Talk:Dutch–Indonesian Round Table Conference

Merge Round Table Conference (Western New Guinea) into this article...

Support User:Davidelit's proposal. This is the one conference, and it not simply discuss Western New Guinea, but the future of Indonesia. Thus I suggest the WN Guinea article be merged as a section of the over all Dutch-Indonesian Round Table Conference. --Merbabu 09:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Support (my proposal) - Dutch-Indonesian Round Table Conference is more comprehensive and better referenced. Merging the articles will preserve the link from West Papua, and the info contained in Round Table Conference (Western New Guinea) will enhance the overall coverage of this topic Davidelit 04:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Support if it still happens - yes SatuSuro 08:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

lol - it's already done some weeks back. But your support is noted (and sensible). ;-) --Merbabu 09:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Date of Indonesian Independence

Dutch Acceptance of 1945 as Indonesian Independence is not correct, the Dutch never accepted the date of 1945, but the date december 1949 is the date of independence, because in 1945 the Reublik Indonesia was only parts of Java and Sumatra, the rest never wanted to get independent of the Netherlands, and the Papua's, the Timorese, the Mullaca's ( still in exile in the Netherlands ) are still occupied by the Republik Indonesia who concurres the rest after the round table conference. --ArmTheInsane (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Article of the wrong assumption of acceptance

http://www.indisch3.nl/2009/12/27/oproep-om-erkenning-17-augustus-overbodig/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmTheInsane (talk • contribs) 15:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Again i will show the speech in which Ben Bot says -de facto- not -in jure-

"Ik zal met steun van het Kabinet aan de mensen in Indonesië duidelijk maken dat in Nederland het besef bestaat dat de onafhankelijkheid van de Republiek Indonesië de facto al begon op 17 augustus 1945 en dat wij - zestig jaar na dato - dit feit in politieke en morele zin ruimhartig aanvaarden."

http://www.novatv.nl/page/detail/nieuws/8169/De+volledige+toespraak+van+Bot+waarin+hij+17+augustus+erkent

--ArmTheInsane (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Again somebody deleted -de facto- because they want to live a lie

Next time i will delete the whole article if somebody changes it agin in aceppted, i have shown the source i hich you can read what Ben Bot has said

--ArmTheInsane (talk) 12:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, delete the whole article. That will fix everything. --Merbabu (talk) 12:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I f someone has sources that the Dutch army capitulated and the TNI has won, i will let it go, but you edit with no sources, i provide the source, and you delete it, what is that kind of childish reaction, deal with the fact that the Dutch government will never accept 1945 in jure!

--ArmTheInsane (talk) 12:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is informed of those edits without a source, use sources and talkpage instead of to threaten me by three activists--ArmTheInsane (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Urm, you did notice that 3 minutes before you posted your personal attacks I had already expanded the paragraph in question, included de facto, and put a bit of other context necessary for NPOV, right?

I also note that a) the information in the article was already cited before you removed that citation and b) the article did not say de jure at all, while you seem to think a lack of the qualifier de facto inherently means the recognition was de jure. If you had brought these concerns and presented them in a less-standoffish way (saying information is uncited when it has something [although admittedly poor and a deadlink] for instance, is quite standoffish; saying "i will delete the whole article if somebody changes it agin in aceppted" and calling people who revert you "childish" and "activists" is likewise battleground mentality). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)