Talk:Dutch East Indies

Japanese magic surrender in WWII

Mention, in WWII, the Japanese were defeated by the allies and surrendered; otherwise the article reads as if they surrendered for no reason at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.197.56.204 (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

the 2011 upgrade

dropped in & had a quick peek: nice work by deverm and merbabu! a few comments: the undressed 'heritage in indonesia' section seems a bit meaningless now. (also the coca image seems a bit pointless now) anyway i think: either summarise the current & contemporary influence of the colonial era still visible in modern indonesia -or- delete the whole section. --KARL RAN (talk) 12:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The majority of that info was dispersed into separate sections on law, architecture, language, etc and into the economy section. This makes for much more coherent reading (and it avoids possible issues of balance with a section just to list "influence" which is not very encyclopedic. And, I just removed the last bit which seemed like a tidbit of someone's opinion. I'd suggest also finding a way to re-title or distribute the "Dutch Colonial Influence in netherlands" section. --Merbabu (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

gave it a first shot, still see quite a bit of potential areas for improvement. ill try to be back soon. krgds, Karl --KARL RAN (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC) ps. just browsed some articles to pick up a few ideas for benchmarking: British Empire in India and Company rule in India.

gave it a second shot (specifically on timeline/narrative). still a bit bothered with the many VOC refs: those shld mostly go somewhere else (seperately). ill be back. krgds, Karl --KARL RAN (talk) 13:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Lord Roem (talk) 03:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but this article qualifies under quick fail procedures due to at least one 'citation needed' tag. Lord Roem (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry too because you quick failed the article without valid reason. quick fail procedures clearly state that only a large number of 'citation needed' tags is reason for quick fail, not just a single one like you state. --DeVerm (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

DEI

very nice article. greatly improved from when i first read it. my compliments!

i noticed this sentence:

The colony was based on rigid racial and social categorisations with a Dutch elite living separate but linked to their native subjects.

is very prominent (and undoubtedly very true), but the statement isnt explained (or referenced for that matter) anywhere. should be interesting to elaborate on this as it seems, from the last chapter in this article, that the vast majority (75%?) of Dutch nationals in the colony were in fact native indo-europeans (i.e. eurasians).

warm regards, --Ms.Finesse (talk) 00:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

See the first paragraph after the table in the Social History section. It’s referenced to two sources. With regards to the Eurasian population, they were indeed, for the most part, in a social class separate to the rest of the population. --Merbabu (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dutch East Indies/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: – Quadell ^(talk) 18:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Original reviewer: Si Trew (talk) 08:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Nominator: User:DeVerm

I have made a lot of copy edits but it is a struggle with this one. It is actually quite a good article but it is a hell of a lot of work to get it there. I assume the author is Dutch and speaks English; I am English and speak some Dutch. So I have changed things for ENglish style but this does need some work on it. I am going to save this now then do a proper GA review to note the points; I think we could get here to GA with cooperation. Si Trew (talk) 09:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Simon, thanks for taking up this review! I think the main editors of the last year or so have been User:Merbabu and myself. I am the English speaking Dutchmen you were referring to but I think Merbabu lives in Australia. I have been looking at your edits and would never have come up with those (actually never noticed the problems) so your help is much appreciated :-) Let me know what I can do --DeVerm (talk) 14:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC).

I had the misfortune to get married in early August, so sorry for being away from this article for so long. I will do copy edits for English style in the article itself, but please feel free to revert any you are not happy with, if I accidentally change your meaning, A.U.B. please revert or change them back if I mistakenly change your sense. Si Trew (talk) 12:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

2nd review

Greetings. I am willing to take over this review. It is quite a long and involved article, and it will take me a couple of days. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

IMO (as perhaps the articles main contributor), I don't think it is ready for GA. It was nominated without consultation with other editors. There is still a lot of work to be done, and I am not sure how well that will work with a GA review in the background. However, the feedback could be useful. just saying. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 00:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to have to concur with Merbabu here. Due to the huge improvement/rewrite that the article is currently undergoing (50 edits in the last 4 days), I'm going to have to quickfail this article for stability issues. The article has many strengths, and after this current round of improvements are done it stands a very good chance of attaining GA status. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 12:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank íou for taking this over. It DOES need rewrite for UK style, which is whz I took so long trying to put it that way, to no good effect. It failed first time as quick delete and it will fail again. If we work together then we might get there together to get it to GA, but if Mirabu is so up his own arse that it is a good article let him take it on his own. Geen Gezuur. Si Trew (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Simon, I took the time to be very specific about the issues with your editing - note all the edit summaries I left. Perhaps I wasted my time and a hard revert would have been better? You'l also notice I made a more general comment on your talk page about your edits. I note you still haven't fixed your keyboard. --Merbabu (talk) 14:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Army section

Im slightly puzzled by this:

"On the eve of the Japanese invasion in December 1941, Dutch regular troops in the East Indies comprised about 1,000 officers and 34,000 men, of whom 28,000 were indigenous." ref:[54]

"At the time of disbandment (1950) the KNIL numbered 65,000, of whom 26,000 were incorporated into the new Indonesian Army. The remainder were either demobilised or transferred to the Netherlands Army." ref:[57]

I havent read the books quoted, but how did the KNIL go from 35,000 (1941) to 65,000 soldiers (1950)? Are these numbers right / correctly quoted from the refs?

--KARL RAN (talk) 23:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Ps. Youve been a busy bee ms.finesse. nice work, keep it coming.

personally, I don't see the need for the section. Some of the main points can be pushed into other sections abd the other details should go into the main army article. What's next? A section on the postal service!?!?! I've already started removing the repeated info, and other info that really should be in the detailed articles. The article is getting close to it's maximum size and cannot keep expanding forever. regards --Merbabu (talk) 00:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree managable chunks are important to keep it readable. perhaps we need some sub-sections one layer down at some places. i was thinking about that for my own contributions in the 'Law and admin' section. what is the maximum size if i may ask, merbabu?

w/rgd to this particular (KNIL) section by Msfinesse: i dont think there are "country" articles that do NOT have a section on their military. Also the cultural sections contributed by gunkarta i find belong here to give an allround picture of what DEI was. im sure the article can be slimmed down, but to be honest: i actually dont feel this picture is complete yet.

Moreover i think its nice, recomendable and important (not only for this article, but for wikipedia in general) to have "new" good faith editors involved (and stimulated to stay involved).--KARL RAN (talk) 00:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not recommend inserting sub-headings, particularly in high level summary articles such as this one. Articles such as Indonesia and (2 year old versions of) Australia are good cases in point – a single level of headings shows good discipline in information handling. It’s OK to insert sub-headings into more specific articles though. Look at The Joshua Tree for another example of single heading info only.

Also, this is not comparable to a country article – the DEI was certainly not a country - and the article can't be readily compared to country articles. Further, the info box has always been clumsy insertion that I’ve spoken against before – I’d be happy to get rid of it anyday, as a few others have suggested over the years.

The recently added sections on Art, Culture, Science and Cuisine I think are OK, but I think there can be some re-arrangement. Maybe combining them into one section could help. Some things really seem a little odd, like calling Sukarno’s Dutch language writings as “Dutch literature”.

Also, we need to keep in mind that this is an article about the Indonesian archipelago from 1800 to mid-20th century. While Dutch people or their culture was indeed part of this important, it’s only part of the picture. Remember, the Dutch were a tiny minority and not at all representative of culture and people in the archipelago during these years.

As for POV, I’ve always been wary but not completely opposed to using either Indonesian or Dutch sources – ie, the former’s POV tends to be all about “the glory of the revolution” whereas the latter’s POV is often about the “the natives/savages should be thankful the white man brought them civilisation”. There are ample non-Indonesian and non-Dutch resources to use in their place.

That’s all for now. :-) --Merbabu (talk) 01:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

PS - I agree that the Law and Admin section is too long, and much of the info can be pushed into linked sub articles. --Merbabu (talk) 01:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Map

Regarding this map, was New Guinea part of the Netherland East Indies or a separate colony? 218.250.156.249 (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Historically Western New Guinea was always the part of the whole Dutch East Indies. However unlike the western parts of Dutch East Indies (esp. Java and Sumatra) where the natives are more politically and socially advanced that resulted in natives' demand for independence resulted in Indonesian national revolution (1945-1949), the natives of Western New Guinea is far less developed that barely coming out of their tribal way of life and have no demands for independence (well.., at least at that time). As the result the return of Dutch colonial administrations after World War II faced no oppositions from natives that enable Dutch to occupy the Western New Guinea from 1949 to 1962. The Dutch controlled Western New Guinea and planned to prepared Dutch Western New Guinea as a separate national entity, separated from Indonesia. At that time the former colonial power were enabled to separate their former colonies in several independence states; for example Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei are whole former British Southeast Asian posessions that finally separated into several states. In 1962 the Republic of Indonesia enforced its previous claim that all former Dutch East Indies territory are Indonesian's, and today the territory has become Indonesian province of Papua and West Papua. Gunkarta (talk) 14:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

POV = "Sounds like Dutch apologist for colonialism"

One editor complains that scholarly RS that analyze the Dutch infrastructure engineering on roads, railways and ports "Sounds like Dutch apologist for colonialism." That to me sounds like POV based on anti-Dutch sentiment by an editor who did not read the scholarly articles that make the specific points. The editor is reminded that all wiki editors have to lay aside their personal political prejudices when working here. If there is reliable evidence for example that the independent Indonesia government rejected the Dutch infrastructure and created their own system the editor should ADD it not erase what the cited RS say--I believe that he will find zero evidence that Indonesia rejected the Dutch engineering work. Rjensen (talk) 07:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You need to read WP:AGF. And "pot calling the kettle black" springs to mind too. Instead of throwing insults at long time editors, perhaps you could be decent enough to actually discuss the content of their reason. --Merbabu (talk) 07:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

So, a Dutch editor, quoting a Dutchmen's broad brush opinion with no explanation, is a reliable and neutral source? And I'm Father Christmas. At least he should provide an explanation of his vague assertion. --Merbabu (talk) 08:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

the content is based on a RS by Ravesteijn, which says "With these public works, Dutch engineers constructed the material base of the colonial and postcolonial Indonesian state." for the record: I am an American not Dutch and interest actually is in railways around the world; and I have no POV on the Dutch or Indonesia. Let's now hear Merbabu claims that he tries to be neutral? Unfortunately Merbabu repeatedly announces his personal POV in his edit summaries. (Specifically: ". Sounds like Dutch apologist for colonialism."; "the (Dutch) source makes out the Dutch were doing the locals a favour.") Wiki rules (at the bottom of every edit page) say it clearly: "Please maintain a neutral, unbiased point of view." An anti-Dutch point of view undermines one's credibility, as does the unfortunate sarcasm of "Father Christmas" Rjensen (talk) 08:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be based on facts, not the opinions and vague assertions. The Dutch build X km of railway is fact. The Dutch infrastructure forms the basis of Indonesian infrastructure is a vague assertion. That is the issue. Why are you so keen to push vague assertions? I'm am no more anti-Dutch than you are pro-Dutch. Again, pot kettle black. Indeed, either Indonesian or Dutch sources are problematic in such an article. They are both great at sugar coating their POV. --Merbabu (talk) 08:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Well no, Wikipedia is based not on what editors might consider "facts" but on the conclusions of reliable secondary sources, such as the articles by Ravesteijn published in scholarly journals. As for Dutch scholars of Indonesia, I know several and they are very hostile to Dutch colonialism, so the effort by Merbabu to discredit solid scholarship based on the ethnicity of the author is deplorable. He should actually read the article he is so vociferous about (I will be glad to send a copy). Rjensen (talk) 08:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

one Dutch historian does not provide a consensual view of Indonesian history - my memory of doing fieldwork in central java some time ago is that during the Second World War - the level of either destruction of or removal of large amounts of the dutch era infrastructure, and the subsequent Sukarno era a significant lapse into of ruin due to lack of maintenance suggest that the glorious days of the dutch is a flag waving piece of rubbish - specially when it comes to the railway system - the Sukarno era Indonesia hardly managed to keep it working... If indeed it is possible to maintain a neutral unbiased point of view - it would be fairer to find other sources that can verify such flag waving.

I believe that he will find zero evidence that Indonesia rejected the Dutch engineering work - having seen with my own eyes former significant amounts of infrastructure that was (1) destroyed and or removed by the Japanese, (2) blown up by Indonesian independence fighters (3) left to go to ruin due to lack of funds in the Sukarno era to maintain - I think such a claim is a dangerous one to make... SatuSuro 08:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

As Indonesian I don't have problem to acknowledge that some of present infrastructure in Java and Sumatra were the legacy from Dutch East Indies colonial era. Remember only Java and Sumatra, other islands are virtually without adequate infrastructure. Colonial Dutch did built railroad network in Java, but as Suro said; much were depleted or destroyed in subsequent wars. Yet one should be careful not to made false presumption that native Indonesian could not build their own country after the departure of their colonial master in early 50s. Much of depleted infrastructures are repaired, being maintain and expanded, such as train signals, rail wooden bases were changed to concrete ones, build new bridges and build new roads including expresways (toll roads). Yet one should remember for what purpose did the Dutch colonial build all these infrastructures? for further colonize and exploit the island of Java and Sumatra. Railroads are essential to transport cash-crops commodity such as tea, coffe, quinine etc. In Sumatra railroads are to transport coal. It is about economic exploitation, nothing altruist about that. And the race segregations on three race class: European, Foreign Orientals, and Native at the bottom of food chain (separating native educated nobles) are pretty much similar to apartheid. The different between Indonesia and South Africa is Indonesia did expell their colonial masters through using violent war in the region (WWII and war of independence 1945-1949), while South African natives reconcile with their European colonials.Gunkarta (talk) 10:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

the Japanese did indeed blow up a lot of infrastructure. But once a complex system is built, the routes are surveyed & laid out, the blueprints are kept and it's much easier to rebuild than to start fresh. The Indonesians did not start anew, they repaired and used the Dutch system. The POV comes when editors try to suppress/erase or teach moralistic lessons --putting emphasis on words such as "altruism" and "exploitation" that are not in the RS, or assuming anyone with a Dutch name must be a spokesman for colonialism. Rjensen (talk) 11:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

An "RS" is not the sole criteria for inclusion. I removed it because it was "vague" and ill-defined statement with absolutely no qualification. It would have us belief that Indonesian infrastructure is based on what "Dutch engineers" built. And since when is a good wikipedia article a collection of cherry picked opinions? I know throwing accusations of bias is easier, but please address this. --Merbabu (talk) 11:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear - what a complex cross-changing between issues - there is no offering of another WP:RS that either complements/corroborates or contras the single source that all this started from, and despite the classic form of argument repeat the info the same way often enough and it is true, there is nothing that has happened since that helps corroborate the argument given. Japanese actually physically removed vast amounts of materials as much as destroying , and independence fighters destroyed items that were symbolic of the exploitation... the whole overall picture is far more complex throughout indonesia to allow for single quotes or references to carry such a generalisation, and as much as it is obvious that we all come to the issue from quite different points of view - a single claim to a single dutch source of indonesian history is still problematic and should be considered as such, rather than defended as an accurate comment SatuSuro 11:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Since when Marbabu asks? since wikipedia set the rules about WP:POV and WP:RS . The rule here is that is there are alternative or conflicting approaches both based on RS, then both must be included and neither deleted. (The statement at issue here is a quote from an international scholarly journal published by John Hopkins in USA: "With these public works, Dutch engineers constructed the material base of the colonial and postcolonial Indonesian state.") Merbabu has not provided his RS for asserting that the articles in question can be challenged. Nor has Merbabu said he tried "maintain a neutral, unbiased point of view." (A core Wiki rule repeated at the bottom of every edit page). I'm not sure where Suro is getting his information about the infrastructure issues. Ravesteijn has a book and numerous articles on the topic and is summarizing his findings. Our job as editors is to report findings published in RS. Rjensen (talk) 11:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, I should have asked since when is a good wikipedia a collection of *quoted* cherry picked opinions. Could you answer that? Again, the opinion is a one-liner, it is unqualified and it is vague. What should the reader glean from it? That Indonesia had no infrastructure before the Dutch? That 60 years on, that despite great population and economic growth that has occurred since then that the "material basis" is what the "Dutch engineers built"? What does that even mean? What about the transition? It does not help the article as it is written here.

Please stop linking to wikipedia fundamentals to long term editors. Implying long term editors need to read those pages is uncivil. --Merbabu (talk) 11:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

is this the same Merbabu who started this discussion by advising me "You need to read WP:AGF" ?? Is he ready to tell us the RS he is using to make his judgments on the infrastructure? Rjensen (talk) 04:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

This was a long discussion from some time ago. I think the point is: why include that quote? It is clear that anything constructed under whatever rule or reign contributes to works in that time, and likely later on. It therefore does not serve a purpose of informing on anything. I also like to add while Dutch engineers designed the constructions, it were the local workers who actually built it, not Dutch. The quote stands out as strange, may indeed invoke a sense of propaganda and does not serve a purpose, I propose to delete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Errenneff (talk • contribs) 09:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Name

So all the maps and atlases I have, from the first half of the 20th century, label this country as "N.E.I" and I am pretty sure that "N" is not the initial letter of the word "Dutch".

A search of newspaper references from the period suggests the same thing. Is "Dutch East Indies" the proper name for this country during that period? Eregli bob (talk) 08:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Sports

File:Dutch East Indies players 1938.jpg

Dutch East Indies players 1938

Are we not missing a section on sports? DEI competed in the 1938 FIFA World Cup. First Asian team ever to do so! 4 years earlier they beat Japan at the Far Eastern Games with 7-1. --Ms.Finesse (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm - not sure that is all that notable for its own section. Consider incorporating into another section. The article has a lot of sections. --Merbabu (talk) 01:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Grand Mufti

Some Arab Indonesians served in Islamic clerical positions under the Dutch colonial administration, working with the Dutch government as Grand Muftis or in other capacities.

ʻUthmān ibn ʻAbdallāh ibn ʻAqīl ibn Yaḥyā al-ʻAlawī 1822-1914 was the Grand Mufti of the Dutch East Indies, based in Batavia. He was of Arab Hadhrami descent and worked with the Dutch colonial authorities, advising them on Islamic matters.

http://books.google.com/books?id=IbhIAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA22&dq=uthman ibn aqil&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tE8qU533BsjD0QG6qIDoBw&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=uthman ibn aqil&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=r6ZQfWHzP0wC&pg=PA283&dq=uthman ibn aqil&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tE8qU533BsjD0QG6qIDoBw&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=uthman ibn aqil&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=aYtWAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA131&dq=uthman ibn aqil&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tE8qU533BsjD0QG6qIDoBw&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=uthman ibn aqil&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=H3nHpsDBm6QC&pg=PA301&dq=uthman ibn aqil&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tE8qU533BsjD0QG6qIDoBw&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=uthman ibn aqil&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=MUCqtpESbu0C&pg=PA84&dq=uthman ibn aqil&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tE8qU533BsjD0QG6qIDoBw&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=uthman ibn aqil&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=S3nlvRJyjUEC&pg=PA177&dq=uthman ibn aqil&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tE8qU533BsjD0QG6qIDoBw&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=uthman ibn aqil&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=WRMZ4Q4yezAC&pg=PA529&dq=uthman ibn aqil&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tE8qU533BsjD0QG6qIDoBw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=uthman ibn aqil&f=false

https://archive.org/details/akj9492.0001.001.umich.edu

http://www.amazon.com/Kamus-kecil-Uthman-Abdallah-Yahya/dp/B003R7JXL0

http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&field-author=Uthman ibn Abdallah ibn Aqil ibn Yahya Alawi&page=1&rh=n:283155,p_27:Uthman ibn Abdallah ibn Aqil ibn Yahya Alawi

http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/browse?type=subject&index=15544&key=alawi uthman ibn abdallah ibn aqil ibn yahya&c=x

http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/browse?type=lcsubc&key=ʻAlawi, ʻUthmān ibn ʻAbdallāh ibn-ʻAqīl ibn-Yaḥya&c=x

http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/browse?type=lcsubc&key=ʻAlawī, ʻUthmān ibn ʻAbdallāh ibn ʻAqīl ibn Yaḥyā, d. 1914&c=x

http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/browse?type=author&index=5775&key=alawi uthman ibn abdallah ibn aqil ibn yahya d 1914&c=x

http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=ʻAlawī, ʻUthmān ibn ʻAbdallāh ibn ʻAqīl ibn Yaḥyā, d. 1914&c=x

http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=ʻAlawī, ʻUthmān ibn ʻAbdallāh ibn ʻAqīl ibn Yaḥyā, d.1914&c=x

Rajmaan (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Source regarding administrative courts

@DeVerm: I'm trying to understand your revert of my recent edit. From what I understood, you removed a reliable source because you disagree with the conclusion drawn, which is inappropriate. I'm assuming that I may have just misunderstood your reasoning since the opinions of editors don't take precedence over a verifiable claim based on a reliable source. What exactly is the issue here regarding the source's claim that the Dutch were unable to establish administrative courts? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@MezzoMezzo: Hi MezzoMezzo, yes you misunderstand me. I checked the reference and think it is valid, no problem there. The point is that this issue is in play in a later period, after 1949 (independence) and thus it is not the Dutch East Indies anymore so should not be in this article, but in history of Indonesia article/section. The source also specifies 1950 as date frame that the issue came up. DeVerm (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

@DeVerm: I get it now, thank you so much. I'm guessing that Judiciary of Indonesia would be a better choice, then? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@MezzoMezzo: Exactly. The Judiciary_of_Indonesia#Administrative_Courts does not have any history at all; starts in 1986 when the court is finally established. Also, the whole Judiciary of Indonesia article should get a better introduction and link in the Indonesia article where only a small mention about courts, not even this one, is made in the government section. The Judiciary should get a small section there as well, with the link to Judiciary of Indonesia as it's main article. Lot's of work to do :) DeVerm (talk) 14:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

User:DeVerm, challenge accepted. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

new book on The Emergence of Movie-Going in Colonial Indonesia, 1896-1914

For the theatre and film section, this new book looks relevant: The Komedi Bioscoop: The Emergence of Movie-Going in Colonial Indonesia, 1896-1914 by Dafna Ruppin, 2016, John Libbey, distributed by Indiana University Press. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 18:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dutch East Indies. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726053035/http://www.dutcheastindies.webs.com/index.html to http://www.dutcheastindies.webs.com/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726053035/http://www.dutcheastindies.webs.com/index.html to http://www.dutcheastindies.webs.com/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614232909/http://www.wiratman.co.id/ximages/architecture.pdf to http://www.wiratman.co.id/ximages/architecture.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 00:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Overly long Administrative divisions section

The Dutch_East_Indies#Administrative_divisions section contains a rather long list of subdivisions, and I feel that it disrupts and distract from the "prose" style of the rest of the article. For example, we don't list all the Kabupatens in the Indonesia article. Would it be better to leave a summary here and split the list into a list-style article? What do people think? HaEr48 (talk) 07:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dutch East Indies. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.nrcboeken.nl/boek/in-indie-geworteld-druk-1-meijer-h
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.nrcboeken.nl/boek/in-indie-geworteld-druk-1-meijer-h
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090817070552/http://www.imes.uva.nl/research/IMESsecondthirdgenerationsDutchEurasians.html to http://www.imes.uva.nl/research/IMESsecondthirdgenerationsDutchEurasians.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 02:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

slavery, widow burning, head-hunting, cannibalism, piracy, and internecine wars

Why was "As the Dutch secured the islands they eliminated slavery, widow burning, head-hunting, cannibalism, piracy, and internecine wars." removed?

I believe their prevalence were greatly reduced as the Dutch secured the islands, but it would be inaccurate to say that they were eliminated. JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 02:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

exploitation and forced labour

I find it strange that the cultuurstelsel and coolies are within the section of History, while both were essential for the economy. Also, the section economy does not tell the whole story behind the profits from agriculture and industrialization. Profits could only be as high due to extortion of chinese workers. Also, while the cultuurstelsel was abolished, involuntary servitude has always been in place, and remained. This included work on roads and railroads and other transport, bridges and irrigation and so forth. All this infrastructure came about by the labour of locals. Not of Dutch labourers. Another aspect I will add is the massive contribution of forced labour in the penal system. Errenneff (talk) 09:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Unreferenced Slave Punishments

In the slavery section there's a paragraph that describes several punishments used on slaves, but it doesn't give references. I haven't been successful in finding references for punishments more specific than beating/killing, but I'm hesitant to remove the paragraph— I want to avoid whitewashing, and I recognize that I might not be someone who's able to adequately research intense slave torture. If anyone could find some good references for the paragraph, that would be great!— maybe some articles in Dutch or Indonesian (which I can't read) would have useful information. If no references are found for a while I may end up significantly watering down the paragraph to something I can find references for.

And maybe the paragraph as is is just WP:TOOMUCH even if it does get referenced, but I'd prefer to hear some more thoughts before changing it for that reason. Any opinions on this? Placeholderer (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

These references are from the book `Daar werd wat gruwelijks verricht` by Reggie Baay. The book is quite explicit in its descriptions of coolie and slave punishments.

I shall add references, a moment LouisBStevenson (talk) 10:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

All right, I have added the references with specifice page numbers. LouisBStevenson (talk) 10:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)