Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chinese Indonesians/archive2

Chinese Indonesians

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

• Featured article candidates/Chinese Indonesians/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Chinese Indonesians/archive2

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

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)

• 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)

• Chinese-Americans? Huh? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• Please define Chinese. Chinese == Han? Chinese == PRC citizenship? – Ling.Nut (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Chinese = Zhonghua minzu. I believe this is clear from the lead, where it makes a point to classify the Han separately ("predominantly Han"). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• The question is not whether or not the term exists in the literature; the question is whether or not you can reliably pin down who they are...– Ling.Nut (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• I will model the opening sentence on the African American article, to be clearer in the definition. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• • 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)
    • Clarified that the number includes both Chinese and native Indonesians. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
      • 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)
          • Oppose 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? 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 "one guy says it was maybe 2% of 500,000". 00:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • I'll ask the writer. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • That may have been released after the majority of this was written. I'll track that down. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
      • The article is mostly about the May 1998 riots, which makes it redundant to the sources already in the article under discussion. It would be worth use in the article on the riots themselves, though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comments: I peer reviewed this a little while back, and I'm taking a second look at it now. Mainly focusing on prose and clarity, a few small comments thus far.
• "although more recent government policies have attempted to redress this." Might be best to note a decade here.
  • Clarified
• "Their intervention hastened the decline of the classical kingdoms" What were the "classical kingdoms", anything relevant to link to?
  • No overview article on the Kingdoms of Java, but there were several dozen kingdoms at the time. Majapahit goes more in-depth, but also doesn't list kingdoms. As Singhasari was the major power at the time, do you think we should have " like Singhasari" in the article?
• "They were led by the mariner Zheng He, who led several expeditions to southeastern Asia between 1405 and 1430." A little repetition here (led... led)

• Fixed — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• "The Javanese-Chinese participation in retaking Malacca" Should there be an endash here?

• Yes

• "Coen and other early Governors-Generals promoted" I think this should be "Governors-General", right? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Yes — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)