This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
History of Indonesia template. |
|
History Template‑class | |||||||
|
Indonesia Template‑class | |||||||
|
Why does Dutch East Indies ends at 1945? Japanese defeated the dutch in 1942. Peace. -- Nielswik (talk) 04:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
and where is entry about Portuguese occupation? (it should bebefore dutch). Peace. -- Nielswik (talk) 08:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
User:Merbabu wrote in his change history: "Kingdoms of Sunda are actually pretty minor anyway and probably should be removed)". I'm asking what is meant with 'minor' here? As per history books taught in elementary schools in Indonesia, these kingdoms have quite important influence to the history of Indonesia. They produced early texts (in statues and leaves) about early situations. They also involved in the conflicts between Western countries (Portuguese and Netherland) and the new emerging Sultanates (Banten/Demak/Cirebon). They had up- and down relations with eastern Javanese kingdoms like Majapahit. Even the founder of Majapahit, Raden Wijaya, is also a grandchild of a Kingdoms in Sunda. So I don't see why it is not important. DiN ( talk) 12:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I changed "Colonial Indonesia" to "European colonialism" the other day for a few specific reasons. It got changed back, in good faith, but I strongly believe we should use European colonialism. It's a question of accuracy.
It's a question of the subtlety of the English language, and we need to be very careful that we leave the correct impression and be specific such that we don't imply something that isn't quite correct. Kind regards -- Merbabu ( talk) 03:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Add Mongol invasion of Java into template, maybe? Kinh Duong Vuong ( talk) 06:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
User:Merbabu, User:Caniago: I'm asking you what about consistency come into with this whole articles Creptes ( talk) 14:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Template talk pages are not the best place for a conversation about such issues - please try the project page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indonesia - and try to make sure your english is saying what you are trying to say - very clearly Satu Suro 14:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Discussion about the changes as part of an apparent consensus to an obligatory(!?!) standardisation of templates is here. -- Merbabu ( talk) 11:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
First they appeared around "New Order", and later around "Guided Democracy". Anybody know why? Everybody else seems to have referred to these eras by those terms, without expressing agreement with what went on during them. And what about "Reformasi". Surelu italics and quotes is rather overdoing it. How about just italics? Davidelit (Talk) 16:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Recently I have thought of rearranging the periodization in this template to better reflect current academic consensus. The current one (more or less) follows the rather outdated periodization in the Indonesian national history textbooks, especially in dividing the premodern era into "Hindu-Buddhist kingdoms" and "Islamic sultanates" period. My biggest objection with these terms is that they don't apply to most of Indonesia (let alone the whole area) during the periods they are supposed to represent. For example, the islands east of Borneo and Sumbawa never had any Indianized polities whatsoever. Pasai had entered the Islamic period in late 1200s, while Gowa only entered it in early 1600s. On the other hand, Bali retained Hindu culture up until now. In addition, a good chunk of population in inland Sumatra and Borneo as well as several parts of Eastern Indonesia never entered "Islamic sultanates" period at all. The usage of hyphenated term "Hindu-Buddhist" is also not uncontroversial, and while many Indonesian Islamic states were sultanates, not all of them were (hence calling the period of their emergence as an era of "Islamic sultanates" is rather misleading). The addition of a "Christian kingdom" category (which is completely unattested as a periodization of Indonesian history) only make it worse. All in all, it seems to me that we better abandon these religion-based periodizations and use more neutral terms.
What I have in mind is to restructure the periods up to Indonesian independence into the following:
I use "early states" for polities supported by archaeological evidence and contemporary historical records ( Salakanagara won't fit into this category btw, because it is more of a legendary kingdom, only appearing in a much later manuscript of dubious provenance). The usage of the term "classical" for the period between 7th/8th to 15th/16th century is quite well-attested among historians of Indonesia, with some dividing it further into early (600s–900s), middle (900s–1200s) and late (1200s–1500s) classical periods. The transitional period between the 15th and 17th century is important in that Indonesian and Southeast Asian polities during this time became increasingly connected to the Eurasian world. Islam also started to gain foothold across the Archipelago, and regular contacts with Europe established. In the early modern period one can see a decline in native commerce and an increasing encroachment of European traders and colonizers. However, it wasn't until 1800s that the "real" colonization of most part of Indonesia began. Colonization was a gradual process, and as late as early 1900s, there were still Indonesian polities that are (at least nominally) independent from European colonization.
Alternatively, we can ignore the 1400–1600 transitional period and put the boundary between the classical and early modern periods at 1500, following the popular division, but to me there are too many continuation between 1400s and 1500s that putting a hard boundary between them is rather misleading. But that's my personal opinion anyway. Pinging @ Austronesier @ Gunkarta @ Merbabu @ HaEr48
Masjawad99 💬 08:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Can anyone add something to the template so it can generate captions for the image? Mhatopzz ( talk) 09:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
History of Indonesia template. |
|
History Template‑class | |||||||
|
Indonesia Template‑class | |||||||
|
Why does Dutch East Indies ends at 1945? Japanese defeated the dutch in 1942. Peace. -- Nielswik (talk) 04:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
and where is entry about Portuguese occupation? (it should bebefore dutch). Peace. -- Nielswik (talk) 08:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
User:Merbabu wrote in his change history: "Kingdoms of Sunda are actually pretty minor anyway and probably should be removed)". I'm asking what is meant with 'minor' here? As per history books taught in elementary schools in Indonesia, these kingdoms have quite important influence to the history of Indonesia. They produced early texts (in statues and leaves) about early situations. They also involved in the conflicts between Western countries (Portuguese and Netherland) and the new emerging Sultanates (Banten/Demak/Cirebon). They had up- and down relations with eastern Javanese kingdoms like Majapahit. Even the founder of Majapahit, Raden Wijaya, is also a grandchild of a Kingdoms in Sunda. So I don't see why it is not important. DiN ( talk) 12:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I changed "Colonial Indonesia" to "European colonialism" the other day for a few specific reasons. It got changed back, in good faith, but I strongly believe we should use European colonialism. It's a question of accuracy.
It's a question of the subtlety of the English language, and we need to be very careful that we leave the correct impression and be specific such that we don't imply something that isn't quite correct. Kind regards -- Merbabu ( talk) 03:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Add Mongol invasion of Java into template, maybe? Kinh Duong Vuong ( talk) 06:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
User:Merbabu, User:Caniago: I'm asking you what about consistency come into with this whole articles Creptes ( talk) 14:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Template talk pages are not the best place for a conversation about such issues - please try the project page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indonesia - and try to make sure your english is saying what you are trying to say - very clearly Satu Suro 14:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Discussion about the changes as part of an apparent consensus to an obligatory(!?!) standardisation of templates is here. -- Merbabu ( talk) 11:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
First they appeared around "New Order", and later around "Guided Democracy". Anybody know why? Everybody else seems to have referred to these eras by those terms, without expressing agreement with what went on during them. And what about "Reformasi". Surelu italics and quotes is rather overdoing it. How about just italics? Davidelit (Talk) 16:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Recently I have thought of rearranging the periodization in this template to better reflect current academic consensus. The current one (more or less) follows the rather outdated periodization in the Indonesian national history textbooks, especially in dividing the premodern era into "Hindu-Buddhist kingdoms" and "Islamic sultanates" period. My biggest objection with these terms is that they don't apply to most of Indonesia (let alone the whole area) during the periods they are supposed to represent. For example, the islands east of Borneo and Sumbawa never had any Indianized polities whatsoever. Pasai had entered the Islamic period in late 1200s, while Gowa only entered it in early 1600s. On the other hand, Bali retained Hindu culture up until now. In addition, a good chunk of population in inland Sumatra and Borneo as well as several parts of Eastern Indonesia never entered "Islamic sultanates" period at all. The usage of hyphenated term "Hindu-Buddhist" is also not uncontroversial, and while many Indonesian Islamic states were sultanates, not all of them were (hence calling the period of their emergence as an era of "Islamic sultanates" is rather misleading). The addition of a "Christian kingdom" category (which is completely unattested as a periodization of Indonesian history) only make it worse. All in all, it seems to me that we better abandon these religion-based periodizations and use more neutral terms.
What I have in mind is to restructure the periods up to Indonesian independence into the following:
I use "early states" for polities supported by archaeological evidence and contemporary historical records ( Salakanagara won't fit into this category btw, because it is more of a legendary kingdom, only appearing in a much later manuscript of dubious provenance). The usage of the term "classical" for the period between 7th/8th to 15th/16th century is quite well-attested among historians of Indonesia, with some dividing it further into early (600s–900s), middle (900s–1200s) and late (1200s–1500s) classical periods. The transitional period between the 15th and 17th century is important in that Indonesian and Southeast Asian polities during this time became increasingly connected to the Eurasian world. Islam also started to gain foothold across the Archipelago, and regular contacts with Europe established. In the early modern period one can see a decline in native commerce and an increasing encroachment of European traders and colonizers. However, it wasn't until 1800s that the "real" colonization of most part of Indonesia began. Colonization was a gradual process, and as late as early 1900s, there were still Indonesian polities that are (at least nominally) independent from European colonization.
Alternatively, we can ignore the 1400–1600 transitional period and put the boundary between the classical and early modern periods at 1500, following the popular division, but to me there are too many continuation between 1400s and 1500s that putting a hard boundary between them is rather misleading. But that's my personal opinion anyway. Pinging @ Austronesier @ Gunkarta @ Merbabu @ HaEr48
Masjawad99 💬 08:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Can anyone add something to the template so it can generate captions for the image? Mhatopzz ( talk) 09:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)