Talk:Chinese Indonesians

message: I have worked on this article on and off for more than a year in my sandbox. As you can , much of the content of the poorly referenced and occasionally contentious original article have been rewritten. I'm sure bringing this draft to the public will allow other editors to make improvements. Once the remaining sections are completed, I hope to take this on a fast track to the featured article process. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 21:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes it's better to incrementally add it to the existing article rather than just paste it in one hit - ie, let's us see the changes. But I agree that the article needs a big revamp. I think there's a lot of rubbish in here. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

text: PS - oh, I didn't notice it’s already there. Sorry. Nice work! I will go through it when I can. Cheers. --Merbabu (talk) 23:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The last incomplete section (colonial period history) is now finished. Further input is always welcome, especially regarding the choice of images. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 08:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reconstructed and rewritten 

message: Hi
At present the article says:
"In addition to the Sin Po group, which advocated Chinese nationalism, there was also a faction which argued for Chinese participation in Dutch political institutions such as the Volksraad and to improve their economic position while maintaining Dutch rule. This group criticized Sin Po's approach, and its movement culminated in the Chung Hwa Congress of 1927."
I think you have oversimplified the text .
The main points form the book are:
*Some Dutch educated and rich CIs were in favour of Dutch rule and a Dutch nationality law. (this is the Dutch-oriented-movement)
*They favoured participation in local politics and Dutch education as well as furthering the CIs economic position.
*Kan Hok Huei was already the CI's representative on the Volksraad and he said that CIs were happy with Dutch rule and wanted Dutch nationality. (the Dutch-oriented-movement's representative and a spokesman for CIs)
*KHH also said that CIs wished equality with the Dutch and Japanese.
*The Dutch-oriented-movement's momentum culminated in the CHC in 1927 and the formation of the CHH in 1928
*KHH was elected their president.
*Kwee Tek Hoay, editor-in-chief of Panorama. showed some support for the CHH.
*KTH criticised the Sin Po group for directing CIs towards China.
So it seems that (forgive the underlining, it is for highlighting only): the CI's "Dutch-oriented-movement already had representation on the Volksraad in the form of KHH; the culmination of the movement for Dutch-oriented-movement was the CHC and the formation of the CHH; it was not the CIs Dutch-oriented-movement that criticised Sin Po, but KTH.
I would probably rewrite it to something like this (bold is already existing text):
"The anti-Chinese sentiment spread throughout Java in 1918 and led to mass violence being carried out by members of Sarekat Islam on the ethnic Chinese in Kudus. Following this incident the left-wing Chinese nationalist daily Sin Po called on both sides to work together to improve living conditions because it viewed most ethnic Chinese, like most of the indigenous population, as poor. Chinese-Indonesians began to form into three distinct movements, each with widely varying views. "Sin Po" were the Chinese-nationalist movement which took their name from the newspaper that had advocated Chinese nationalism since 1910.
A second group was the Dutch-oriented movement, which argued for Dutch rule and Chinese-Indonesians to be made full Dutch citizens. This Dutch-oriented movement also wished for further participation in local politics, Dutch education for Chinese-Indonesians, and the furthering of the Chinese-Indonesian's economic standing within the national economy. Kan Hok Hui was was the Chinese-Indonesian representative on the Volksraad and a Dutch-educated Chinese-Indonesian would later become leader of the Chung Hwa Hui. He maintained that Chinese-Indonesians had no problem with Dutch rule, in fact he said that they wished to remain Dutch nationals. He went further though, saying that Chinese-Indonesians should be on equal legal standing with the Dutch and Japanese, something which proved him to be the most outspoken of the Dutch-oriented movement. The Dutch-oriented movement gained momentum and reached its peak with the Chung Hwa Congress of 1927 and the formation of the Chung Hwa Hui (CHH) party in 1928, with Kan Hok Hui elected as their president. The CHH received support from Kwee Tek Hoay, the editor-in-chief of the Panorama newspaper, who also criticised the Sin Po group for misguiding Chinese-Indonesians by pressuring them into a Chinese-nationalist stance."
I realise it is a little longer than previously, but I hope it make things a little more clear - it certainly does to me :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've incorporated most of your proposed text into the section with some revisions. I've tried to stay away from using the term "Chinese Indonesian" until the history reached past the point where "Indonesia" as a nation is conceptualized. To prevent this article from becoming bloated, I've redacted Kan's personal views which may be more suited for his own article. You'll see this carried out with the general absence of names in the article, which I think would be more fitting for the list of Chinese Indonesians. Thanks again for the help. Feel free to edit it for clarity. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 12:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  CHH 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:TMII Kong Miao Confucian Temple.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Cheng Hoo1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:COLLECTIE TROPENMUSEUM Reclame voor de film The magnificent chivalry TMnr 20018014.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: How many Indonesian Chinese are actually there?
since 2000 estimate was 2.4million however the number might actually be higher as Chinese still afraid to identify them self due to anti Chinese riot in 1998 and some Chinese are actually more Indonesian in identity
however 2006 estimate was 7.670.000 (including ancestral) Chinese and some ranged around 3-5% of the population  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.82.84.216 (talk) 11:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers 

message: Forbes previously had a list of Indonesia's 40 richest people in 2011. Of these 40, how many are Chinese Indonesians? I know that Anthoni Salim (#5), Low Tuck Kwong (#4) and Eka Tjipta Widjaja (#3) are a few of them. It would probably be good to mention within the article the number of Chinese Indonesian billionaires and millionaires, to explain the socioeconomic situation. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forbes list 

message: http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/befeo_0336-1519_1972_num_59_1_5126
Rajmaan (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of settlement in java 

message: http://www.mei.nus.edu.sg/publications/mei-insights/the-spread-of-islam-in-southeast-asia-c-1275-c-1625
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=DD19A62ED493B6EA46C7A588F959148B.journals?fromPage=online&aid=5725636
http://books.google.com/books?id=vIUmU2ytmIIC&pg=PA239#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=vIUmU2ytmIIC&pg=PA240#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=XNsk7tLkMU4C&pg=PA137&lpg=PA137&dq=chinese+java+hanafi&source=bl&ots=amZGUjblKQ&sig=v6o5dg7fj2BZ73bW8h0aMpJvD8o&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1CDSUPvNGbS00AHcyYHgDg&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=chinese%20java%20hanafi&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=h1Btk6a3n0AC&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=chinese+java+hanafi&source=bl&ots=jt8PkNR8Kk&sig=2NMMDqtLai2_nrNT08iWLcJGMLA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1CDSUPvNGbS00AHcyYHgDg&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=chinese%20java%20hanafi&f=false
http://www.islam.org.hk/eng/malaysia/ChineseMuslim_in_Malaysia.asp
http://www.eastjava.com/tourism/surabaya/chenghoo-mosque.html
http://www.bt.com.bn/art-culture/2010/07/13/zheng-he-and-islam-southeast-asia
Rajmaan (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese muslims in indonesia during the Ming dynasty 

message: The 8.8 Million Estimate comes from a Jakarta News Article that cites a 3.7% percentage of the 237 Million population to be Chinese, however, the news article cites its numbers from the 2000 Indonesian Census.  The census reports only 1.739 million Chinese, or 0.86% of the population.  However, the figure does not include figures in 19 provinces.   Ananta, Arifin & Bakhtiar (2003) would come to recalculate the numbers from the raw census data to 2,411,503 Citizens, or 1.20% of the population with an additional 93,717 or 0.05% as foreign nationals.  Using a 1.25% to 237 Million, it comes out at ~3.0 Million Indonesian Chinese.  In other words, the 8.8 Million is unfounded and should not be used.  Either we pick the most plausible estimate (census data), or we list the several credible estimates.  68.49.104.218 (talk) 06:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you've misread the article in The Jakarta Post as it clearly states it is from the latest census: "Indonesians of Chinese descent make up 3.7 percent of the country’s population of 237 million, based on the 2010 national census." The number 8.8 million was calculated backwards from the 3.7 percent figure given. Until an update from the 2003 study is available, we don't have a more specific number and thus are using this calculated figure. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 09:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't misread, I know what Jakarta Post stated and explained it in my post.  However, according to the 2010 census, there were only 1.739 million Chinese, or 0.86% of the population.  In other words, that 3.7 percent is unaccounted for.  You can't use data that's unaccounted for.  The census report is accounted for, Ananta, Arifin & Bakhtiar's calculations using census data is accounted for, and RoC estimates are accounted for, or at the least credible.  You can use any of those numbers, but not one that's unaccounted for.  68.49.104.218 (talk) 11:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

text: Based on the newest 2010 census (http://sp2010.bps.go.id/files/ebook/kewarganegaraan%20penduduk%20indonesia/index.html), the population of Chinese Indonesian was 2.832.510 or 1.20% of the total population of Indonesia. This number includes figures in all 33 provinces and exclude Chinese of foreign nationals, which is in line to Ananta, Arifin & Bakhtiar's calculations. Hand15 (talk) 06:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population Numbers Don't Match Up 

message: Dayak massacres against Chinese.
http://books.google.com/books?id=gzycUFzE9MsC&pg=PA146#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=EUDii8kvQYAC&pg=PA63#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=OrdM8X7CBTAC&pg=PA294#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=37VaZmxM4gAC&pg=PA130#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=I2RZAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT243#v=onepage&q&f=false
Rajmaan (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Borneo massacres in the 1960s at the start of the New Order 

message: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3351254?
The Chinese of Indonesia and the Development of the Indonesian Language
Dédé Oetomo
Indonesia
The Role of the Indonesian Chinese in Shaping Modern Indonesian Life (1991), pp. 53-66
Published by: Southeast Asia Program Publications at Cornell University
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3351254
Page Count: 14
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2055313?
Languages of the Chinese of Java--An Historical Review
Ellen Rafferty
The Journal of Asian Studies
Vol. 43, No. 2 (Feb., 1984), pp. 247-272
Published by: Association for Asian Studies
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2055313
Page Count: 26
Rajmaan (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Languages 

message: If an Indonesian Chinese is someone of Chinese descent born in Indonesia (similarly to an Australian Chinese which is of Chinese descent born in Australia) has this article confused matters in the opening paragraph?  If not... what do you call someone of Indonesian descent born in China (similar to a Chinese Australian which is of Australian descent born in China)?  The same person cannot be both Indonesian Chinese and Chinese Indonesian right?  unless they were of mixed descent born on the border of both countries...  I bring up this point because neither Indonesian nor Chinese is of more significance to the other - one is the country of descent and the other is the country they are born (or perhaps naturalised).
ZhuLien (talk) 02:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indonesian Chinese vs Chinese Indonesians 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Chinese Indonesians. 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/20090126222251/http://en.inti.or.id/ to http://en.inti.or.id/
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130615214254/http://www.psmti-pusat.org/ to http://www.psmti-pusat.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Chinese Indonesians. 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/20110726181718/http://www.insideindonesia.org/edition-95/a-new-political-animal-11011165 to http://www.insideindonesia.org/edition-95/a-new-political-animal-11011165
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090617213902/http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/06/12/chineseindonesians-quiz-vice-presidential-candidates.html to http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/06/12/chineseindonesians-quiz-vice-presidential-candidates.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110614085048/http://www.iseas.edu.sg/trends992.pdf to http://www.iseas.edu.sg/trends992.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The place of people of Chinese descent in Indonesia is contentious and this article has clearly undergone many revisions which have improved factuality and tone. The article still has two problems. One is that a significant number of sources cited are tertiary, i.e. authors who have read the academic literature and digested it, sometimes exaggerating or misunderstanding points that were made more carefully in the secondary (research-based) literature. The second is that the article deviates from NPOV by focussing on a narrative of Chinese victimization. Victimization is part of the story, but putting stress on it is a political narrative, not consistent with the principles of Wikipedia. 
Both these issues arise in a recent edit by Davidelit, who has inserted "Dutch colonial rule saw the beginning of anti-Chinese policies, including killings and ghettoization.[22]"
The reference here is a 2010 article in the Los Angeles Times which focusses on the failure of the Indonesian government to address the violence committed against Chinese Indonesians in 1998. The only reference in the article to the colonial period is as follows: "Discrimination against ethnic Chinese here dates back centuries to the Dutch colonial era, when thousands were killed or forced into ghettos." This article is a poor source, both because it is vague and because it mistakes two separate phenomena, the 1740 massacres of Chinese in Batavia which took place under the VOC, and the laws restricting Chinese residence that were introduced in the colonial era (i.e. after 1815). The sentence introduced by Davidelit (""Dutch colonial rule saw the beginning of anti-Chinese policies, including killings and ghettoization" is tendentious, because it elevates a negative judgment over factual information. It is factually incorrect because it implies that killing Chinese was a matter of policy in colonial Indonesia (and that the policy dates from the start of the VOC period); this was never the case in the VOC or colonial periods. The mention of ghettoization is factually incorrect because the system of community-based government described in the previous sentence was not intended by the VOC as anti-Chinese (it applied to all ethnic groups); nor did Chinese in the archipelago experience it as anti-Chinese.
Davidelit's insertion needs to be reverted. There is a great deal more work to be done to bring this article to a standard that reflects the situation of Chinese Indonesians factually and in a balanced way. 
Atla5Atla5 (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The over use of the word fact and assertions that are not backed up apart from opinion, leave this above comment somewhat problematic.  May I remind the editor that requesting reversion, and simply asserting an unbacked up fact this and fact that, is neither any use to a reviewing editor or outsider, as there is nothing to back up the assertions,  some clear indication of sources to predicate the assertions is sorely needed here for anyone to go anywhere with the issues. JarrahTree 09:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The information you deleted is cited. Your opinion of the source is not pertinent to this. The deleted section is a paraphrase from a source. Your contention is unsoured. Regards  Davidelit (Talk)  11:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

text: I do not want an edit war. I am disappointed that Davidelit reversed my edit without addressing the issues I raised above. Davidelit has misrepresented the source, which does not claim that the killing of Chinese was policy. The article 1740 Batavia massacre makes clear the complex circumstances of these killings. There were no other such killings in the colonial period, so referring to killings as policy or suggesting that they were commonplace is misleading. I take your point on the need to provide sources on the nature of Dutch rules on segregated residence and on the way in which Chinese experienced segregation. I will address this issue in edits when I have time. Atla5Atla5 (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

text: For heaven's sake, bothering about Davidelit totally misses the point. 
The two main english sources on the 1700s in Java, have interpretations from individuals that have very different takes on the materials available, having read the books and the reviews of them, I would suggest that there is no such thing as a clear 'fact' on the era as we would expect in usual western historiographical traditions, simply interpretations of the material available.
Also to make assertions no other such killings in the colonial period, hello?  Says who? In view of such comments, with nothing to clarify or backup - really require a more rigorous examination here on talk pages, not in text, otherwise there will in all likelihood be edits wars and blocks. 
Please do not address the issue in edits - you will need to have your exercise here, on the talk page for third parties to review.  In WP:AGF.  Otherwise the conversation will not be possible, and the nuances of the claimed 'facts' will never get explored adequately. JarrahTree 23:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone and sources