Talk:Indonesian National Revolution

"Military victory"

I know this topic has been discussed before but I just want to put my 50 cents on it.

I find the idea of this being a "Dutch military victory" for a lack of better term... is silly. Neither side had a military victory, nor defeat. Because neither side has actually defeated, and make the others capitulated. Honestly would be fine if "Dutch military victory" to be removed, which would make "Indonesian political victory" irrelevant, making it also removable. Wouldn't mind if:

• Indonesian political victory
• Dutch military victory

Were just removed. Because I feel like the two results mentioned above are just there so that either side could claim "Victory"

imho. A better "Result" would look like this:

• Independence of Indonesia from the Netherlands
• Dutch recognition of the Indonesian independence in the Dutch-Indonesian Round Table Conference
• End of Dutch Colonial rule over most parts of Indonesia (or End of Dutch Colonial rule over the East Indies (except New Guinea))
• Formation of the United States of Indonesia
• Creation of the Netherlands-Indonesia Union

These are subject to change based on suggestion of course, so I'm all ears. So yeah, thanks for coming to my ted talk. - EvoSwatch (talk) 09:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@EvoSwatch: IMO, if "Dutch military victory" and "Indonesian political victory" are referenced, I don't really see the issue.. It's just I am still unable to verify the reference in the article.

However, as I look up on this topics. I came across this publication published by Defense Technical Information Center (neutral source). It was mentioned that the result is military stalemate since Dutch forces were not able to prevail over the Indonesians, but were strong enough to resist being expelled. And Given this stalemate, the Republic of Indonesia ultimately prevailed in the conflict. Any comment on this source? Ckfasdf (talk) 11:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

The problem with the phrase "Dutch military victory" (the exact phrase used by Vickers, by the way) is that it makes the article vulnerable to the same kind of nationalist editing (on both 'sides') that plagues other articles, particularly List of wars involving Indonesia and Bersiap. I would have no problem with the changes proposed by EvoSwatch as the list is clearly factual, and avoids controversy. I would suggest the first line read "Independence of the United States of Indonesia from the Netherlands", though. Davidelit (Talk) 13:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Very well, it has been over a week, enough time has passed. If no one else have anything to add, I will do the edit soon. Though I prefer just ""Independence of Indonesia from the Netherlands" as USI doesn't exist yet during the war, only formed after the cessation of hostilities in 1949 hence the "Formation of the United States of Indonesia", it wouldn't make much sense for it to be free if it was also just got established after the conflict ended. EvoSwatch (talk) 05:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

@Rembo01, Ckfasdf, Vif12vf, 139.192.162.29, and 111.94.67.181: You will find a discussion here about why it does not say "Indonesia victory" in the infobox.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Either way, this and similar articles seem to burn a lot of editor's time discussing how to fill in the parameters of the all-important </sarcasm> infobox. --Merbabu (talk) 09:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Separating "Internal conflict" in infobox

Shouldn't the Darul Islam and People's Democratic Front have separate column from the Dutch forces? Currently it's being lumped together with the Dutch forces and only separated by a line. In my opinion, they being in the same column could cause confusion as some readers might interpreted it as they're co-belligerent, while the fact is that they're in conflict with both the republicans and colonial forces. Jauhsekali (talk) 05:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Page Protection

@Cal1407, Toddy1, and Kathleen's bike: Please add page protection for this, persistent sockpuppetry and IP vandalism. 182.2.50.179 (talk) 05:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Infobox "commander2" field edit war

There seems to be an edit war over whether the "commander2" field in the infobox should include Wilhelmina and Juliana.An IP editor clearly thinks it should, but never explains why (not even in edit summaries) which makes it very confusing.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]} The objection to this given by Pineapplethen was including Wilhemnina and Juliana is still impractical, since it is not said on the profile that they are directly involved in the military conflict.^[9] Please could somebody explain why they should be included.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are outlined below:

• There are several uncited sentences in the article, including an entire paragraph. Some of these have been tagged with "citation needed" since June.
• Some citations, such as "Piccigallo 1979", "Colin & Crey 1988" and "Ricklefs 1993" are used as inline citations, but the article does not give the full reference for them. What are these sources? If they cannot be identified, their use as inline citations should be replaced by another reliable source.

Is anyone interested in fixing up this article, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 19:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC)