Talk:History of Indonesia

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

This page is messed up so is the main Indonesia page[edit]

I cant believe you guys just totally gloss over the mass murder and destruction caused by the CIA and indoensian military against their paranoid fear of communism in indonesia. A paternalistic mindset which allows for huge foreign powers to feel they have a right to decide what occurs within a distant land which is newly independent is apparently considered neutral , normal, and mainstream on wikipedia. Both the history section and the normal page have very disturbing gloss-over references regarding the post-ww2 history of Indonesia. Essentially one gets the impression that Sukarno was "asking for it" and that everything turned out swell in the end, once those pesky 500,000+ "commies" got the axe. Very bad work by wikipedia, the rest of the Indonesia history article and main page seem alright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.184.155 (talk) 09:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

earlier comments[edit]

NB: I restored the Noam Chomsky quotes re the events of 1965; Sukarno section.

These had been present for a year prior to their summary deletion.

Davenbelle 00:53, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Announcing Wikipedia:Indonesia-related topics notice board[edit]

After some thought and consideration, I created an Indonesia-related topics notice board, along the same lines as other regional notice boards (such as those for Malaysia and Africa). This was established to coordinate efforts to improve Indonesia-related Wikipedia entries. If you've made contributions to Indonesia-related articles in the past, or would like to, please take some time to visit, introduce yourself, and sign the roster. --Daniel June 30, 2005 18:36 (UTC)

Steps to Improve History of Indonesia and related pages[edit]

At present, I believe that there is a dire need to create a series of History of Indonesia pages. These would be based on time periods in Indonesian history (e.g. Pre-colonial, Colonial, Post-Independence, Confrontation, etc.). This would let the article History of Indonesia be closer to a general summary-style page, and allow those who wish for greater depth to examine the articles on historical eras. That is, those who wish to examine Indonesia under Sukarno could look at a Post-Independence Era page, without being burdened by having to navigate stuff on the Majapahit.

To start off, I've created a template, that can be examined at Template:History of Indonesia. This template, applied to Indonesian history pages, would allow easier navigation for readers, as well as a greater unity for pages on historical events.

I'm asking for anyone with a very good knowledge and who's interested to please contact me so that this is a group effort. In particular, my weakness (being in a country that tends to tell the buleh side of things) is in the pre-colonial history of the archipelago. Especially helpful would be translations from Indonesian Wikipedia articles.

I am posting this message on applicable Talk pages, but I ask for comments to be directed to Wikipedia_talk:Indonesia-related_topics_notice_board. --Daniel 20:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the precolonial writings, excluded Srivijaya, are mainly centered on Javanese kingdoms. What about other kingdoms like Riau and Aceh of Sumatra, Gowa and Bone of Sulawesi, kingdom of Maluku, Kingdoms at Kalimantan etc. 141.213.240.242 05:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it is very java-centric, but even in Indonesian high school(I'm Indonesian student) precolonial history is only talk about kingdom in Java, Sumatra, and a little about Moluccas.Aditthegrat 08:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, most of Indonesian history centralized in Java, but we cannot disregard other kingdoms as well, like Kutai Kartanegara at Kalimantan. It's very important kingdom in Kalimantan histroy.141.213.240.242 19:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't argue that we're somehow Java-centric. But we were also thought about other pre-colonialism kingdoms from other places. Nobody can deny Kutai as the first Hindu Kingdom in Indonesia, or the grand Buddhist Empire of Srivijaya, or the history of Ternate-Tidore in the famous Spice Islands.Matahari Pagi 04:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest the writing of Sultanate of Aceh and Jambi articles. I hope that this article can be less Java-centric.Wai Hong 07:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that Indonesian version of Indonesian History has more articles and even lengthy. Since I am in no position to say anything about Indonesia, why don't the Indonesian wikipedians translate the articles to english. Another thing is that, it seems to me that this article is somewehat translated from a government books. If I am not mistaken, upon independence, there're several revolts through out Indonesia (excluding Java) like Kahar Muzakkar in Sulawesi and several others in Sumatra (Bukit Tinggi e.g.). Even in Indonesian version didn't state these.141.213.66.162 04:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you're thinking that the government is trying to hide those things from us, they're not. They might be a lot of things, but not in this case. It happens to be in schools all of us were taught about all those things that you mentioned. It just happened to be nobody seemed to be interested in writing it to Wikipedia. Matahari Pagi 04:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Annexation in east timor ?[edit]

East Timor join Indonesia after referendum and separate from Indonesia also with referendum, so I think there is no annexation or agressive attack from Indonesia to occupy east timor. _Annas_ 05:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly left by referendum - i understand there was no referendum or choice provided to join though. Where did you get that info from?? Furthermore, just because minimal resistance could be mounted, doesn't mean it wasn't an aggresive invasion. And it was certainly annexed - although in East Timor's case it was "aggresive" annexations aren't always so. --Merbabu 05:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The "alledged" CIA involvement in the 1965 coup[edit]

Exerpts From:
The Indonesian Massacres and the CIA
 by Ralph McGehee
Covert Action Quarterly, Fall 1990


By 1967, Richard Nixon was describing Indonesia as
"the greatest prize in the Southeast Asian area."
 If Vietnam has been the major postwar defeat
for an expanding American empire, this turnabout
in nearby Indonesia is its greatest single victory.
-(from the article)



"The killings were part of a massive bloodletting after an abortive coup attempt taking, according to various estimates, between 250,000 and 1,000,000 lives and ultimately led to the overthrow of President Sukarno's government.

"Since then a debate has simmered over what happened. A recent study based on information from former Johnson administration officials, asserted that "for months the U.S. "did their damnedest" through public pressure and more discreet methods, to prod the Indonesian army to move against Sukarno without success."

- CIA operative R.McGehee Ralph McGehee worked for the CIA from 1952 until 1977 and now writes about intelligence matters, notably the book Deadly Deceits -- My 25 years in the CIA (New York: Sheridan Square Press, 1983). He has compiled a computer data base on CIA activities. Persons interested may write to him at: 422 Arkansas Ave., Herndon, VA 22070.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA/McGehee_CIA_Indo.html

Released documents from CIA's own current pages:

https://www.odci.gov/csi/kent_csi/docs/v14i2a02p_0002.htm

Naomi Klein in her book 'Shock Doctrine' describes how General Suharto had received help from the Central Intelligence Agency in the States in eliminating thousands of leftists. The Pentagon supplied extra weapons and radio equipment and the US Embassy received regular reports on the progress of these killings. The massacre of half to one million was led by Suharto and carried out by religious students who set out to eradicate communists in the countryside. Klein lists an article published in 'Washington Post' in 1990 (Kathy Kadane, 'U.S. Officials' Lists Aided Indonesian Bloodbath in '60's') as her source in the footnotes. (Naomi, Klein, Shock Doctrine, Penguin, 2007, 67)


cleanup Nunamiut (talk) 23:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On recent edit[edit]

edited this out temporarily:

"At the same time, there are doubts about the CIA involvement with the fall of communist in Indonesia."

- doubts? official US historical records, washington post, CIA themselves, several CIA agents including the CIA head of south-east asian operations have documented this in abundance. see recent discussions and prviously provided external links in discussion pages on history and overtrow of sukarno.

Firstly, Sukarno and his movement was and has always been considered as the "non-aligned movement" and foremost Nationalist, not "communist".

"Sukarno became a leader of a pro-independence party, Partai Nasional Indonesia when it was founded in 1927. He opposed imperialism and capitalism because he thought both systems worsened the life of Indonesian people" (from the wiki article on Sukarno ).

Its difficult to get anywhere serious if one discredits what has become the new, recent, and current, mainstream version of events by calling it "POV". We are not talking about Gossip magazines here. The sources provided are from the BBC, The ITV, The National Security Archive, The Washington Post, The Guardian and are all very reputable and respected sources. (somewhat paraphrasing earlier similar comments by other users, but hopefully gets the point out).


" In his journal to America, Gie was surprised being accused as being manipulated by CIA to thrown his own anti-colonialism President Sukarno. As what he wrote in his diary and his article of student movement against Sukarno, his hatred to Sukarno and Indonesia Communist Party was purely caused by their ignorant '(ignorance?)'of people and their exploitation of the mass and he has had the opinion far before September 30th 1965. "
- communist party ignorant '(ignorance?)' of the people?
- communist party's "exploitation of the mass" ?
POV. source? a single intellectuals view?


There is of course an abundance of POV in mainstream media too, so let us _all_ _try_ to weed out the worst disinformation. sincerely John Smith (nom de guerre) 17:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That a supposedly encylopedic article on the history of Indonesia would gloss over the involvement of US/UK business and military leaders in the rise of one of the most vicious mass-killers in human history is ... pathetic.Trachys (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Macau vs Macao[edit]

Guys, give it a break. __earth (Talk) 06:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The Portuguese[edit]

Dear beloved Admins,

There is a missing history link in the Portuguese section. Portuguese did not explore directly to Maluku islands but tried firstly to explore Java island. To fill in this gap, I tried to add very important milestone of the Portuguese exploration in Java island. This history has been taught in Junior High School history curriculum in Indonesia. The milestone is as follow:

Portuguese started to get access to profiting spices trade by trying to form a coalition with Sunda Kingdom by accepting a crown prince of the kingdom invitation to make peace and trade treaty in 1512. In 1522 Portuguese tried to realize the treaty by firstly coming to Sunda Kalapa, the Sunda Kingdom’s port to sign a cooperation and erected a padrao there. [18] [19] Portuguese failed to realize this trade cooperation in the next years because 1452 troops from Cirebon – Demak alliance had forcefully conquered Sunda Kalapa in 1527. Portuguese went to the east, to Maluku, to have new access to pepper trade.

Regards, --Hadiyana (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent additions are clearer in establishing the significance of the events within the larger story. I have, however, summarised it to just the main essence for the overall flow of the article. We just don’t need to go into detail about treaties, dates, places, and people on this *summary* page – such detail belongs in a more detailed page such as Sunda Kingdom. Notice how the rest of the Portuguese section is very *broad* and not specific - please try to maintain this.
If you are still not convinced, I have spent some time shortening all the small details in this whole article and will continue to do so. We want a story about not just the main events, but most importantly how these events shaped Indonesia and its people – it’s not just a list of places, dates, and people. Such detail can go on Timeline of Indonesian History. kind regards --Merbabu (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Thank you for your kind cooperation. I just want to replace the words "indigenous kingdoms in java" with the words "Islam forces in Java" or "other kingdoms in Java" because the use of the word "indigenous" will give an impressin that Sunda kingdom was not an indigenous kingdom on Java island. Regards, --Hadiyana (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK - point taken. I used the word indigenous to clarify that it wasn't people from outside Java (Europeans, Aceh, etc) but Javan kingdoms. How about "other indigenous Javan kingdoms"? (PS, "Javan" is an interesting but rarely used Enlgish word. Different from "Javanese", it means from the island of Java and thus includes both Sundanese and Javanese. I don't think there is an exact Indonesian equivalent, right?) --Merbabu (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"other indigenous Javan kingdoms" is ok. Thank you, --Hadiyana (talk) 06:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Euphemisms[edit]

"They claimed they were acting against a plot organised by the generals to overthrow Sukarno. Within a few hours, Major General Suharto, commander of the Army Strategic Reserve (Kostrad), mobilised counteraction, and by the evening of 1 October, it was clear the coup, which had little coordination and was largely limited to Jakarta, had failed. Complicated and partisan theories continue to this day over the identity of the attempted coup's organisers and their aims. According to the Indonesian army, the PKI were behind the coup and used disgruntled army officers to carry it out, and this became the official account of Suharto's subsequent New Order administration. Most historians agree that the coup and the surrounding events were not led by a single mastermind controlling all events, and that the full truth will never likely be known."

This is part is close to reactionary history or "revisionism". Why would the PKI, already in power, start a coup against its own government? It's already fairly well documented that the only military coup that was conducted was the one perpetrated by General Suharto and the CIA. All sources more diligently scrutinized point out the CIA and the British involvement in the coup. During the coup massacres that followed the initial phase of the Suharto military coup the british even had one of their warships escorting Suhartos killers and death squads to the sites of the killings by boat. Renaming the Suharto military coup with euphemisms such as "The New Order" and "Transition to the New Order" after realising close to a million Indonesians killed seems to be less than honourable to their memory, but I guess innocent masses of poverty stricken people murdered by murderers who tilt to the extreme right by any modern standards of political analysis dont count as people who need any respect. As to euphemisms like "the full truth will never likely be known" it's close to pretending that the internet and libraries and research by several different NGOs and human rights groups has not taken place the last 44 years. But The full truth is getting out now luckily, thanks to the internet but Not thanks to wikipedia though it seems, since the writing of actual facts do not seem to interfere with some editors sense of historic objectivity. Nunamiut (talk) 23:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Er... the PKI were not in power - I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. Like your claim that "it's fairly well documented" (as well as your use of western political terms such as "right wing", yet alone the tale of British warships escorting Suharto's death squads - although it is difficult to travel across Java by ship) this would need a reliable source (see WP:CITE), and any edits would need to respect the WP:NPOV and WP:OR guidelines. Davidelit (talk) 06:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Indonesia. 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) 04:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Indonesia. 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) 18:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sultanate of Mataram[edit]

Hello. I have seen that the section for Sultanate of Mataram is completely unsourced. When I started looking for sources, I identified a potential copyright infregement issue, since it seems that the whole part is just copied from other sources, like the Encyclopaedia of Southeast Asian dynasties and the book Concise History of Islam. I added the sources in order to check this copyright problem and maybe remodify this whole paragraph. --Andcalvin (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested edit[edit]

Sorry I'm just a reader of wikipedia and not brave enough to edit myself ... I noticed in the "French and British interlude" section it jumps straight from Daendels building the post road to Raffles' expeditions against local princes, without explaining that the British had conquered Java. That was quite confusing. 146.200.10.211 (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Small confusion about a dating[edit]

I am puzzled, in the figure text of a statue it says "Megalithic statue found in Tegurwangi, Sumatra, Indonesia 1500 CE". Is that supposed to be 1500 BCE? 1500 CE is only 500 years ago, 1500 BCE seems to fit more with the associated text where it talks of megalithic structures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RomdalDK (talk • contribs) 11:27, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of Sulu and Manila in the subsection "Singhasari and Majapahit"[edit]

@Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.: You have added[1] Sulu and Manila to the sentence "... when its [Majapahit's] influence extended to much of southern Malay Peninsula, Borneo, Sumatra, and Bali".

For the inclusion of Sulu, you have givnm the fragmentary reference "Brunei Rediscovered: A Survey of Early Times By Robert Nicholl Page 12, citing: "Groenveldt, Notes Page 112". The source is available here[2], and "page 12" which bears this note "Groenveldt, Notes Page 112" is actually p. 43. But what does Nicholl actually say in his text? Here's the relevant excerpt:

Its [= Brunei's] own empire gone, it would appear to have shrunk to its heartland by Brunei bay. It now paid an annual tribute of 40 kati of camphor to the Majapahit Emperor. But worse was to follow. 1369 marks the absolute nadir of Brunei's fortunes, for in that year its former subjects the Suluks put it to sack. So utterly helpless were the Bruneis, that they had to be rescued by the Majapahit fleet, which drove out the intruders, who departed laden with enormous booty and taking the two precious pearls.

— Robert Nicholl, "Brunei Rediscovered: A Survey of Early Times"

So nothing is said here about Sulu being in the influence sphere of Majapahit. Sulu had been under Brunei's rule before. When Brunei became a Majapahit dependency, it lost its grip over its former subjects (including Sulu), according to the source.

The case of Manila is just as dubious. Rausa-Gomez, who is cited in support of the statement is very clear about it:

Some Philippine historians have assumed that what are apparently Hindic traits in Philippine culture originated from Java's Madjapahit. They have found their "facts" in sources which many modern Southeast Asian specialists regard as unreliable or questionable (p. 89) [...] To conclude, there are several historical fragments which allude to some relationship between the Philippines and Java, Brunei, and Borneo. However, not all scholars agree that Brunei and Borneo were truly vassal states of Madjapahit; no substantive historical and archeological findings have yet ascertained this fact.

— Lourdes Rausa-Gomez, "Sri Yijava[sic!] and Madjapahit"

Oddly, the citation to Rausa-Gomez is followed by the following text: "Lourdes Rausa-Gomez cited Sir Stamford Raffles, himself citing the "Traditional History of Java" wherein he said that Manila and Sulu in the Philippines were part of Majapahit, however she doubted the veracity of Stamford Raffles assertion due to the lack of archaeological evidence between Majapahit and the Philippines in her 1967 article. However, that article has been renderred outdated due to the discovery of the Laguna Copperplate Inscription in 1989 which proved links between Java and Manila, which makes her dismissal of the Raffles assertion null and the Raffles assertion feasible." This commentary of Rausa-Gomez is unsourced. Is it OR, or have you just "forgotten" another reference? Austronesier (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I based my additions from the geneological works of Mariano A. Henson and et. al. who stated that both Sulu and Manila were Majapahit vassal-states. However, I admit that his works might be a tad bit too dated or old as he published these in 1955, and you are citing more recent scholarship that have disputed the assertions he wrote once then. Until I find newer sources, I shall refrain from adding these again. Regards!
--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Change dating system to Common Era[edit]

I will be changing the dating system on this article away from the biased, Christian based AD/BC to the common era system next week.  This will bring the article into alignment with secular usage such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_India.  If you object, please state why you are ok with the biased system here. Eupnevma (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before you go changing AC BC please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style, specifically MOS:VAR. Also, instead of hundreds of discussions regarding the changes on hundreds of different talk pages, get a conversation going here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Thanks! Masterhatch (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Indonesia&oldid=1194449937"