Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chinese Indonesians/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 16:16, 20 July 2012 [1].

Chinese Indonesians

edit

Chinese Indonesians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is a comprehensive and well written look at one of the more prominent ethnic groups in Indonesia, as well as an important group from the Chinese diaspora. Since the failed FAC last year, I have worked with the images to ensure that they are all free (a major issue with the past FAC) and brought this through GA and another peer review. The main contributor, Arsonal, has given blessings for this nomination through email but will be unable to participate due to real-life concerns. A big thanks to everyone who reviewed previously, including Mark Arsten at peer review and Aircorn at GA. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please rewrite the too-complicated first sentence. It has 4x"Indonesia", 3x "Chinese", a pair of en-dashes and a semi-colon. I also wonder if using the hyphenated "Chinese-American" "Chinese-Indonesian" throughout would significantly cut down any ambiguity.—indopug (talk) 12:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Semi colon replace by period. I don't think the repetition of Indonesia(n) / Chinese is unintelligible here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I meant "Chinese-Indonesian" of course. The reason I asked to cut down on repeating those two words is that "Chinese Indonesians or Indonesian Chinese are Indonesians of Chinese..." looks singularly strange. Contrast with the simple lead-sentences of Mexican American or Indian American.—indopug (talk) 14:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem is, the literature has used both Chinese Indonesians and Indonesian Chinese to refer to the group. I'll reword a little, but both need to be in the lead sentence to properly identify the subject. Regarding the hyphenated usage, that would be fine when Chinese-Indonesian (the adjective form) is used. Writing Chinese-Indonesians would go against the MOS for using common names. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No seriously, way back when I very first started editing, perhaps the first place I started to hang out was WP:ETHNIC. At that time, these x-nationality y-ans were the subject of humongous pixel-murdering edit wars and voluminous talk-page rants. If we don't have any stability concerns, do we have validity concerns? Is x-nationality y-ans a label that we really want to propagate by putting our full faith and credit behind them? Just wondering aloud. – Ling.Nut (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I will not comment on the title aside from pointing out WP:COMMON, regarding the ethnic group itself I think it is well worth an article. Chinese Indonesians are one of the most prominent ethnic groups in Indonesia, and easily the most prominent non-native group. They have faced much the discrimination, both legally and culturally, and play a major role in Indonesia's development and economy. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For various reasons, casually lumping people into macro-groups makes my butt cheeks clench. My knee-jerk reaction is Oppose for this reason, but will consider this in days to come. – Ling.Nut (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but what? It is not a casual grouping, but one used in the literature, as visible in the sources cited. As noted in the article itself, many scholars of the Chinese diaspora "lump" the Chinese into one group. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • wiki-text: "When Baperki was branded a communist organization in 1965 the ethnic Chinese were implicated by association. As many as 500,000 people died in the anti-communist massacres of 1965–1966, the single most bloody event of violence in Indonesia's history" Please reconcile this with Robert Cribb & Charles A. Coppel (2009). A genocide that never was: explaining the myth of anti-Chinese massacres in Indonesia, 1965–66. Journal of Genocide Research Volume 11, Issue 4: "Many publications refer incorrectly to extensive massacres of Chinese in Indonesia in 1965–66. Approximately half a million people were killed in this period, but the victims were overwhelmingly members and associates of the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI). Chinese Indonesians experienced serious harassment but relatively few were killed. The persistence of this myth is attributed to a trope dating back to the seventeenth century which equates the social position of Chinese in Indonesia with that of Jews in Europe and which thus predicts periodic pogroms and attempts at genocide. The myth has survived partly because it inspires a sense of urgency in combating discrimination against Chinese Indonesians, but it encourages a misunderstanding of the causes of intense violence in Indonesia and raises serious moral issues concerning genocide denial by substitution." – Ling.Nut (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Clarified that the number includes both Chinese and native Indonesians. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Still too vague. Whenever blood is involved, precision or at least meaningful perspective is called for by NPOV. More research, please.
          • Regarding the number of fatalities? Purdey says that, since the Chinese made up 2 percent of the population of the time, it can be assumed that they were similarly represented in the number of victims. Regarding the location of the killings? Same source has that it was mostly in rural areas. What are you looking for? Per SUMMARY, we should not give this too much prominence.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Your responses are unsettling. Did you actually think at any length or depth about this text before you put it up for FAC? Did you think about the fact that you were strongly implying that 500k Chinese Indonesians were killed? When the problem was pointed out to you, did you respect your readers enough to diligently look into the matter, or did swiftly add a wholly inadequate hedging phrase, then paper over the flaw with "WP:SUMMARY says nothing to see here, move along"? Did you give any real thought to the identity issues: Did you look into what Hoon and almost certainly many others have to say, and did you think while you were reading, "How can I present this to the reader in a thoughtful manner that reflects the analyses of domain experts"? Most of all, what other issues that require you to engage your brain while reading high quality references did not rec'v that depth of analysis? I have no confidence in the level of analysis, nor the thoughtfulness of the replies. I am not saying you cannot do better; I am in fact extremely sure you can do better, if you try. Spreading ref tags liberally across a text does not make it high-quality, even if the ref tags are drawn from high-quality texts. High-quality writing comes from high-quality thinking about what you are writing. High-quality thinking would never let 500,000 casualties become "oh, by the way, one guy says it was maybe 2% of 500,000; sorry about that". I'm sure you put a lot of effort into this, but the effort was not the right kind of effort. It isn't checking boxes. Sorry. – Ling.Nut (talk) 00:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • I have mentioned below that I will ask the writer about Hoon. If Arsonal looked into it but decided it was redundant to the sources already in the article, you would have your answer. Regarding "High-quality writing comes from high-quality thinking about what you are writing", I find it ironic that you would make this comment and then refer to Purdey as a "guy" within the next sentence. I firmly believe that going into a one-paragraph diatribe about the communist purges would be UNDUE, and have agreed with you that not explicitly stating that the 500,000 figure had unfortunate implications as written; you have not made any suggestions about what you think is missing in that couple of sentences, so I have asked politely only to receive a borderline personal attack. None of the sources I've seen have a hard number for the Chinese casualties during the purges. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Let's be clear: I'm criticizing the method, not the person. The casualties slip from "500k" to "2% of 500k" in one little edit with an oops, two or three links to W:SUMMARY, WP:UNDUE, and an air of self-confident assertion. None of those responses constitute research. They are fig leaves. You have not made any real effort to engage the issue. What troubles me here, as I said earlier, is this: how many other issues have you neglected to engage? ... Having said that, I'll let this thread breathe a few days and see what shakes out with other issues and with other reviewers.... – Ling.Nut (talk) 02:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The casualty figures have always been overall; the original wording was ambiguous due to the collocation of the sentence, which you rightfully pointed out, and it has been made clearer. I will add a further footnote regarding Purdey's estimates, and plan to take a look for the Hoon source while my connection is working well (it took about ten minutes to open the journal article linked below yesterday) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • RE casualty figures: looking at the before and after, it does seem to me that the first version was poorly phrased. I don't see it as a gross distortion of facts though. (The current version looks Ok to me.) RE "how many other issues have you neglected to engage": I would think a reasonably thorough spot check of the article/literature search should be capable of answering that question, right? Perhaps someone should ping Laser Brain for a review, I think he's a neutral party and pretty thorough about checking such things. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any reason why no reference to Hoon (2008) Chinese Identity in Post-Suharto Indonesia: Culture, Politics and Media? – Ling.Nut (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ditto: Panggabean, S. R. (2011). Explaining Anti-Chinese Riots in Late 20th Century Indonesia. World Development Volume 39, Issue 2,Pages 231–242– Ling.Nut (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, File:Chinese Indonesian population pyramid 2000.png appears to be an exact copy of figure 3.3.1 on page 82 of the source cited on the image (Ethnicity and Religion in a Changing Political Landscape). Are exact copies kosher? I had thought not...– Ling.Nut (talk) 13:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you please clear up a point for me? You have sources which place Chinese immigrants in indonesia in the 15th century. with "major settlements" (quoting, not scare-quoting) before the arrival of the Dutch. On the other hand, I see sources which delay their arrival considerably: "The Chinese first arrived in Indonesia in the seventeenth century, settling in the Dutch-founded city of Batavia (now Jakarta) in order to take advantage of the many economic prospects available." This is from Turner 2003 (available online here, who cites N. Tarling, Southeast Asia: A modern history (Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 2001). Is Turner wrong? Tks. – Ling.Nut (talk) 08:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you please clear up another point? Your text says, "The second abolished the ban on the study of Mandarin Chinese and reaffirmed a 1996 instruction that abolished the use of the SBKRI to identify citizens of Chinese descent." Was there a ban? When? Did I miss that in the article? If you didn't mention that (and perhaps you did; I am struggling to catch up), then what other things weren't mentioned? Were other things banned as well? DId i miss that part? Tks. – Ling.Nut (talk) 08:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The SBKRI is in identity. You are right about the ban on Mandarin Chinese; I will clarify. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please do clarify what was and wasn't banned. i find the explanation sketchy, like a checklist... Tks! – Ling.Nut (talk) 03:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • What do you consider unclear? Mandarin-language press was (essentially) banned (check), Mandarin schools closed (check), cultural events like barongsai were banned from public (check). The Chinese were forced to urbanise (check) and pressured to change their names (check). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wait, here we go: "Expressions of Chinese culture through language, religion, and traditional festivals were banned and the ethnic Chinese were encouraged to adopt Indonesian-sounding names". Were people encouraged to use Indonesian names, or were Chinese names banned?– Ling.Nut (talk) 09:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Following the 1740 Batavia massacre".. I know you have a wikilink there, but you do need at least a single phrase describing who massacred whom, and to what extent... don't you? Apparently kemasang 1985 is a good source etc. Tks. – Ling.Nut (talk) 09:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another question: "over 100 women were sexually assaulted".. is that the same 150 women who (according to one source) later disappeared? Did they really disappear? Is disappearance that a myth, or... mass-murder, or... what? What do your sources say about this? – Ling.Nut (talk) 09:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you have a link to that other source?  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am finding mentions in several places that the whole story is disputed. See Dawi's Introduction, forex.– Ling.Nut (talk) 03:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Whole story = rapes, riots and kidnappings, one of the above, or a mix? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • The gang-rapes. Apparently, though several prominent groups support the veracity of the accusations, no victims were later produced for the authorities or public or whomever to examine, leading many Indonesians to reject the story as propaganda or something similar...– Ling.Nut (talk) 06:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Mainstream sources agree that rapes happened, and Tempo published several interviews in 2003 (when my computer died in January I lost the PDF, sadly). Kompas published a victim's account in June 1998 under the title "Luka Kerusuhan, Luka Perempuan" (I still have this one). I agree that it may be worth mentioning, but more as a footnote. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Citizenship was conferred upon the ethnic Chinese through a 1946 citizenship act after Indonesia became independent, and it was further reaffirmed in 1949 and 1958." That's a little unclear. In 1949 they were given the option to choose their citizenship; many chose Chinese citizenship. – Ling.Nut (talk) 09:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • related point – The 1949 citizenship issue seems to be the source of this:"Other terms used for identifying sectors of the community include peranakan and totok." Those who chose I. cit. were peranakan and those who chose C. cit. were totok.– Ling.Nut (talk) 09:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is an extremely illuminating and cogent discussion of the forces set in motion by the divisive policies of the Dutch and the later ambivalent response/reaction of the Chinese to Indonesian nationalism on pages 31–37 of Ang, Ien (2001). Trappend in ambivalence: Chinese ambivalence, victimhood and the debris of history, in Meaghan Morris, Brett De Bary (Eds.), Traces 2: Race Panic and the Memory of Migration Hong Kong University press, pp. 21–48.... it's all readable online via Google Books... would you please read that, and comment/compare/contrast to our article? I see many things that there might be beneficial to our article. in fact, I see many things in our article that I suspect should be deleted, or at least, I wonder why they were included... this discussion could take a very long time... – Ling.Nut (talk) 06:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Switch to full Oppose per 1b: I'm sorry, the more relevant sources I read, the more I see how inadequate this treatement of the subject is. Really, I am sorry if i came across as abrasive. [That is a topic for my talk page, etc.] But this article simply does not cover the topic well enough to satify WP:WIAFA... It will take weeks to find and rectify all holes, requiring a major rewrite of at least some sections. The problem with FAC is that it is based on "Actionable Opposes", but this article is MOS-compliant and has reputable references, so it has few if any identifiable surface flaws... But just from one source (quotes offered below):
      1. Tax farming played a hugely important role in the dynamics of Chinese identity, as well as the dynamics of indigenous enmity; this article offers one sentence: "Some became "revenue farmers", middlemen within the corporate structure of the VOC, tasked with collecting export–import duties, managing land sales, and managing the harvest of natural resources."
        • And, in an overview of the whole group, do you think tax farming warrants more than couple sentences? Worth saying that it was heavily profitable and may have increased native enmity against them, but not anywhere near as much as Reid gives the subject. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • The problem here is that it is the article writer's responsibility to (first) place events in perspective and (second) present the consequences of facts. If the consequences were not large, the facts are inconsequential, and are very good candidates for removal... You say "some were tax farmers, some farmed opium". Other sources say "the tax farmers were a key element of the society and a de facto arm of the government, aroused enmity, and amassed great wealth; opium was perhaps the greatest single source of income". And so on. Those are consequential. You expend precious pixellated real estate on other topics... that I wonder... if they should simply be left out. Again, only time and research will tell. But I am now persuaded that every section of the article needs to be re-examined.– Ling.Nut (talk) 10:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      2. The ethnic groups were separated by extensive, intrusive legislation.. this article offers one sentence: "The Dutch, however, introduced a racial classification system that separated residents of Chinese ancestry from those of other ancestry"
        • And an article on this legislation is sorely needed. To go into the intricacies of this in an article about another topic would go against WP:SUMMARY. We don't need two paragraphs discussing how the Japanese were given the legal status of Europeans in the late 1800s-early 1900s because of a treaty when we are talking about Chinese Indonesians. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      3. No mention of opium farms
      1. No mention of how Dutch pograms actually moved the Chinese closer to Europeans
      2. Sketchy description of the Dutch-Chinese economic and political symbiosis
    • Points drawn from Reid, Anthony (1997). Entrepreneurial Minorities, Nationalism, and the State. In Daniel Chirot & Anthony Reid (Eds.), Essential Outsiders: Chinese and Jews in the Modern Transformation of Southeast Asia and Central Europe University of washington Press, pp. 33–73.
      • pp. 44–45, (Tax farming, Chinese as de facto gov't agents, importance of Chinese-run opium farms): "In Southeast Asia, the system of farming the collection of state revenues to prominent Chinese... [began] soon after the Dutch East India Company began to govern its enclave in batavia in 1619...In the eighteenth century, the monopoly over opium imports became the main source of Dutch Company revenue [particulalrly in Singapore]...The Netherlands Indies [i.e., modern Indonesia] made [relatively] greater use of land taxes and import duties (Singapore being a free port), but Chinese-run tax farms there represented more than a quarter of all revenue in the 1840s and over 20 percent in the 1880s. The opium farm... provided the lions' share. In 1870 there were more Chinese engaged in tax-farming operations – about 7,000 or 6% of all adult male Chinese – than there were Dutchment in the government service in the Indies. The Chinese tax farmer and his agents were the economic arms of the government in rural areas."
      • p. 46 (Chinese drawn closer to Europeans, ironically, but forces pushed them to preserve identity separate from other Asians) After these traumatic mid-eighteenth centrury events [i.e., 1740 Batavia massacre] the Chinese population... was reduced to initially smaller but more stable creole communities, secured against more pogroms at European hands by their essential loyoalty to and symbiosis with the European order... The Chinese peranakan of Java... saw no attraction in assimilating into a subordinate indigenous community... therefore remained stable, retaining a form of Chinese religion... but speaking a malay-based creole."
      • p. 47 (Chinese kept a tight control over tax farms and opium farms; identity distinctions further enforced)... "All three Sino-Southeast Asian communities were kept legally distinct by the colonial order in terms of residence, landowning, educatiion and dress. Although they had lost much of their Chineseness, they were less likely to assimilate or integrate than they had been in the seventeenth century.... The Chinese as a group aroused resentment because of the influence they had over rulers and because of their direct authority as tax farmers"
    • Moreover, regarding the text that is there, I am just not sure that it works to create a coherent narrative (a narrative need not be POV, but it does need to cover main points, be coherent, etc). Forex, the few sentences after "Following the 1740 Batavia massacre and ensuing war...". What purpose do they serve? Is this a major point, or a minor one...? and several other pasaages strike me the same way....
    • More later.... – Ling.Nut (talk) 08:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Resolved comments by Mark Arsten moved to talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alright, I'm satisfied with the changes and explanations given here and at the previous peer review, and I'm now ready to support, pending source checks etc. This is a subject I'm fairly unfamiliar with (only knowing about Chinese Indonesians from reviewing so many of Crisco's articles), but the prose, organization, MOS, etc. looks great to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support now...Comments from PumpkinSky
    • In the infobox you mention 6 languages. Indonesian isn't a form of Chinese, but in "Four major Chinese speech groups are represented in Indonesia: Hokkien, Mandarin, Hakka, and Cantonese.", you only mention 4. Why is the fifth not listed?
      • Because Hokkien and Teochew are dialects, not unique languages. Do you think this should be clarified in-text below, or is use in the infobox sufficient?
        • Xinghua is left out, that's what I don't get.
          • Alright, removed. Unable to be verified with a source.
    • "1930 Dutch East Indies census", "Chinese Problem", and "failed coup d'état" are red links, as are some other ones. IMHO they shouldn't be in a FA but I think there's no rule against it
      • Fixed the one link, removed another (may be notable, but I can imagine myself writing about a census). I could conceivably write about the "Chinese Problem" and Tiong Hoa Hwe Koan, but haven't yet.
    • "25. ISSN 0116-3930." looks like a stray
      • Pardon? The full ref is Tenorio, Alfred S. (8 January 1999). "Correcting the Myth About the Dominance of Ethnic Chinese in Indonesian Business". BusinessWorld: 25. ISSN 0116-3930.
        • Got it.
    • FN 85 doesn't display the PDF icon but a ref does. Pls make consistent.
      • Think I got that.
    • Aside comment...Lumping people into groups is quite common in the real world and on wiki. It is done for quite legitimate reasons, such as academic (one can major in women's studies) and medical reasons (diseases specific to certain groups such as sickle cell), and cultural. You already mentioned WP:COMMON. On wiki we have Women in Vietnam (that's half the country lumped into one large group), the FA Taiwanese aborigines, the FA Tamil people, Thai Chinese--a lengthy article on Thai citizens of Chinese background--note in America we'd call them Chinese Thai but in Thailand they say "Thai Chinese", Thai American, African American, etc. I know about about Asia and Indonesia to comfortably say this is a distinct cultural group worthy of academic study and wiki articles, hence in my view an oppose based solely on that point would not be valid. PumpkinSky talk 00:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC) PumpkinSky talk 10:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply to PumpkinSky: Check the FAC nominators of Taiwanese aborigines, and find its defender at FARC. ;-) My "leaning Oppose" is not based solely or even principally on the lumping of people; it's a reaction to an over-hasty approach of quickly modifying huge facts and acting as if it were a minor modification. That concerns me... and what was that going on up there about languages & dialects...? Anyhow, you have misinterpreted my stance. – Ling.Nut (talk) 13:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I went through this article some days ago refining the referencing mechanisms and find it to be a good and fitting article. I am quite stunned to see the comments above by Ling.Nut3, especially the 00:34 /attacks/ which are well over the line. I've spent five years living in Indonesia and count some Chinese Indonesians as good friends. This is no mere nationality–ethnicity pairing. It is a major issue in Indonesia today, and has been for ages; much the same as in Indochina and areas as diverse as Madagascar and Polynesia (the extremes of the areas peopled from migration out of China; The Americas, too, really). See the related articles 1740 Batavia massacre, Discrimination against Chinese Indonesians, May 1998 riots of Indonesia. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems people are skimming/scanning & buying into the "personal attack" narrative established by Crisco. I am not attacking anyone. I am certainly not bad-mouthing Chinese Indonesians. I am voicing concerns about the depth to which issues are analyzed. That is all. – Ling.Nut (talk) 07:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I actually re-read most of the article and this whole discussion over the last day and a half before commenting here. Your 00:34 isn't an attack? Did /you/ actually think at any length or depth about that post? — engage your brain at all? I'd take your oppose a little more seriously if I saw much high-quality thinking on your part. FWIW, I don't see anything you've said as an attack on the subjects of the article. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am trying to find time to look in depth at related issues; will post whenever i can (above). If you read the thread carefully, I opened with questions about the identity issue. My Oppose, however, resulted from the huge change and "nothing to see here, move along". It was the attitude. How can you change hundreds of thousands of casualties for 2% of that figure in one little (very vague!) edit, then say "nothing to see here, move along"? That is vrey, very sloppy. It raises huge concerns. I am concerned about the scholarship. That is all. More concerns above.. soon.. – Ling.Nut (talk) 08:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • A second editor above has expressed the opinion that the original text was poorly written but not necessarily misrepresentative. It was clarified, not changed by 98 percent. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review I saw the comment on WT:FAC and checked the images. They are all free, mostly because of age or the Tropenmuseum's donation, some are more recent but freely licensed, or are free images based on data.

I do not have time to review the article itself, but the images seem to be OK to me. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comments - There has not been much activity on this page of late and I think a decision is overdue. I am finding it difficult to see how the oppose based on criterion 1b is actionable as "only time and research will tell". Spotchecks on sources are still needed. Graham Colm (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is, I am very sad to say, a huge, fundamental problem both with this article, and at the same time, with the FAC reviews as well (this article reveals it). The article is MOS-compliant and kinda sorta appears to hit on some major areas of the topic, and it sorta looks OK and so on, but it is.. very thinly researched. A few areas have been singled out, and those have rec'd some research, but the topic itself was not researched in anything remotely resembling a proactive way. Ihis article is simply (and grossly, I'm very sorry to say) inadequate in its coverage, and does not deserve an FA. Please bear in mind, this is not my topic, this is not my.... I am not researching this topic. I have no familiarity with this topic. I am not the person who should be doing the research (none is being done, actually). I found at least two unspeakably huge holes in the coverage in only a couple hours of time (opium etc.) ....and a huge error.. and in every case, the nom tacked on a brief comment and a ref and called that "research". Do you want me to spend weeks looking at the sources? That is not my role; it is the nominator's role. This article simply has not been researched. The problem with FAC that I alluded to (although it is an innocent problem) is that reviewers accept a nom at face value. Accept that the research has been done, and check to see if it is MOS-compliant and more or less coherent. This is a forgivable error. No one is paid to do this, and researching an article this large takes time. So let me sum up. No one has invested any real time in research. i can't and won't. I don't blame the reviewers as individuals either, nor the system (since it is a volunteer system). But let's not put articles with college sophomore-level research effort up on the Internet and tell the world they're Wikipedia's best. I mean, you can if you want to. But iit isn't excellent. it's just passable. Wikipedia doesn't have the resources to make it excellent, and the nominator either can't or won't. ... The delegate says "only time and research will tell".. but if this article gets the bronze star, time will be mute, because research will cease forever. – Ling.Nut (talk) 00:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it, I was quoting you :-) Is the nominator ready to respond? Graham Colm (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am being ignored. You can't see my face as I type this, so your first assumption will be that I am thin-skinned. But no, I simply think that I am not appropriate as an individual for reviewing FAC articles. We are mismatched. I care about excellence and depth of coverage; FAC is not sytemically capable of addressing those concerns. WP:WIAFA 1b should be stricken.. Anyhow, FAC and I part ways now. I am striking my Oppose. I am not sulking, I am not doing it to try to save face, I am not saying "I will take my ball and go home." I am divorcing myself from FAC. We are a mismatch. I give up on the Wikipedia community. Not bitterly -- it just... is a place for teenagers. It is an online community. It emphatically is not an academic community.Enjoy your little baubles; they do not actually reflect article quality. – Ling.Nut (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source check I've gone through these again, and they are high quality and consistently formatted. I only find one thing that needs fixed: under tertiary sources, the Walrond ref has the 'r' in "Retrieved" in lower case whereas in all other web refs it's upper case. Once this is made upper case, I'm comfortable with the sources.PumpkinSky talk 01:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority are offline. There are some online ones and I'll defer to someone else for that.PumpkinSky talk 01:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of the ones that aren't linked to a URL may be on Gbooks. I have ready access to The Chinese of Indonesia and Their Search for Identity: The Relationship Between Collective Memory and the Media (I have an Indonesian translation, actually), Anti-Chinese Violence in Indonesia, 1996–1999, Tionghoa dalam Pusaran Politik, Dilema Minoritas Tionghoa, and Etnis Tionghoa di Indonesia: Kumpulan Tulisan (this includes "Chinese Dietary Culture in Indonesian Urban Society") — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate's comment Some can be checked using Google Books. Here's one randomly chosen:
  • Article: "Among ethnic Chinese families, whether they are strongly Chinese oriented or already acculturated, pork is often the preferred meat"
  • Source (ref 161): "If we look at the food at home in an ethnic Chinese family, be they still strongly Chinese oriented or already acculturated to the local situation, pork is still the preferred meat" (David Y. H. Wu; Sidney C. H. Cheung (2002). The Globalization of Chinese Food. University of Hawaii Press. p. 157. ISBN 978-0-8248-2582-9. Retrieved 12 July 2012.)

This was the first one I checked and there is a problem with close paraphrasing! Graham Colm (talk) 05:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. FN10
    Article: Citizenship was conferred upon the ethnic Chinese through a 1946 citizenship act after Indonesia became independent, and it was further reaffirmed in 1949 and 1958. However, they often encountered obstacles regarding the legality of their citizenship. Chinese Indonesians were required to produce an Indonesian Citizenship Certificate (Surat Bukti Kewarganegaraan Republik Indonesia, SBKRI) when conducting business with government officials.
    Source: The Citizenship Act of 1946 conferred citizenship status on Ethnic Chinese, which was confirmed by subsequent Acts in 1949 and 1958. ... Proof of citizenship, which the necessary citizenship papers-Surat Bukti Kewarganegaraan Indonesia (SBKRI), or Proof of Indonesian Citizenship Document-have to be produced when dealing with functionaries at the level of a ministry or department down to the village (Kelurahan) levels
    Doesn't look too close to me.
  2. FN13
    Article: Other terms used for identifying sectors of the community include peranakan and totok. The former, traditionally used to describe those born locally, is derived from the root Indonesian word anak ("child") and thus means "child of the land". The latter is derived from Javanese, meaning "new" or "pure", and is used to describe the foreign born and new immigrants.
    Source: Still another term is Peranakan (the root of the word is anak, Indonesian for child, thus "Child of the land") or local born, while the foreign-born or new immigrants are referred to as Totok (from the Javanese; meaning "new, pure")
    I don't think it's too close, although others may disagree.

Delegate's comment - Spotchecks by an independent reviewer are still needed. Graham Colm (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck The following text is supported by reference 9 (a): "Ethnic Chinese in the 1930 Dutch East Indies census were categorized as foreign orientals, and registered separately from the indigenous population."
The text in the original reference is "In the 1930 census, the ethnic Chinese, regardless of their "nationalities", were classified as "foreign oriental", and they were registered separately from the "indigenous population."
Reviewer opinion: too close.
The following text is supported by reference 19 (a): "These traders settled along the northern coast of Java, but there is no documentation of their settlements beyond the 16th century. The Chinese Muslims were likely to have been absorbed into the majority Muslim population."
The text in the original reference is: "There are documents showing that Chinese Muslim communities already existed in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries along the north coast of Java ... Interestingly, there is no further documentation about these Muslim communities. Most probably, the Chinese Muslims became completely absorbed into the majority Moslem population ... They were mostly traders and merchants."
Reviewer opinion: no problem.
The following text is supported by reference 29: "Some became "revenue farmers", middlemen within the corporate structure of the VOC, tasked with collecting export–import duties, managing land sales, and managing the harvest of natural resources;"
The text in the original reference is:"Two factors in particular which were characteristic of the VOC administration were undoubtedly important for the development of the economic position of the Chinese.[paragraph] In the first place, we should note the system of leasing and selling of land developed by the company. This involved the granting of specific rights to prospective applicants. The landlord and leaseholder acquired a position that virtually amounted to a legal public authority. The landlords were petty sovereigns after a fashion, whose rights encroached deeply on the lives of those dwelling on their lands. The landlords had the right to impose taxes on people and force them to do compulsory public labour services.[paragraph] In the second place, we refer to the system of revenue farming that the Chinese acquired under the Company's administration. Some of these farms dated back to the beginning of the VOC and they included farms of tollgates, syahbandar or the collection of import-export duties, cattle slaughtering, fishing and meat bazaars, and the felling of timber. This revenue farm system ..." I don't see any indication that revenue farmers governed land sales. There seems to be a conflation of the two factors mentioned by the authors.
Reviewer opinion: source not accurately used.
Two "hits" in three tries, plus the one mentioned earlier by another reviewer, causes me concern.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sources I reviewed are on google books. Assuming Crisco's in the US, it should be available on preview.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there are issues with the online sources, there are liable to be issues with the offline sources. I wouldn't feel comfortable with something like that attached to my name (as noted in the nom, I was bringing another editor's work to FAC). I'd much rather leave this and bring ? (film) to FAC, one I've been guiding from start to finish. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- well, I should've hit the sack long ago but when I saw some activity here I decided to see how it panned out -- will action the withdrawal request, thanks all. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Chinese_Indonesians/archive2&oldid=1089817674"