Talk:Chinese Indonesians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Chinese Indonesians has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
This is not a forum for general discussion of Chinese Indonesians.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.

Reconstructed and rewritten[edit]

I have worked on this article on and off for more than a year in my sandbox. As you can see from the changes, much of the content of the poorly referenced and occasionally contentious original article have been rewritten. I'm sure bringing this draft to the public will allow other editors to make improvements. Once the remaining sections are completed, I hope to take this on a fast track to the featured article process. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 21:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes it's better to incrementally add it to the existing article rather than just paste it in one hit - ie, let's us see the changes. But I agree that the article needs a big revamp. I think there's a lot of rubbish in here. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
PS - oh, I didn't notice it’s already there. Sorry. Nice work! I will go through it when I can. Cheers. --Merbabu (talk) 23:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
The last incomplete section (colonial period history) is now finished. Further input is always welcome, especially regarding the choice of images. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 08:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyedit July 2011[edit]


During the copyedit a few things came to light that may need attention:

Colonial period (1600–1900)
  • Coolies (para 4) - A derogatory term which should not really be here. I suggest using "workers (then know as Coolies) ..." or similar instead.
The literature often uses "coolies", so I had not seen it as derogatory. In Indonesia, the equivalent "kuli" is not really derogatory and is used commonly to mean laborers. I can replace it if you think it's out of place. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 17:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I read the wiki article and consulted some dictionaries. The Wiki article has this note Coolie#cite_note-0 which seems to be backed up by some online dictionaries I have read. I have two pre-1975 hard-copy dictionaries and both simply mention the term being 1. an aboriginal tribe from Gujarat, and 2. a term for Asian contract labour. It is up to you to decide what to do about it all though :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Divided nationalism (1900–1949)
  • "and manifested during" (para 3) - Which version of manifested does this mean, "came to light" or "pushed a manifesto"?
I intended to say that the Chung Hwa Congress was a culmination of the movement. I've made a clarifying change. Let me know if you think it's still unclear. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 17:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I will start my reply in a new section below. Chaosdruid (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Managing the "Chinese Problem" (1967–1998)
  • "A minority of the elites ..." - What are these elites?
These are the political and economic elites of Indonesian society, which may or may not be Chinese, since not one group is exclusively involved in the corruption. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 17:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I know what they are, but the general reader may not :¬) Do not forget that some readers will not have a great command of the English language. I would suggest that you put that very wording in "A minority of the political and economic elites of Indonesian society ..." Chaosdruid (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I will also link it to Elite#Political_elite Chaosdruid (talk) 11:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
  • The section is long, longer than the article that was listed as "see also", and may be better placed into the "see also" article, or a new article, with a short summary left here and the "see also" turned into a "main".
Which portion of the section do you think is excessively detailed? —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 17:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
The point is that this section is longer than anything in the "see also". I am suggesting that you add some of this material to Demographics of Indonesia and/or some of the others in the following linked series. It is not excessively detailed, just the opposite, the other articles are starved of material and lacking in detail. If you follow the links:
This "see also" points -> Demographics of Indonesia#Ethnic groups "main article" points -> Ethnic groups in Indonesia#Foreign ethnicities *Chinese links -> Chinese Indonesian redirects -> Chinese Indonesians. Basically it is a big circle leading back here along which there are only three very short sentences in all of those articles. I would also change some of those links.
MoS is quite specific in saying that the sections which link to "main" should have a summary of that "main" article in them. Chaosdruid (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
  • "1 percent or less of the total population" (para3) - which population, Chinese Indonesians or Indonesians?
  • "60.7 percent of the population" - same again
Clarified both instances. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 17:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
some estimated the number as high as 5% of the population, however it is hard to actually count their number
Emigrant communities
  • "Locally knowledgeable migrants" - This is a little bit of OR?
The source uses these words. I was at a loss of words on how to use an alternate designation to convey the same message. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 17:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
That is a strange sentence to have in a book, though it is there! Perhaps it should be "quoted", as any attempt to explain it would be OR lol. Chaosdruid (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Gender and kinship
  • The "terms" peranakan and totok should probably be replaced with peranakan ("Chinese Indonesian") and totok ("recent Chinese immigrants") on their first use. After that they can be used on their own, but would not be italicised - e.g. "the Perakanan did this" (this is then a proper noun used as the name for the group and as such it is with a capital, as are all proper nouns).
The totok and peranakan are both considered Chinese Indonesians, though. It's possible to replace peranakan with variations of "indigenized Chinese", but characterizing totok as merely recent immigrants is a bit misleading. Peranakan as a proper noun and formal designation is more commonly found in Malaysia and Singapore not really used in Indonesia. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 08:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate that they are both considered Chinese Indonesians, perhaps perenakan (ethnic Chinese living in Indonesia for numerous generations) and totok (recent Chinese immigrants)? Chaosdruid (talk) 11:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I'm very late to this discussion. But I'd like to share that in my family and among my friends, the term totok is used for more than just those who were born in China. It is broadly used for those who maintain strongly Chinese culture in their family, which in most context is to mean they speak a Chinese dialect at home. Here's a reference from [book] by Leo Suryadinata. Julius.kusuma (talk) 14:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "In the 21st century the conceptual differences of the two groups have become dated and do not sufficiently describe the development of Chinese communities" - What does this sentence mean?
It means that the terms peranakan and totok have become rigid in their definition. These days, you can't really categorize Chinese Indonesians exclusively as peranakan or totok. It should be more of a spectrum where peranakan and totok are the extreme ends. I'll find some way to rewrite this later. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 08:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Political activity
  • "As part of a resinification effort" - This means "as part of an effort to turn into resin"?
The root noun was "sinification", which is an alternate word for "sinicization". "Resinification" was the word used in the source; I've replaced it with the latter since it may be a more modern term. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 17:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
It is unfortunate that resin-ification existed then :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
  • "Because of these factors, they play" - who are "they"? "... factors, these dialects ..."?
Clarified —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 07:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
  • "oriental (Chinese, Arabs, and other Asians)" - I have never heard of Arabs being referred to as oriental.
Arabs were considered oriental peoples under the Dutch colonial system. This was an official designation that was also used in the old censuses. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 17:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
  • "the Chinese who lave lost their" - not sure what "lave" should be so have left it.
I think I intended on writing "have lost". Fixed to "had lost". —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 17:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Many instances of Chinese were/are incorrect as the term should be "ethnic Chinese" - to differentiate between Chinese, people born in China, and ethnic Chinese peoples, those of Chinese descent and Chinese immigrants, living in Indonesia.
  • "Scholars studying Chinese Indonesians" - A few sentences use scholars studying or writing, but these scholars are not mentioned - it may be considered OR unless backed up with a quote or cites, though there are instances where individual sentences are ref'd.
After doing a thorough pass, I've reworked many instances of both issues. Let me know if you still find specific issues. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 07:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the thorough work, Chaosdruid. I've already begun preparing my response to your questions, but I will wait until you are finished. :) —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 23:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, finished, over to you :¬) Good luck with promoting the article, it is indeed an interesting read. Chaosdruid (talk) 01:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)



At present the article says:

"In addition to the Sin Po group, which advocated Chinese nationalism, there was also a faction which argued for Chinese participation in Dutch political institutions such as the Volksraad and to improve their economic position while maintaining Dutch rule. This group criticized Sin Po's approach, and its movement culminated in the Chung Hwa Congress of 1927."

I think you have oversimplified the text [1].

The main points form the book are:

  • Some Dutch educated and rich CIs were in favour of Dutch rule and a Dutch nationality law. (this is the Dutch-oriented-movement)
  • They favoured participation in local politics and Dutch education as well as furthering the CIs economic position.
  • Kan Hok Huei was already the CI's representative on the Volksraad and he said that CIs were happy with Dutch rule and wanted Dutch nationality. (the Dutch-oriented-movement's representative and a spokesman for CIs)
  • KHH also said that CIs wished equality with the Dutch and Japanese.
  • The Dutch-oriented-movement's momentum culminated in the CHC in 1927 and the formation of the CHH in 1928
  • KHH was elected their president.
  • Kwee Tek Hoay, editor-in-chief of Panorama. showed some support for the CHH.
  • KTH criticised the Sin Po group for directing CIs towards China.

So it seems that (forgive the underlining, it is for highlighting only): the CI's "Dutch-oriented-movement already had representation on the Volksraad in the form of KHH; the culmination of the movement for Dutch-oriented-movement was the CHC and the formation of the CHH; it was not the CIs Dutch-oriented-movement that criticised Sin Po, but KTH.

I would probably rewrite it to something like this (bold is already existing text):

"The anti-Chinese sentiment spread throughout Java in 1918 and led to mass violence being carried out by members of Sarekat Islam on the ethnic Chinese in Kudus. Following this incident the left-wing Chinese nationalist daily Sin Po called on both sides to work together to improve living conditions because it viewed most ethnic Chinese, like most of the indigenous population, as poor. Chinese-Indonesians began to form into three distinct movements, each with widely varying views. "Sin Po" were the Chinese-nationalist movement which took their name from the newspaper that had advocated Chinese nationalism since 1910.

A second group was the Dutch-oriented movement, which argued for Dutch rule and Chinese-Indonesians to be made full Dutch citizens. This Dutch-oriented movement also wished for further participation in local politics, Dutch education for Chinese-Indonesians, and the furthering of the Chinese-Indonesian's economic standing within the national economy. Kan Hok Hui was was the Chinese-Indonesian representative on the Volksraad and a Dutch-educated Chinese-Indonesian would later become leader of the Chung Hwa Hui. He maintained that Chinese-Indonesians had no problem with Dutch rule, in fact he said that they wished to remain Dutch nationals. He went further though, saying that Chinese-Indonesians should be on equal legal standing with the Dutch and Japanese, something which proved him to be the most outspoken of the Dutch-oriented movement. The Dutch-oriented movement gained momentum and reached its peak with the Chung Hwa Congress of 1927 and the formation of the Chung Hwa Hui (CHH) party in 1928, with Kan Hok Hui elected as their president. The CHH received support from Kwee Tek Hoay, the editor-in-chief of the Panorama newspaper, who also criticised the Sin Po group for misguiding Chinese-Indonesians by pressuring them into a Chinese-nationalist stance."

I realise it is a little longer than previously, but I hope it make things a little more clear - it certainly does to me :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I've incorporated most of your proposed text into the section with some revisions. I've tried to stay away from using the term "Chinese Indonesian" until the history reached past the point where "Indonesia" as a nation is conceptualized. To prevent this article from becoming bloated, I've redacted Kan's personal views which may be more suited for his own article. You'll see this carried out with the general absence of names in the article, which I think would be more fitting for the list of Chinese Indonesians. Thanks again for the help. Feel free to edit it for clarity. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 12:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Pre FAC copyedit[edit]


I will take a look. I have compared diffs and it does seem like everything is pretty much the same apart from those two sections (lead and lit/media)

Once thing though, I cannot see any alt= on the images, at GA level all images should have alt=, to stop screen readers from reading out the file name, though there does not need to be an alt text. At FA the alt= and the alt text need to be there, i.e. [[File.Imagetitle.jpg|thumb|alt=Alt text describing the picture for those who are visually impaired|The picture shows this and that]] I have added one on the second image on the page - [2]

  • "They flourished in the period of rising nationalism" - Not sure what "they" is, the previous sentence deals with "Chinese society and culture" and the "three main pillars" - perhaps "These flourished ..." or if it refers to the society and culture "Chinese Indonesians flourished ..."
  • "... in the period of rising nationalism on the eve ..." - this is not clear if it is Indonesian nationalism. I would suggest "... in the period of rising Chinese nationalism on the eve ..." or "... of rising Chinese nationalism amongst the ethnic Chinese ..."
Literature and media

(Paragraph 1)

  • "believing it "will be influenced by the virtues of Chinese culture and Confucian values"." - needs a reference as it is quoted, but without saying where it is quoted from.
  • "The lifting of the Chinese-language ban" - when?
  • "The rise of China became an impetus" - what rise? It doesn't tell us what this rise is, or when it took place. "The rise of China's economic standing during 1990-2000 ..." or "The rise of China's role in world trade during the last twenty years of the 20th century..." or something like that (I know my dates aren't accurate, they are just examples :¬).

(para 2)

  • "the overwhelming majority, if not all," - quote, so needs a reference.
  • "One debate took place in the media" - when?
  • "primarily around ethnic Chinese districts" - was the it only showing that was prominent in ethnic Chinese districts, or was the exception to the rule only primarily around ethnic Chinese districts?
The exception to the rule was only around Chinese districts. Do you recommend another wording? Everything else should be fixed (except for the quotes, which I addressed below). —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 06:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

On a general note, I went to look up the book Kesastraan Melayu Tionghoa dan Kebangsaan Indonesia, when I did I found that the author was different on Google books [3]. I don't know if this is just something to do with the translation or not, but the article says Tan as the author; Google books says A. S. Marcus and Pax Benedanto?

Good job :¬) I really do wish you well for the FA! If you need any more help, by all means let me know and I will do whatever I can to assist you. Chaosdruid (talk) 04:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again! I'll respond to the more general comments first. When there are quotes, the next citation that appears in the prose is where the quote comes from. Does policy dictate otherwise? I didn't realize alt text is an absolute requirement again because I didn't see it in the criteria, though I suppose I should put them in anyway. The source author is not the same author of Kesastraan Melayu Tionghoa dan Kebangsaan Indonesia. The source is a citation for the fact that the book exists and is a well-known monumental publication. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 05:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
The alt= is part of MoS, and as MoS is something which all GAs and FAs have to comply with: "Alt text takes the place of an image for text-only readers, including those using screen readers. Images should have an alt attribute added to the |alt= parameter. See WP:ALT for more information"
To summarise those links, all articles have to have |alt=, though only at FA are they expected to have an accurate alt text added. It seems strange, I know, as I thought that GA would need the text, but there they are only interested in preventing the screen readers reading out those sometimes stupidly long filenames. AS for the quotes, I am pretty sure that if they are close to them you will be ok.
FA reviewers are pretty precise and specific so good luck once again! Chaosdruid (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

File:TMII Kong Miao Confucian Temple.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:TMII Kong Miao Confucian Temple.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Cheng Hoo1.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Cheng Hoo1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

File:COLLECTIE TROPENMUSEUM Reclame voor de film The magnificent chivalry TMnr 20018014.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:COLLECTIE TROPENMUSEUM Reclame voor de film The magnificent chivalry TMnr 20018014.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


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

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chinese Indonesians/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Aircorn (talk · contribs) 13:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC) Will review this over the weekend


  • I read the bold Indonesian Chinese in the lead and my first thought was what are the Indonesian people living in China called then? It is explained quite well in the identity section, but I would suggest either unbolding it so it doesn't stick out so much (it appears to be a historical term so this should not be an issue) or removing or moving it. It caused me a little confusion until I got to the identity section so i could do the same for other readers. This is just a suggestion and by no means a requirement.
  • Added historically
  • Such treatment also persisted in Indonesia with a majority of the population referring to them as orang Cina, orang Tionghoa Should there be an "or" between orang cina and orang Tionghos?
  • Chinese traders boycotted Portuguese Malacca after it fell to the Portuguese in the Capture of Malacca (1511), Would you consider piping this link and using the 1511 C[c]apture of Malacca.
  • The new harbor was selected... This is the first mention of a harbour yet the way it is written assumes it has already been mentioned.
  • Batavia became home to the largest Chinese community in the archipelago and remains so today, though the city has been renamed as Jakarta. Renamed as Jakarta? Would to Jakarta be better?
Reworded (differently)
  • The Indonesian Military under Suharto sided with the Christian and polythiest animist Dayak people in the wholesale slaughter of ethnic Chinese in West Kalimantan in Borneo. The Dayak had been converted to Christianity by western missionaries. Suharto instigated the massacres against the Chinese. The coup by Suharto was with the support of the American CIA.[58] Su. Whats up with this paragraph. It doesn't flow like the rest and I am not sure what it is saying.
  • With help from the Indonesian military, the Dayaks slaughtered thousands directly, up to 5000, then forced the Chinese to flee to the coast, and herded them into concentration camps. This could do with some work too. Either use "thousands directly" or "up to 5000". Too many commas in any case make it a bit confusing.
  • I think the last two paragraphs under "loyalty in question" were added by someone other than the original author. The prose is a bit stilted (short sentences) and it is not as coherent pus it is a little repetitive. Could it be incorporated better into this section; it is referenced and from what I am reading the anti communist massacre could do with a bit more detail. Maybe combine them into one paragraph or attach a sentence to the third one. You could even take the last sentence of the third paragraph and use it to start a forth one detailing the massacre. So far this is the only part where the prose has fallen down.
  • Nuked entirely, as they give undue weight to the issues with the Dayak. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I was worried you had forgotten this! I'll take a look later today. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Finishing off[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Apologies for the very slow review

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Spot checks (where I could access in Google books) were fine
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Extremely thorough
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    I felt comfortable that this was fair throughout
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    looks good
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Many images from Tropenmuseum collection. Happy with the rational for the one non-free image. Bit concerned about File:Chinese Indonesian origin distribution.png. The file it was derived from has been deleted [4] as a copyright violation. I have requested someone look at it from the Commons help desk. Everything else seemed fine to me. Good captions
  7. Overall:
    Again sorry for the delay. Just the one picture to sort out and I will pass this. On a side note I don't want to get into the Chinese traditional medicine debate, but I was a little uneasy about the "Food with healing properties," statement. Would think about softening that a bit (maybe "food said to have healing properties" or something). Won't change the status because of that though. AIRcorn (talk) 08:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Forbes list[edit]

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

  • The list doesn't seem to indicate their ethnicity. I see several probable Chinese Indonesian names, including the ones you indicated, but no RS on their ethnicity = no inclusion in the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

History of settlement in java[edit]

Rajmaan (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Chinese muslims in indonesia during the Ming dynasty[edit];jsessionid=DD19A62ED493B6EA46C7A588F959148B.journals?fromPage=online&aid=5725636

Rajmaan (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Population Numbers Don't Match Up[edit]

The 8.8 Million Estimate comes from a Jakarta News Article that cites a 3.7% percentage of the 237 Million population to be Chinese, however, the news article cites its numbers from the 2000 Indonesian Census. The census reports only 1.739 million Chinese, or 0.86% of the population. However, the figure does not include figures in 19 provinces. Ananta, Arifin & Bakhtiar (2003) would come to recalculate the numbers from the raw census data to 2,411,503 Citizens, or 1.20% of the population with an additional 93,717 or 0.05% as foreign nationals. Using a 1.25% to 237 Million, it comes out at ~3.0 Million Indonesian Chinese. In other words, the 8.8 Million is unfounded and should not be used. Either we pick the most plausible estimate (census data), or we list the several credible estimates. (talk) 06:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you've misread the article in The Jakarta Post as it clearly states it is from the latest census: "Indonesians of Chinese descent make up 3.7 percent of the country’s population of 237 million, based on the 2010 national census." The number 8.8 million was calculated backwards from the 3.7 percent figure given. Until an update from the 2003 study is available, we don't have a more specific number and thus are using this calculated figure. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 09:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I didn't misread, I know what Jakarta Post stated and explained it in my post. However, according to the 2010 census, there were only 1.739 million Chinese, or 0.86% of the population. In other words, that 3.7 percent is unaccounted for. You can't use data that's unaccounted for. The census report is accounted for, Ananta, Arifin & Bakhtiar's calculations using census data is accounted for, and RoC estimates are accounted for, or at the least credible. You can use any of those numbers, but not one that's unaccounted for. (talk) 11:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Based on the newest 2010 census (, the population of Chinese Indonesian was 2.832.510 or 1.20% of the total population of Indonesia. This number includes figures in all 33 provinces and exclude Chinese of foreign nationals, which is in line to Ananta, Arifin & Bakhtiar's calculations. Hand15 (talk) 06:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Borneo massacres in the 1960s at the start of the New Order[edit]

Dayak massacres against Chinese.

Rajmaan (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


The Chinese of Indonesia and the Development of the Indonesian Language Dédé Oetomo Indonesia The Role of the Indonesian Chinese in Shaping Modern Indonesian Life (1991), pp. 53-66 Published by: Southeast Asia Program Publications at Cornell University Stable URL: Page Count: 14

Languages of the Chinese of Java--An Historical Review Ellen Rafferty The Journal of Asian Studies Vol. 43, No. 2 (Feb., 1984), pp. 247-272 Published by: Association for Asian Studies Stable URL: Page Count: 26

Rajmaan (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Indonesian Chinese vs Chinese Indonesians[edit]

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

ZhuLien (talk) 02:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)