Talk:Indos in colonial history

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Meta-tasks:
- Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project.
- Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups
Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution:
Start an article:
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

comment

first shot at deepening the mother article: Indo people concerning this particluar (colonial) time period. there are many more topics covered by academic research that are not touched upon yet in wikipedia. hopeful editors will help contributing. --KARL RAN (talk) 12:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Term: Indo-European

As per the 'Encyclopaedie van Nederlandsch-Indie' (1919) the Dutch term 'Indo-Europeaan' (Indo-European) was used as early as 1753 quoting Governor-General Mossel. The term (in this context) is often mistaken as being short for Indonesian, but has nothing to do with the contemporary usage (Indo as short for Indonesia) in modern Indonesian language. kind regards, Karl --KARL RAN (talk) 10:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the term can rather be linked with with the prefix used in the (also contemporary colonial) term Indo-China (now Vietnam). I was reading the DEI article btw, but this article is even better. In fact I miss this articles info here: Dutch East Indies.

Anyway splendid job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.183.33.143 (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@karl. very well written. my compliments. i see some outstanding work on the 20th century chapter. hope you will continue your contributions. keep up the good work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.78.214.113 (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Moves

Requested Move removed due to the chaos... Satu Suro 03:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch colonialism in Southeast Asia → Revert to previous – Satu Suro 13:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I hear about 'colonialsm in Indonesia', I would assume it refers to Indonesian policy in Papua New Guinea for the last 40 years.

It would be a-historical to refer to "Indonesia" before 1949. Indonesia did not exist prior to 1945-49, so to speak of "colonialism in Indonesia" is an anachronism. Better to use South East Asia, as is it is a geographical term without national connotations. Kleinsma80 (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

whats happening? this is what makes wikipedia so unreliable! i was looking for the original overall people/ethnic group article Índo people and the in depth article covering the colonial (DEI) time period: Indo people in the DEI (or something similar). pls pls pls bring it back wikipedians! Rudy, (a frequent visitor) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.169.251.100 (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an ethnic group, there is no recognition of "Indo people" in academic literature.--Kwauf (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ Comment Would someone like to explain what, exactly, is being proposed here, and why. The page is currently at Dutch colonialism in Southeast Asia. The previous title was Colonialism in Indonesia. There is no reason given to support the reversion which, as two contributors have already suggested, simply didn't make any sense. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it's all messed up. Two articles were merged unilaterally into a new article - a merge that made no sense. And the new article is a completely redundant copy and paste from a few others. I'm working out the best way to address. I will try to explain it all below soon. --Merbabu (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that simple - in fact a big mess has just been made...

Previously there were two articles:

Subsequently, new user Kwauf has created an article Colonial history of Indonesia and the two articles above were merged and/or copy pasted into the new article which he/she subsequently moved to Dutch colonialism in Southeast Asia.

Two main issues with all this:

Whether or not Indonesian Eurasian's are technically an "ethnic group" or not is irrelevant. The "Indo" topic is notable, it's broad but clear in scope, it's well-referenced, and the article substantial. There is no reason to effectively delete the article by merging it into "Colonial History of Indonesia". The Indo article contained info on contemporary Indo's around the world - eg, in the US and Australia. Now this info is in the same article as a summary of the Japanese occupation of Indonesia. How does that make any sense?
The Dutch colonialism in Southeast Asia article is a copy and paste of a number of different articles that is largely already covered. I agree that perhaps the scope is better than its recent previous name "Colonial history of Indonesia", but it's essentially a re-hash of other articles including Portuguese colonialism in Indonesia, Dutch East India Company, Dutch East Indies, Japanese Occupation of Indonesia, Indonesian National Revolution, and most similarly History of Indonesia

The editor who has had made these unilateral changes has not been able to convincingly justify why the changes are required. I don't agree that "Indos" or "Indonesian Eurasians" is not a topic worthy of an article.

I suggest the following:

Immediate reinstatement by move both the "Indo people" and "Indos in pre-coloinal history" articles that were unilaterally moved.
Consideration given to whether we really need a "Pre-colonial History of Indonesia" or "Dutch colonialism in South East Asia article" given the existing level of redundancy.

Indeed, I'm almost ready to just revert the changes now. regards --Merbabu (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update

So, it was not quite what I thought - but still a mess. The move of Indo people was actually not a page move as such, but a redirect to this page. I have reverted this here as there is no consensus, and at least 3 people (including myself) have disputed this move. There is no reason to hide this topic.

The next question is the scope of this article. hmmm.... --Merbabu (talk) 01:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of mess is this? This needs to go back, now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've put them back as is, but I have to catch a train and I think I screwed up some of the redirects. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Phew! Sorry I asked! Perhaps Requested Moves is not the best way of tackling this, and the move request should be speedily closed. It now appears to be superceded anyway. Skinsmoke (talk) 03:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done reverted my request move Satu Suro 03:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Bloody glad the article hs bn returned to its previous state. This article in itself is a job well done. Very informative and woppingly well referenced. In fact im going to pick up some of the cited books. Dont understand the claims that this is not a distinct (eurasian) ethnic group. Doesnt it fit all the criteria? Is the lack of online research found on google really proof that it isnt? Anyway keep up the good work, gents. Yrs, Peter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.66.136.41 (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indos in colonial history. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101225152729/http://www.colonialvoyage.com/eng/voc/index.html to http://www.colonialvoyage.com/eng/voc/index.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Indos in colonial history. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2018 comment

This editorial comment was added to the article in 2018. I think it belongs here. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Postcolonial years in The Hague Holland. The Dutch Archives in the Hague has corrected the honourable naming of Mary Bruckel Beiten as the "Initiatiefnemer van de Pasar Malam Tong Tong in Nederland" ( The Initiator of the Eurasian biggest market Tong Tong in The Hague, was founded by Mary Bruckel Beiten. Please find the title Mary Bruckel Beiten was given in 2016 and please correct the false history that it is Tjalie Robinson. He took over after Mary Bruckel Beiten organised 8 successful of these markets in the Netherlands. And the members of the Dutch Indisch society named Mary : The mother of all pasar malams of the Netherland. Mr Tjalie Robinson was a Komic entertainer and writer/journalist loved by the people, but he did not initiated the Pasar Malam Tong Tong or the Dutch Indisch Arts. Please correct this to Mary Bruckel Beitens name instead of Tjalie Robinson. And find out the titel that Mary Bruckel Beiten is given. That will be enough proof. Thank you for you time Geraldine