Talk:History of Jakarta

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

earlier comments[edit]

I separate the article from Jakarta. I believe the History of Jakarta are longer than the original and hence the article can be expanded. There are some Jakarta Historian such as Mona Lohanda or Adolf Heuken, SJ who are specialized in Batavia under the Colonial Rule. Of course, we also have lot of story of Jakarta in Soekarno era and Soeharto era. Kunderemp 04:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Low importance?[edit]

It seems odd to me that the history of a nation's capital can be of "low importance" to the WikiProject of that country, especially for one with such a rich history as Jakarta. Though not a member of the project, I've changed it to high to draw attention to the embryonic state of this article and following the rating of other such histories (e.g. London, Copenhagen, Lima). You'll never see low or mid, though sometimes top (e.g. Athens). Afasmit 00:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kebayoran Baru[edit]

" ... and Kebayoran Baru was the last Dutch-built residential area." Can someone check this information? As far as I know, Kebayoran Baru became an idea and was planned after the proclamation declaration. The planner was also an Indonesian. Kembangraps (talk) 14:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected that information.--Rochelimit (talk) 08:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BATAVIA[edit]

oh dear, now im even more confused. when looking for an article on historic batavia i was first linked to Jakarta. when i kept looking i tried the link to this article. still this isnt an article on historic batavia either. (it obviously has a broader scope.) then i found another sub-article called Jakarta Old Town. that article is written like it describes a tourist destination in modern jakarta, but comes close at being a designated article on historic batavia.

after some more investigation ive noticed that quite a lot of articles either disamb. or link Batavia to different places: Jakarta, History of Jakarta and even Jakarta Old Town. editors might be confused about where to link Batavia (the historic colonial town) to. which is understandable as long as their isnt a clear article for it. dont wanne b.... about it, just thought i'd mention it. warmrgds, --Ms.Finesse (talk) 23:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BATAVIA (Dutch East Indies)[edit]

Jeez, enough already. Someone please create a dedicated article already: Batavia (Dutch East Indies) that does not redirect to this overall history page.

Recently Ive seen accomplished editors waste time on amending wikilinks fr Batavia, fr the same reasons the above editor already pointed out a while ago.

Save yourselves and others time and create a dedicated article already project team.

Cheers, Jim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.145.92.50 (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I too was confused. Batavia should be a separate article. The history of the city can easily be broken down into different articles. It is an important enough city. --Bruce Hall (talk) 01:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are all these English names?[edit]

The article says, "Jakarta has been known under several names: Sunda Kelapa during the Kingdom of Sunda period; Jayakarta, Djajakarta or Jacatra during the short period of Banten Sultanate; Batavia, under the Dutch colonial empire; and Djakarta or Jakarta during the Japanese occupation and the modern period." Are all these names English names? Afterall each language has its own names for places, e.g. Spain and Espana, Vien and Vienna, Venice and Venezia. Maybe instead of the above it should say something like "Venice (Italian: Venezia [veˈnɛttsja] ( listen), Venetian: Venexia [veˈnɛsja]; (Latin: Venetia) " as it does at Venice.--Bruce Hall (talk) 01:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Jakarta[edit]

What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content. Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is basically the article History of Jakarta[edit]

This article is redundant; I will redirect this after I finished making edits on other.--Rochelimit (talk) 10:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to the Timeline article, then I would advise against deleting+redirecting it. Lots of other cities have a timeline page in addition to a history page, see Category:City timelines. - HyperGaruda (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring to the History of Jakarta. I wrote most of the texts there and all (including the pics) are copied exactly the same here, it's redundant.--Rochelimit (talk) 09:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now I'm confused. I supposed you're talking about 2 articles, one of which is this article (History of Jakarta). Then what is the other??? - HyperGaruda (talk) 12:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see now. It's the article Batavia, Dutch East Indies. The talk page of that article is redirected to History of Jakarta Talk Page (hence the confusion); and the content of that article is exactly the same with History of Jakarta. If you could review whether the article Batavia (Dutch East Indies) should be redirected back to History of Jakarta, then may I ask you to do it? It seems that Merbabu decided to redirected the article back to History of Jakarta but OrganicEarth decided to revert it back again to Batavia. OrganicEarth seems to be very active right now. I personally prefer to redirect it back to History of Jakarta, due to the redundant content (exact copy-paste of my writing)--Rochelimit (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, now I understand. Maybe it isn't such a bad idea to have a separate article on Batavia, just like there are separate articles for New Amsterdam and History of New York City. It's been discussed a bit, a couple of paragraphs earlier. In that case, the History article will contain short summaries with "See main article" links for each era. I do feel bad about doing this though, since this would mean all your hard work from 2011 will be gone (or at least changed and relocated to the subpage) Perhaps it's best to notify @Merbabu: and @OrganicEarth: too. - HyperGaruda (talk) 22:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind notifying Merbabu. He's semi-retired and hasn't made edits since the end of 2014. - HyperGaruda (talk) 06:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think New Amsterdam cannot really be compared with Batavia, mainly because of its very short age (only 20 years?) and very distinct boundary; whereas Batavia persisted for 350 years and grow almost seamlessly into the modern city. It will create a confusion later when Batavia became two Batavias in the 18th-19th century: Oud Batavia/Benedenstad (Kota, Jakarta) and Nieuwe Batavia/bovenstad (Weltevreden), and create another confusion when the history merge seamlessly into Jakarta of the 1950s (Kebayoran development). New Amsterdam and New York contrasted a lot, while Batavia history merges almost seamlessly with Jakarta. So in my opinion it is better to include Batavia into History of Jakarta, because much of the history of Jakarta is Batavia.--Rochelimit (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what HyperGaruda said. Rochelimit, your points seem to point toward the need for a separate article on Batavia. It existed for 350 years, it was divided into Oud Datavia/ Benednstad (Kota, Jakarta) and Nieuwe Batavia/ Bovenstad (Weltevreden / Sawah Besar), and we've only scratched the surface of the policies and events that took place there. You have the colonial policies on how indigenous Javans, Indonesian migrants, Chinese workers, and Europeans were treated. You have social clubs, religious institutions, architecture, conflicts, and festivals/ culture. It's unfortunate that long ago it was redirected because this completely stunted any development. There is nothing in the article covering 1920 - WWII for example. There is an enormous amount of work to do. The History of Jakarta article should cover the key aspects and point to the main article. OrganicEarth (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My point is not really that. What bothers me is the part Technological advancement in 19th-century Batavia is a complete copy paste, exist in both articles. It seems that you decided to copy paste everything but leave the original article as it is, seemingly leaving the responsibility of rewriting the original History of Jakarta article to other users. You must make the article History of Jakarta on the Batavia part more brief and placed a main article link on the Batavia part; and you need to do this as soon as possible before others see the redundancy and revert everything.
Anyway, I still think Batavia should be in History of Jakarta. Why? because unlike New Amsterdam and New York, Jakarta and Batavia history intertwines each other, very much closely related (albeit the lack of Indonesian source); whereas New Amsterdam and New York is a complete separate world, New Amsterdam is completely forgotten and leave no trace in modern New York (correct me if I'm wrong, not an expert in New York City History). The section World War II and Independence you've created for the article Batavia, it's not as simple as that. Batavia lingers until about 1950s. Even the Netherlands still do not recognize the 1945 independence of Indonesia. The transition from Batavia to Jakarta is not as abrupt as name changes, it change gradually, even the name persist in the name of Jakarta inhabitants "Betawi". This is my opinion.
I do realize there were some recommendations to separate the article History of Jakarta into Batavia way back then around 2009?, but it was never been done because no body's actually an expert in Batavia history and the eagerness to have the article combined into History of Jakarta is stronger at that time. Now you have separated the article, and seemingly knows what you're doing? my recommendation is, before you do the 'enormous' work you've mentioned earlier about the history between 1920 and WWII and possibly post WWII (the Revolution), you have to rewrote the article History of Jakarta, ensuring that it is not double article, please.--Rochelimit (talk) 12:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a small off-topic correction: the Netherlands currently recognises 17 August 1945 as the Indonesian independence date, after a decision in 2005. - HyperGaruda (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic reply: What is your source 2005 being the year? Even as of 2007 to 2010 when I live in Netherlands I know the fact that Netherlands acknowledge 27 Dec 1949 as Indonesian Independence Day, not the August date. It's a sensitive discussion, something to do with 1945-1949 Dutch military aggression to Indonesia (acknowledging 1945 as independence day would mean that the Dutch military aggression was an illegal act). I do know that all countries recognize Indonesia independence day is 17 Aug 1945, except Netherlands ,I cannot find the source though.
Oops, my bad. I had read this page (last paragraph) without checking the source in detail. Apparently, our minister of foreign affairs Bot attended the 17-08 celebrations in Indonesia in 2005. This was seen as a recognition of 17 Aug 1945, but only de facto. You're correct in that it is still 27 Dec 1949 de jure. This site (in dutch though, use google translate if you need) nicely sums up the current state of things. - HyperGaruda (talk) 06:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to relate this with the topic. So you see, 1942 Batavia is Jakarta, and 1945-1949 technically Jakarta is still Batavia, and Batavia has become Jakarta more or less. It's a subtle transition, so that is why I think the history of Batavia should be in the history of Jakarta--Rochelimit (talk) 05:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frankly I prefer having a Batavia article; it allows us to go into more detail about things such as demographics than would be feasible in a History of Jakarta article. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rochelimit seems to have it right: there is an essential thematic and granular continuity of a single topic in these two articles. That subject (the city) has had a gradually shifting name over time, one way and then back. Looking at whether there should be two articles based on policy, there are several important underlying reasons for WP:FORK and for WP:CFORK. Keeping these in mind, the problems with these two articles are flagrant. Not only is there very substantial obvious redundancy between the two articles in question, despite which there are date inconsistencies between them, but the level of referencing in both is APPALLING. So appalling that there is a tag from 2011 that the referencing is deficient, and also a large number of "citation needed" tags, and also (!) for example, and this is not the only problem (but I will confine the "rant" to one glaring problem), it is BIZARRE that in these two articles' identical discussion of the 1740 Batavia massacre, which that (seemingly good, well-referenced) article claims as "one of the most striking events in 18th-century Dutch colonialism", the sole reference for these articles is one short sentence in a travel guide (!!!) book. Which is misquoted !!! -- the travel book says "5,000" (yes, I did look it up and actually read it. One flimsy sentence. And then a half sentence on WWII... etc). These two articles state 10,000. 10,000 may very well be right --see the more scholarly treatment in 1740 Batavia massacre, which reaches toward an explanation of the higher number, and seems to have some reasonable referencing. As it stands, however, the unacceptable referencing doesn't support the text in either article. "Expanding articles with demographics" is not a reason for WP:SPINOFF: there are reasonable criteria for that, and I don't initially see them here so far, although I will work through the content very closely. I emphasize: there are reasons for WP:CFORK and reasons for WP:SPINOFF. I aim to look at these issues more closely in the next few days and start culling the blatantly repetitive elements, and cleaning out the unreferenced content or further tagging it. I can't say the articles will actually conflate into one or not, until working through the contents in close detail. FeatherPluma (talk) 23:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FeatherPluma, the two articles being identical is not the main issue here at the moment. Yes it is a big problem, but we all agree on that. The question now is: which article gets to keep the information and which one gets a redirect? - HyperGaruda (talk) 05:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, HyperGaruda Do you prefer I leave both exact versions as is? Because all I have done so far is carefully remove ONE exact copy, checking the removal paragraph by paragraph. That's all. If a decision is made for the content to eventually go "the other way" then that's fine. I am not deciding the outcome of the laborious debate of where the content ultimately goes with my edits. I am merely removing the WP:CFORK. If the material is merged, it can then either stay at History of Jakarta or it can be transferred back here. I do not have a dog in the fight as to ultimate outcome. If you want this discussion to stay open longer before any reconciliation of the redundancy I am fine reverting myself and leaving you to the task. Just let me know -- I emphasize I really don't care about this, and I am happy to revert myself and leave this as the mess it presently is, as I am sure it can be handled by any competent editor, whether that's me or someone else. FeatherPluma (talk) 05:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I try to invite Crisco 1492, Gunkarta and SatuSuro to give their opinion here regarding which article should get a redirect. However I still think that Batavia should get a redirect back to History of Jakarta, considering there was a port city known as Sunda Kelapa, the similarly important 16th-century Jayakarta (Portuguese-related, before the arrival of Coen), as well as the in-between revolution period - all a continuous history with a very similar society with the existing modern city of Jakarta. I am not very used to Wiki jargon, but I can say I am more or less know the history of Jayakarta/Batavia/Jakarta; a native of Jakarta, and has access to both the archive of Jakarta and Amsterdam's Tropenmuseum; as well as a bit of anthropological study of Jakarta while I was studying in the Netherlands. My opinion on the article Batavia, Dutch East Indies is that the article is redundant, as of now. Very sorry I am currently ill (with appendicitis!), but if I am back, and still there is no clear decision nor greater improvement in Batavia, Dutch East Indies (World War, as mentioned by OrganicEarth), then I will revert that article back into History of Jakarta and hopefully improve the History of Jakarta article after adding additional referenced contents that may come from OrganicEarth which can be good, IF there are additional contents.
Ouch, hope you get better soon! - HyperGaruda (talk) 07:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the referencing, I recommend FeatherPluma to check or improve the article History of Jakarta instead of Batavia, Dutch East Indies (although this may be slightly out of topic with the current issue).
A suggestion: If people really insist on separating the article of Batavia, here is my suggestion. Batavia, Dutch East Indies should only refer to Oud Batavia and should not include Weltevreden (the "Queen of the East" period) and Meester Cornelis (municipal that was un-related with Batavia). In that case, the article Kota, Jakarta (similar with Intramuros of Manila) may got a "main article" tagline. I agree with this and will help improve the historically and perimeter-correct Oud Batavia, probably moving some content of Kota, Jakarta into that article. I think that's the solution--Rochelimit (talk) 06:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rochelimit/HyperGaruda: Quite obviously if the plan is a redirect, it couldn't go from History of Jakarta to Batavia, Dutch East Indies, as the latter is a subset of the former. What I set out to do was getting rid of the redundancy and then looking very carefully at the residual. It would be easier to THEN make a decision of merge with redirect to History of Jakarta, OR of a transfer of the content back to Batavia, Dutch East Indies, with a new residual short summary at History of Jakarta. But let's do this. I've reverted myself at Batavia, Dutch East Indies and I'll do that at History of Jakarta. That will open up ample opportunity for discussion here. To move that along, I've added a formal merger proposal tag because I have a preliminary sense that that is going to make much more sense, but the content is rather poorly organized and poorly referenced and I myself cannot tell without actually cleaning it up. I am not seeing any good policy based argument as opposed to personal preferences for keeping Batavia, Dutch East Indies. Nonetheless, the process can unfold in discussion here to the point of consensus and then someone can get the job done. My own style would be to get there by cleaning up incrementally to the point that the choice became obvious, but preliminary discussion isn't a bad approach either. Good luck with the appendicitis. FeatherPluma (talk) 06:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I think that those who want to keep Batavia, Dutch East Indies have the obligation to explain why Rochelimit's original proposal (merger with redirect), which I have now marked up with a formal template, isn't the correct approach. I believe the logical default in this situation would be to avoid WP:CFORK, so a convincing policy-based clear articulation of why WP:SPINOFF or some other consideration applies is requested. If a good policy-based case does not emerge in the next few days, I will probably consider undoing my reverts, and completing the process I initiated. FeatherPluma (talk) 07:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, don't get me wrong FeatherPluma. Please do improve and clean up the content if you want; it will be necessary regardless of the outcome of this discussion. I just wanted you to realise what the current goal of this discussion is. And your requested articulation would probably be this. - HyperGaruda (talk) 07:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, HyperGaruda Of course. That's the only reason that is likely to apply (although I can't be sure, given the mess we have right now). It seems we have reached consensus for getting rid of the redundant replication and seeing together what's left. Based on what you say, I take it that I am clear to resume, please? Just making completely sure. FeatherPluma (talk) 07:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is consensus for getting rid of redundant replication, but there isn't for which replication is the redundant one. I suppose it can't hurt to see what will be the end result. In the worst case, we could simply revert it. By the way FeatherPluma, if you want to revert multiple versions, I suggest you compare the current revision with the revision you want to revert to via compare selected revisions, followed by clicking on undo (after latest revision) on the comparison page. This will save you the trouble of reverting things one by one. - HyperGaruda (talk) 07:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me do OrganicEarth a favor. I'll revert Batavia, Dutch East Indies back to History of Jakarta and refer Batavia, Dutch East Indies as strictly the walled city of Batavia (Oud Batavia). Then parts of Kota, Jakarta should be moved to Batavia, Dutch East Indies. That is better and similar to the way Intramuros is written. I don't think the world war II rant mentioned by OrganicEarth has anything to do with Batavia, it is more related with history of Indonesia/Dutch East Indies in general. This is what should be done in the first place, people wanted to see the 17th century walled city of Batavia and ranting about moving it as a single artle; unfortunately no real expert in Batavia and the conclusion back then was to include that city into one giant article History of Jakarta. There is a good reason why a separate article for the 17th-century walled city (which in my opinion should not include Weltevreden) should be created. Give me time, don't rush.--Rochelimit (talk) 08:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rochelimit/HyperGaruda: You'd like the keys to the car, and some time to take it for a trip to the beach. I'll step away as I'm fine with that. It may turn out in the long run that your initial instincts were better. If you do take it to being strictly about the walled city of Batavia (Oud Batavia), it may be appropriate to rename it as such, and to make fully clear how it differs from Kota, Jakarta. Have at it, and good luck. I'll earmark at some vague later date eventually checking references (and how they are used) in detail. Again, hope you get better soon. FeatherPluma (talk) 08:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now I get it. Rochelimit considers Kota to be Batavia, while OrganicEarth was probably thinking about the entire DKI region as Batavia. Both POVs have truth in them, depending on the time period. From the early 17th to early 19th century, Batavia was indeed only the walled city. Then there is the difficult period of Batavia + suburbs (Weltevreden etc) until ~1935, when the municipalty of Batavia is expanded to include Meester Cornelis/Jatinegara. So the question now is: is Batavia only the 17th century walled city, or is it the municipalty as it was just before becoming Jakarta? Personally, I'd change the History of Jakarta to have a summary + main article link to Batavia, D.E.I. which itself in turn would have summaries + main article links to Kota, Weltevreden and Meester Cornelis. - HyperGaruda (talk) 09:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, HyperGaruda Yes, indeed. That would be / had been my approach too. Thanks for the pointer on rollback, by the way. In the long haul, I would like to see if all of these elements can be supported from references. Clearly, a "master" article, which, as you say, logically is History of Jakarta, would have all of these nuances in summary equipoise, with links to appropriate spinoffs. However, as it is now, OrganicEarth seems to count themselves as part of a (pertinent informed) majority for retaining the article in the current general condition, and has begun adding yet more uncited material. At this point, I personally am not going to engage in the remediation you now seem to have come round to. I think OrganicEarth and Rochelimit need plenty enough time and space to do their thing, although I will be asking asking for references for content. If they provide references of quality, the encyclopedia can improve. FeatherPluma (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most people who have commented support an independent article for Batavia. OrganicEarth (talk) 10:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, OrganicEarth Rochelimit has asked for time and space to accommodate to your vision, mentioning you by name. I'm fine respecting Rochelimit's request. Your comment seems to imply a legion of informed commentators supporting an independent article for Batavia. That legion of commentators may or may not actually exist. My math isn't your math, but that's fine. Let's just see what works out here. I don't see that I need to comment further at this time or be drawn in at present. Good day. FeatherPluma (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do agree with User:Crisco 1492 and prefer to have a separate more detailed article on Batavia, Dutch East Indies. We already have Sunda Kelapa article aren't we? the old port and also the ancient predecessor of Jakarta. Maybe we could have History of Jakarta as general "umbrella" article, while having a more detailed article of Sunda Kelapa and Batavia which each corresponds to the specific locations and historical periods of the city. Also agreed with Rochelimit suggestion, maybe Batavia should only consists of 17th century walled city of Batavia (Kota), while (maybe) excluding Weltevreden (Gambir), excluding Meester Cornelis (Jatinegara), Menteng and Kebayoran Baru, just like Sunda Kelapa only confined to the area around the old port and focus on Hindu period as the port of Pajajaran until the Islamic Banten-Demak take over (Jayakarta/Jacatra period). The problem we should address is the redundancy, maybe details could be moved to Batavia, while History of Jakarta is more general. Gunkarta  talk  15:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Gunkarta I take your point(s). I don't see anything here from Crisco 1492, so you probably mean OrganicEarth. All that I would ask is that a decision, hopefully based on policy rather than arbitrary preference, although even that will suffice, be arrived at in due course after a reasonably short/long time. Because Rochelimit has asked for time and space to edit, but has been ill, we are waiting on them. It would be appropriate to see actual edits to (1) remove the cross-article redundancy and to (2) improve referencing of the text, which is inadequately sourced, eventually get underway. The current main initial issue is simply to decide whether the redundant unreferenced text is redacted at History of Jakarta or at Batavia, Dutch East Indies. Count me in on either option. Regards. FeatherPluma (talk) 23:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for giving all your inputs! Hopefully I'll be ready the next couple of days. Just recovered, back to work, catching up leftover stuffs, and hopefully on Sunday (or next couple of days) I can start a new Old Batavia; not Kota, Jakarta but specifically the colonial history of Old Batavia, its slave-local-Dutch society, its canals and the malaria it brought, the tea, the glory and the decline; a more detailed article about the walled city. It should contains a more detailed history of the walled city than what Kota, Jakarta has right now. I have some Dutch and English books about Batavia 1600-1800 ready to be translated for English wiki. Perhaps the article would expand into Kasteel Batavia, Weltevreden, etc. It's exciting.--Rochelimit (talk) 15:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication of (terrible quality) content already in Batavia, Dutch East Indies[edit]

Hi, Rochelimit; It is nice to see that you are back in action after your recent illness. I hope you are making a steady recovery and send you good wishes for that. My business reason for reaching out to you is to understand why a lengthy duplication of content has been reintroduced to this article. I am sorry for this long question but I want to let you know I have thought about this very carefully.
I see that you have added back a very large block of text and images. It amounts to a 50% increase in the article size when you added this. Your addition includes an appropriate header template tag. It is appropriate because it points to very significant referencing problems. The header tag speaks to the poor quality of the material. There is one problem after another with the references. Perhaps by simple mistake, some of the better referenced content was removed along with its citations, so I am quite perplexed about the selections made.
The more substantial issue is not just the terrible quality of this content, but its lengthy duplication. It is already going to be a major project to clean up ONE place with this terrible content; I think it is extremely problematic to duplicate it, somehow expecting it to be worked on in both places. In my view, this subsection was moved / merged to its own article by consensus (see the discussion above) to Batavia, Dutch East Indies. Appropriately abbreviated but adequate continuity material was left in this article. I also added article and subsection hats. There seems to me to be no cogent reason to remake this extensive redundancy, so I am reaching out to you to understand why you see it differently. Can you please carefully explain your thinking regarding this? In particular, I would be obliged if you would read and make reference in your answer to WP:CFORK, which I pointed to clearly and repeatedly in my edit summaries when I moved the content there and merged it carefully. I also point you now to the explanation I gave on the Talk page of [[Batavia, Dutch East Indies]], in case you had not picked up on that. As I understand it, this duplication does not correspond at all to standard guidelines for this encyclopedia. While in other circumstances there are acceptable reasons for forking (and the very existence of [[Batavia, Dutch East Indies]] might be one of these) the applicable breach I see in adding this material here now is the advice given on "unacceptable" types of forking at the WP:REDUNDANTFORK paragraph. Is there any common sense exception that applies to this lengthy duplication that I am missing?
(There is yet an additional issue that what you have added has several paragraphs in the wrong chronological order. It isn't necessary to correct that unless this material as a whole has proper reason to be here.)
I look forward to understanding your position specifically on the core issue, namely the lengthy duplication concern, so that we can collaboratively derive a solution to this specific aspect, based on relevant Wikipedia policy. Would you be willing, after adequate reflection, to have one of us return the sections in question to their briefer summary style, and have [[Batavia, Dutch East Indies]] be the repository for this content? As an alternative, if you want everything over here, then I would be willing to initiate a formal merger tag and proposal in that direction. The reasons that have been given for having two articles are not really persuausive in my opinion. That said, I really don't want to get bogged down over that option, as my first concern is not whether there is one or two articles; what I do want to resolve is the unnecessary and inappropriate lengthy duplication, against the applicable guidelines.
I have started to clean up the references in the WP:SPINOFF. I plan on cleaning away this content here again in the next few days for the reasons carefully explained unless dialog here comes to a different settlement. Thank you very much, and best regards. FeatherPluma (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi FeatherPluma thanks for your reference-clean-up in History of Jakarta. I am making a steady recovery although now I'm having a little setback after a few episodes of food poisoning last week caused by my office's catering, grrrr. I'm out of luck with my digestive health these days, well at least I'm not as miserable as before during my appendicitis.
My first point is the content's flow. When OrganicEarth merged and "improved" the article Batavia, Dutch East Indies; he did it in a way that the original flow of history of the article is modified incorrectly. For example, he moved a section that was supposed to explain 18th-century architecture Dutch Indies country houses into 20th-century architecture discussion about New Indies Style; also there were one sentence that he splits by adding new sentence in the middle, as a result he splits the reference for that particular sentence (seems that he did not read the original sentence carefully). Also, he did an exact sentence-copy-paste again from the article List of colonial buildings and structures in Jakarta and placed it incorrectly in a section in a way that the flow of the content becomes confusing. His editing manner is also very rushed; I just realized this very recently when I checked his Contributions; he created a couple of Dutch Indies-related new articles, unfortunately some are very rushed, with a lot of unnecessary spelling or punctuation error. He seems to be really inspired by [[List of colonial buildings and structures in Jakarta]] and decided to make a couple of similar articles and placed the link to these articles in Colonial architecture of Indonesia; great, however, very rushed. He also has the tendency to create a 'gallery' inside an existing article, mostly from pictures of Tropenmuseum or AMH. I'm not objecting the new articles he created and I can help fixing some of his edit easily and reminded him certain things(as he seems to be quiet cooperative as well; but if he does this in an already well-established article like History of Jakarta, it can be hard to follow his edit. Sorry if all sounds a bit out of topic, but his pattern of editing is also my concern for the article Batavia, Dutch East Indies and History of Jakarta that I am trying to avoid.
Second is the referencing. I know earlier you say there are referencing issues and I placed a good faith on your analysis. I shall work on improving the referencing of History of Jakarta on the basis of your note; adding pages if there are no page in the existing reference, or replacing dead link.
Third is the redundancy in [[History of Jakarta]] (or should I say in [[Batavia, Dutch East Indies]]). Your previous edit deletes all of the sections related with Batavia in this article, reducing the content of Dutch Jakarta into a mere "350 years of history" plus "check out the main article by clicking the above link", this I disagree. Previously I already deleted some sections from History of Jakarta (e.g. Society) that I think can be better talked in either [[Batavia, Dutch East Indies]] or Timeline of Jakarta. By doing this I'm keeping the minimum information about the general history of Batavia in [[History of Jakarta]]. I know these edit are still very similar with the [[Batavia, Dutch East Indies]] and looks redundant (and this is my original worry when OrganicEarth split the article), but this is a gradual process that needs to be accepted when a decision to split the article was made in the first place. All and all, it's not History of Jakarta that needs to be reduced, it's Batavia, Dutch East Indies that needs to be improved; and what I meant by improved is adding more into the article, gradually reducing the 'redundancy'. When OrganicEarth implied there are many things need to be added in Batavia, I absolutely agree with him: there are such thing e.g. the Batavia Ommelanden that needs to be made an article, also the Governor-generals of Batavia, the original kampungs around the walled city, Batavia Castle itself, the spices trade and its circulation, the warehouses, the malaria plague, etc. I'm expecting the article [[Batavia, Dutch East Indies]] to be improved with these spirit and I'm still waiting for that improvement he mentioned (and not a few improvement e.g. Independence movement which I think kind of un-related with the History of Batavia, plus incorrect spelling of historic figures). So about this redundancy issue, my recommendation as of now is to keep [[History of Jakarta]] as it is and improved the content of [[Batavia, Dutch East Indies]] instead.
So, I am thankful for your 'reminder' on the poor referencing in this article as I think this is the best thing you can do to improve History of Jakarta. If you really insist on reducing the content in History of Jakarta more intensively on the basis to reduce the existing redundancy, I recommend to keep the sectioning intact (do not remove Dutch East India Company (17th – 18th century) and Modern colonialism (19th century – 1942)) and reduced it minimally. However, based on what I see right now with the article Batavia, Dutch East Indies, I strongly prefer to keep History of Jakarta this way. Next time I will add contents in Batavia, Dutch East Indies--Rochelimit (talk) 09:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Rochelimit; My best regards for your continued progress. Addressing your three points, taken in your order:
  1. I also have seen the pattern. Accordingly, I understand the thematics. I see how it relates to the specific issue I had raised. One approach in this type of situation is to stick rigidly to policy and guidelines. However, I now appreciate the general thought process behind your edit. I will at this time follow your approach of astute methodical accommodation. I will thus temporarily leave the substantial placeholder despite its deeply problematic attributes.
  2. Improvements do take time and effort. I appreciate the big picture you are messaging.
  3. What is optimal and driven by guidelines is sometimes best held in mind as the very clear eventual target. The guidelines provide a little bit of leeway by touching on a "common sense exception". We agree that whether this WP:SPINOFF is appropriate depends in the final analysis on the quality and scope of the additions that may eventually be forthcoming to [[Batavia, Dutch East Indies]]. Although I have some doubts thereby, it is fair to see how work progresses. I am now on board with your vision of getting to the goal in a graduated manner.
Thank you for the explanation and insight. I look forward to your additions of carefully referenced content at [[Batavia, Dutch East Indies]]. Bit by bit I will work (from time to time) on improving the referencing. Take care. FeatherPluma (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the consensus for 2 articles, the WP:CFORK is now trimmed to a reasonable appropriate summary. I then detagged the sections, since they're now mainly referenced. I reorganized under one heading with 2 subheaders - for VOC and for DEI. Issue hopefully is now closed out, although there will still need to be edits to both articles over time. FeatherPluma (talk) 07:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on History of Jakarta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Jakarta. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 11:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Jakarta&oldid=1195030312"