![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article seems to be a bit of a confusing mess. For a start, there was no Indonesia before 1945. Leaving that aside, the definitions of "victory" or "defeat" make little sense, and are prone to WP:PEACOCK or WP:POV edits. For examples of the confusion, just take the first item, the Battle of Genter. Given that this was "a military engagement fought between two rival Javanese rulers", how can "Indonesia" be the victor? Wasn't it also the loser? Further down the list is the Dutch pacification campaign on Formosa, which didn't even happen in the East Indies, but is listed as a victory for Indonesia, while the the First expedition to Palembang, which "ended in a failure for the Dutch." was a defeat for "Indonesia", in this case represented by the Kingdom of Holland. Then the Dutch intervention in Bali is a "victory" for "Indonesia" as the Dutch beat the Balinese... But after 1945, i.e. the Indonesian National Revolution, the Dutch seem to have changed sides, so their defeats are victories for Indonesia, and thereafter "Indonesian victories" are just whatever the Indonesian military claimed when battling other Indonesians. I suggest that this article be renamed to Military conflict in the Malay Archipelago or something similar, the "Result" column simply name the victors, if any, and that conflicts outside the archipelago be removed. Any thoughts? Davidelit (Talk) 03:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
How come Indonesia listed in both side of combatant and the result is political defeat? It does not make any sense at all... if listed on both party, then it'll seems there's civil war happening. But then again it doesn't explain on how it's a political defeat. Heck, Indonesia is not even fighting or declared war (or even something like that) against anyone on that crisis. Ckfasdf ( talk) 10:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of wars involving Indonesia's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "chanwong":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
I think we need to define inclusion criteria on the article. If Indonesia is not directly involved in the war or only happen to have minor conflict within the war. With that being said, I propose to remove Operation Ocean Shield and Communist insurgency in Sarawak from the list. the rationale are as follows:
Since the article title has been renamed, and basically expand the coverage to not only includes "war" involving Indonesia military but also "military action". Again, we should define inclusion criteria on the article. I proposed to also include notable "military action", eventhough it's part of war that have been included earlier, such as Mapenduma hostage crisis (while it's true that this is part of Papua conflict, this event is notable enough to have its own article and there are no mention of this event on Papua conflict). Also I am a bit unsure whether we should include peacekeeping mission in the list, as it is definitely a military action. Ckfasdf ( talk) 07:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
I have renamed this article, and changed the wording to make it more WP:NPOV. The previous use of the term victory to describe results was unhelpful as this means the result was seen from the POV of the Indonesian government only. Davidelit (Talk) 04:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article seems to be a bit of a confusing mess. For a start, there was no Indonesia before 1945. Leaving that aside, the definitions of "victory" or "defeat" make little sense, and are prone to WP:PEACOCK or WP:POV edits. For examples of the confusion, just take the first item, the Battle of Genter. Given that this was "a military engagement fought between two rival Javanese rulers", how can "Indonesia" be the victor? Wasn't it also the loser? Further down the list is the Dutch pacification campaign on Formosa, which didn't even happen in the East Indies, but is listed as a victory for Indonesia, while the the First expedition to Palembang, which "ended in a failure for the Dutch." was a defeat for "Indonesia", in this case represented by the Kingdom of Holland. Then the Dutch intervention in Bali is a "victory" for "Indonesia" as the Dutch beat the Balinese... But after 1945, i.e. the Indonesian National Revolution, the Dutch seem to have changed sides, so their defeats are victories for Indonesia, and thereafter "Indonesian victories" are just whatever the Indonesian military claimed when battling other Indonesians. I suggest that this article be renamed to Military conflict in the Malay Archipelago or something similar, the "Result" column simply name the victors, if any, and that conflicts outside the archipelago be removed. Any thoughts? Davidelit (Talk) 03:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
How come Indonesia listed in both side of combatant and the result is political defeat? It does not make any sense at all... if listed on both party, then it'll seems there's civil war happening. But then again it doesn't explain on how it's a political defeat. Heck, Indonesia is not even fighting or declared war (or even something like that) against anyone on that crisis. Ckfasdf ( talk) 10:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of wars involving Indonesia's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "chanwong":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
I think we need to define inclusion criteria on the article. If Indonesia is not directly involved in the war or only happen to have minor conflict within the war. With that being said, I propose to remove Operation Ocean Shield and Communist insurgency in Sarawak from the list. the rationale are as follows:
Since the article title has been renamed, and basically expand the coverage to not only includes "war" involving Indonesia military but also "military action". Again, we should define inclusion criteria on the article. I proposed to also include notable "military action", eventhough it's part of war that have been included earlier, such as Mapenduma hostage crisis (while it's true that this is part of Papua conflict, this event is notable enough to have its own article and there are no mention of this event on Papua conflict). Also I am a bit unsure whether we should include peacekeeping mission in the list, as it is definitely a military action. Ckfasdf ( talk) 07:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
I have renamed this article, and changed the wording to make it more WP:NPOV. The previous use of the term victory to describe results was unhelpful as this means the result was seen from the POV of the Indonesian government only. Davidelit (Talk) 04:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC)