Merbabu (talk) 03:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is, albeit inactive! --Cyber Fox (talk) 03:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

...and furthermore, the article about Pieter Gerardus van Overstraten clearly states that he was Governor-General of the Dutch East Indies from 1796 until 1801 irrespective of the formal commencement in 1800. I see you removed the dates from the list, a bit like throwing the dummy out of the pram! --Cyber Fox (talk) 03:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not a question of accuracy. It is one of relevance and clarity. It's nonsense to list the start date of a VOC governor whe the article is about the DEI and when the dates are already listed twice above it. --Merbabu (talk)

The whole {{Infobox Former Country}} template is just broken in general. I was playing around with it earlier, but it would come out the way I wanted it to. Arsonal (talk) 05:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Administrative divisions

If anyone is interested, the following source has a brief history of how the Dutch East Indies government was divided into administrative regions:

• Cribb, Robert (2000). Historical Atlas of Indonesia. Richmond, London: Curzon. ISBN 978-0-7007-0985-4.

I have photos of a few of the images, though translating that into a vector map will take some time. Arsonal (talk) 05:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Worst article ever

I have never seen such a bad article on Wikipedia, bearing in mind the importance of the topic. The history prior to ca. 1800 appears to be completely missing, and the 'Nostalgia' section is pure POV. Without a major overhaul this article deserves deletion. It certainly doesn't deserve a 'B' rating, it's a 'C' at best. Asgrrr (talk) 23:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

well, the wikipedia way provides u with 2 options of note: WP:BOLD or provide specific and workable suggestions for other editors. You could even throw in a bit of encouraging praise for efforts do far (wikipedia is never complete). If u can do either, that's great. Otherwise - and I can't think of a positive way to spin this - your ill-defined and contemptuous remarks ("worst article on wikipedia"!?!?!) are worth nothing and, to be honest, a waste of time for everyone. Regards. --Merbabu (talk) 23:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

as for pre 1800, the articles second sentence is a clue. If it bugs u so much, perhaps u could write a short "background" section. I could even improve your work further as is the wikipedia way. Regards --Merbabu (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Certainly not the worst article ever. But afraid quite limited in scope. I have taken an interest in this encyclopedic forum named wikipedia and therefore made a well meant attempt to improve the information provided and widen its scope.

In reference to the colonial heritage. this heritage is so incredibly abundant that its amazing how both dutch and indonesian scholars have discarted it in the past. fortunately this has changed in the last decade. simply taking a linguistic perspective already sheds so much light unto the process of modernization of the country that an elaborate (perhaps even a conclusive)list of dutch words is both effective and efficient in illustrating this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.195.21.212 (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Inconsiderate and POV editing by user M.babu

When deleting the latter part of this sentence ‘Dutch colonialism did not figure prominently in Dutch history textbooks in the 1970s and 1980s and only very subjectively in Indonesian textbooks.’ user M.babu writes the following remark in his edit summary: “a Dutchman writes that Indonesian histories of Dutch colonialism are "subjective"? hang on - I fell off my chair laughing”

This not only reveals his own non-NPOV as editor, but confirms (once again) his own limited ability to (self)reflect on the limitations and subjectiveness of his Indonesian education rooted in revisionism and nation building. This again proves the point made in the latter half of said sentence.

There are plenty examples where I see user M.babu struggling with the subjectiveness of Indonesian history writing (for example his discourse with user SelfQ about the date of Indonesian independence as can be seen on this page). It is of course commendable he is attempting to develop his knowledge from more objective sources.

However the tone and style of his editing (eg frequent accusations of musing and original research followed by swift deletion or vice versa) is in dire need of a tone down. User M.babu might do well in understanding that the subjective nature of his education is not totally mitigated by the fact he has now read a few English history books and there is in any case absolutely no need (at all) for his arrogant behaviour.

So herewith I suggest that from now on user M.babu takes better care in both his editing and jaded style of editing on wikipedia. As I have also seen (for example in his encounter with user G.karta [2]) that even his countrymen and/or project members get annoyed with this behaviour and it would be a shame (for this medium) if other valuable wikipedia contributors are fend off by this.

Mvg, a writing Dutchman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.195.21.212 (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not Indonesian and I was not educated in Indonesia. But sad to see you repeating the line that as a Dutchman you are a beacon objectivity while Indonesian's are "limited and subjective".

As for yourself, I'm not going to blame your editing on your Dutchness - indeed, pointing out the irony of your POV allegations would be a waste of time.

You can consider your patronising advice (based on false assumptions) ignored and I will not change my editing style - you can call it whatever you want. If you continue to play the person and not the ball, then I will seek administrator advice.

You mentioned a week or so ago that you were happy to leave the project and I ignored the comment. However, the above suggests you should revisit that comment. --Merbabu (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I intended to refrain from responding to user M.babu’s stubborn, typically dismissive and vitriolic retort. However erroneously assuming or worse even knowingly incrimenating me of considering Indonesians “limited & subjective” is intolerable to me. I have had countless Indonesian students, with whom I have had the great pleasure to work with. As a matter of fact these remarkably bright young ladies and gents are the ones that illustrated to me the limitations of their subjective education (not intelect - i superfluously add) regarding history and colonial history. In their experiences from the old to the new order dictatorships critical thinking was discouraged and Indonesian history books have been and to a degree are still written with either the objective of nation building or national pride in mind excluding anything that might cast a shadow over that. Your editing (whatever your personal excuse is) sadly reflects this to the point.

It is however promising to see you are open to seek advice and I am sure you will be glad to learn that I have decided to remain in this ballpark and keep a close eye on how you play the ‘ball’.

Only by accepting your limitations you may learn to evolve beyond them.

Mvg, a writing Dutchman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.195.21.212 (talk) 00:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You said your edits were superior because you were Dutch and that as an Indonesian mine were inferior. Don't try to talk your way out of it. As since you're dishing out advice, using a pompous tone doesn't help you. ciao for now. --Merbabu (talk) 12:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3