Wikipedia

Talk:Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation/Archive 1

< Talk:Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Eastfarthingan in topic Result of the conflict
Archive 1
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

earlier comments

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

This page should get a new name - it's only called the Indonesian Confrontation from the Malaysian point of view. I'm not sure what a good name would be. Maybe Indonesia-Malaysia Confrontation? There's a redirect for Konfrontasi, and that's the name I'm familiar with, but it breaks the "use english words in titles" style rule. I think there must be a better name that I'm not thinking of. Ideas? Some editing wouldn't hurt either... -Cdc 03:38, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Never mind, I decided Indonesia-Malaysia confrontation is just fine, so that's where we are now. hooray.. now about that editing... -Cdc 03:45, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Okay, now I'm editing (and talking to myself, apparently...) I'm putting a few sentences here that don't fit with my understanding of the events, but I'd like to reconcile these different stories - basically, I know the Confrontation as an student of Indonesian history/politics - the original writer was apparently more familiar with the Malaysian side.. no reason these can't agree. Anyway, stuff I deleted:

Indonesia claimed Sarawak and Brunei
(I understood it more as sukarno arguing (unfairly, perhaps) that malaysia was a british pawn, and basically using the confrontation to stir up nationalist sentiment domestically, where life was pretty rough at the time). My sources don't make a mention of specific claims of rights to territory; Sarawak/Brunei were never Dutch colonies.. but maybe I'm wrong?
The vote was organized in Sabah and Sarawak regions and the creation of the federation (Malaysia Day) was to be postponed to September 16 so that UN teams could gather votes from Borneo. After the UN presented a pro-Malaysia report...
Per Ricklefs, History of modern Indonesia since c.1300, the federation was declared on 16 sept, before the results of the referendum were reported, angering sukarno. I'm changing to that version.
There's lots of internal Indonesian politics that are needed to really understand why Sukarno picked this stupid fight - that'll have to wait.

-Cdc 04:46, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think Konfrontasi would be a better name, for the same reasons why German Air Force leads to Luftwaffe. Second, it is used in the two countries most concerned. Third, it's simpler and more intuitive, and I don't think anyone will search Wikipedia for "Indonesia-Malaysia confrontation". Grant65 (Talk) 13:31, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • I believe the page used to be called Konfrontasi though I'm not sure when (or why) the name was changed. I agree that it was probably a better name. Cjrother 18:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
I'd suggest it stay here, per the "Use English names" convention. I know "Konfrontasi" is the most commonly used term in Indonesia and Malaysia, and is commonly, but not exclusively, used in the English literature, but I think in the context of this general encyclopedia, it's a vague term, and better left a redirect. CDC (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
I speak from the Singaporean perspective, and yes, I do feel Konfrontasi is a better page title, partly because it is almost always refered to as such here (maybe because Singapore is apparantly left out of the title).--Huaiwei 14:28, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

If there are no further protests in one week, I will be moving the article back to Konfrontasi. I would also like to further point out with regards to the use of "English names", that Konfrantasi is the term reguarly used in English texts describing that incident.--Huaiwei 17:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

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 18:38 (UTC)

Requested move

Latest comment: 17 years ago27 comments12 people in discussion

As per discussions above, Konfrontasi is a more common term in use by all three countries affected by it even in English publications. It is also more accurate since the old article excludes Singapore, which is also involved in the said event.--Huaiwei 13:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Support. As per nomination.--Huaiwei 13:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - If one considers Brunei, there are now four countries who have some history with the Confrontation, all of whom use "Konfrontasi." --Daniel 18:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support I've studied quite a bit about this and it's true, Konfrontasi is the word. Gryffindor 21:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Konfrontasi is not used to mean any other "confrontation" in English.Grant65 (Talk) 03:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Konfrontasi may be what many people locally call it (I don't, and I was living in KL from 1963-1966), but it is not English and so not Wikipedia naming policy. As for the Indonesia-Malaysia label, this matches id:Konfrontasi_Indonesia-Malaysia. --Henrygb 01:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is what I've always called it in English. – Axman (☏) 05:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, not an English word. Radiant_>|< 00:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is the English Wikipedia. *drew 00:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Oppose It's not the predominant term for this conflict in the English language; however, if it were, language shouldn't prevent it being used on en.wiki. Just look at Luftwaffe. Changed to support. SoLando (Talk) 01:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. To all voters from Radiant! onwards, where is your proof? While I have given mine, I dont see any effort made to counter my proposal except through a bunch of obviously ill-informed votes. Thankfully, wikipedia is no democracy, and I hope that applies here.--Huaiwei 21:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
      • None of the objectors actually provide strong reasons for their position. To recap: (1) Naturally, the Indonesian Wikipedia should not call the article Konfrontasi, since the word may mean other "confrontations" in that language. In English it does not, so we can use Konfrontasi. (2) It is a fallacy that we are required to English words in article titles. (3) What one individual calls this conflict is irrelevant. (4) Konfrontasi is not the predominant term, but neither is Indonesia-Malaysia confrontation. The common name is Indonesian Confrontation . We can't use that because it's one-sided and we can't use Confrontation. In second place is Konfrontasi . Grant65 (Talk) 22:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Huaiwei, please refrain from using terms like "ill-informed votes" just because the vote isn't going the way you'd desire. Now look, I've said it should be moved to Konfrontasi IF it was the predominant term in English - it isn't! Even if the US Senate uses it, that's irrelevant - they weren't directly involved in the conflict. Terms like Luftwaffe are used in en.wiki simply because they have predominant usage in the English language. Like Grant says, the standard term is Indonesian Confrontation, but that doesn't encompass all of its participants. The National Malaya & Borneo Veterans Association UK [1] uses "Indonesian Confrontation", the Australian War Memorial does too [2], as does the Royal Australian Navy [3], the British MoD site [4] and RAF [5]. There is even a book that uses "Malaysian-Indonesian Confrontation" [6] SoLando (Talk) 00:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

However, Konfrontasi is more common than "Indonesia-Malaysia confrontation", "Malaysian-Indonesian Confrontation", (etc) so that argument doesn't work either. Konfrontasi is also recommended by its simplicity. Grant65 (Talk) 10:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is more common, but Indonesian Confrontation is even more common than Konfrontasi. Both titles aren't encompassing enough for very different reasons; Indonesian Confrontation leaves out the other protagonists, while Konfrontasi's usage in the English language is too limited, making it just as "one-sided" as Indonesian Confrontation. It's a pity no battle honours were awarded by all sides involved - at least that way there would be some "officiality" about the naming convention for this conflict. SoLando (Talk) 10:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
There are 13,700 English language pages which use konfrontasi.[7] That is not much less than the 16,700 English language pages which use "indonesian confrontation" OR "indonesia confrontation".[8] Grant65 (Talk) 00:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Grant, though I don't believe it's the predominant term in English, I'm willing to change my vote to support, but i'd still prefer if there was more "official" guidance on determining the title used in Wikipedia. Maybe we could contact a government body from each country involved (Foreign Ministry, perhaps) to see if they'd tell us which title they use for the conflict. What do you think? SoLando (Talk) 02:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm sure that most of them refer to the "Indonesian Confrontation". The point I'm making is that, since that is not a suitable name because of its one-sidedness, the second most common name is Konfrontasi.Grant65 (Talk) 00:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I understand, and i'm going to change my vote to support so that we don't go round in circles ;-). I have to say that I still have some doubt as to the validity of Konfrontasi being used in en.wiki (at least at this time), and I'd personally prefer Indonesian Confrontatiion; however, as you said, Konfrontasi is a much simpler (more well known) title to the current one. SoLando (Talk) 09:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Is it too late to support? __earth 04:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • oppose In which case I should step in with another vote for opposition - in my experience New Zealand military history and media (English native speakers), refer to it as the Malaysian Confrontation, (c.f. Indonesian) or just the Confrontation. I don't recall reference to Konfrontasi except when quoting Indonesians. I think this is an argument for keeping "Confrontation" in the English language Wikipedia, (Konfrontasi presumably being appropriate in local language versions).Winstonwolfe 10:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Once again, we can't use "Malaysian Confrontation" or "Indonesian Confrontation" because they are one-sided. And "Konfrontasi" is far more commonly-used, worldwide, than "Indonesia-Malaysia confrontation", which IMO is a "horse designed by a committee" and is mainly being perpetuated by this article. Grant | Talk 03:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments
  • Henry, you are correct that Wikipedia policy is to use English wherever possible. However, there are exceptions when words of non-English origin are commonly used in English. For example, Palestinian uprising redirects to Intifada and German Air Force redirects to Luftwaffe. Grant65 (Talk) 05:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • To add on, saying "Konfrontasi is used by locals" gives the impression that it is not used outside the region, and is only used by Malay speakers. Hardly. A simple google search shows it being used by the Australian government [9], by the US Senate [10], was the title of English books (which were not writtern by locals) [11] [12] and English academic journals [13], amongst others. It is not as much a "local" terminology as presented.--Huaiwei 15:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Huaiwei happens to be correct. This is a case where a foreign word happens to have entered the English lexicon, since this was something the Australians and Brits (and to a lesser degree, Americans) were involved in it. --Daniel 05:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Request not fulfilled due to lack of consensus. Rob Church Talk 20:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

US

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

AFAIK, the US refused to provide support for Malaysia (largely believed to be because they were to busy in Vietnam etc and didn't want to alienate Indonesia who they were still funding) and this is frequently cited as one of the reasons Malaysia decided to adopt a fairly neutral foreign policy, forming the non-aligned movement etc since they recognised from this that it would be a mistake to count on the support of the US etc who would abandon you if it was in their best interest. I don't have the time to research this but it should be mentioned Nil Einne 16:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Indonesia is the largest nation in the region during that time. With the situation in Vietnam getting worse, the US was worried that Sukaerno would change allegiance to the communist. In fact, the presence of a large communist party in the form of Partai Komunis Indonesia worried US very much. The foreign policy was adopted partially because of this situation. But Malaysia did not form the non-aligned movement. The movement instead was formed by Indonesia with several pro-revolutianary country. As for the Philippines participation in the confrontation, it is not stated out. Philippines did act aggresively in the first year of the confrontation by making a bombing run in Kota Kinabalu/Jesselton naval base. However, they stopped the attack when Malaysia's Chief of Navy under specific order from Tunku to fire to shoot down enemy aircraft. [User - Amlisk]

Infobox military conflict seems inappropriate here

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This was a "cold war"- not a real military conflict. All the "unknowns" in the box will never be known, and it makes the article look a little silly. Look at the article cold war for instance, you don't see the military conflict infobox there. I think the box should be taken down. It does not add any useful information to the article and is misleading. Borisblue 19:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but we will have the wrath of the Military History project to deal with. It adds nothing that is not in the first few sentences, is way oversized, and essentially useless. Merbabu 14:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


About the Border

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This statement requires further clarification: (However, the borders of Indonesia initially were not defined, therefore the British felt that there is a chance that he did want to create a world power in South East Asia).

The borders in Borneo were discussed between the Dutch and British governments from 1891-1915 (all agreements can be found both within the CO archives and Dutch Staatblad archives), with additional amendments discussed up to 1930. Since Indonesia accepted the previously drawn Dutch-Anglo boundaries pertaining the Borneo partition, I would rather view that the international boundaries in Borneo were clearly defined by 1963, at least on maps. --borneoaddict (talk) 12:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The Philippines

Latest comment: 14 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion
Resolved
 – Buhay Tao (talk · contribs) BLOCKED for socking and POV pushing, with all his controversial edit entries on this page reverted by me.

I don't know the computer code for wikipedia, but as the philippines were involved, shouldn't they also be under the beligerents bit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.117.97 (talk) 04:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Where's the evidence that the Philippines was involved in Konfrontasi? Limited political support before the declaration of Konfrontasi does not justify claiming the the Philipines supported it. Lots of countries supportewd Malaysia and UK throughout Konfrontasi but were not particiapnts. I propose deleting references to Phillipines involvemnt in Konfrontasi apart from some support before it was declared.Nfe (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

See the Sabah dispute.--[[User:Buhay Tao|Buhay Tao (ᜊᜓᜑᜌ᜔ ᜆᜂ)]] ([[User talk:Buhay Tao|Buhay Tao (ᜊᜓᜑᜌ᜔ ᜆᜂ)]]) (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The Philippines did not support the Indonesian policy of Konfrontasi. They had provided some initial political support to opposition of Malaysia. However, once Konfrontasi was declared they kept well clear. More importantly the British did not consider them to be involved. Therefore they cannot be listed as any form of participant in Konfrontasi, pre-K sympathy is not relavant to their non-participation.Nfe (talk) 12:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Agreed~! And I'm still keeping an eye on this article, so whoever just reintroduce Philippines (I've just removed it again!) into the dispute has to be discussing it here to gain a common consensus from the rest of the editors before doing so again. Failing which, I will make a request on the Administrator's notice board to review and perhaps, ban the offending editor from Wikipedia. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 12:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Don't ask about the username, I think it's pretty self-explanatory. Well, I'm here to explain why I believe the Philippines was involved in this conflict. This source (The Genesis of Konfrontasi: Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia 1945-1965, Greg Poulgrain) pretty much explains the political dynamics of the region, with regards to the Philippine perspective. It explains what the country's motivations are (Sabah) for the support for Indonesia and what was done in order to substantiate that claim. This second source (Globalization: encyclopedia of trade, labor, and politics by Ashish K. Vaidya) outright says Manila, the Philippines's capital,'s support for Indonesia, that caused the collapse of the Association of Southeast Asia. --ThisistemporaryPeoplehateme (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you but I think we can make do without you (plus your sock army) and your civil POV-pushing. You've been banned, period. So take a hint and go back to your little cave. Thank you very much. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 17:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Errors

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

What little is said about military operations (not much) is not strong of facts. I suggest looking a bit more at the 'Britains Small Wars' site, while the various individual accounts contain many detailed errors it does contain some good quality information.

Eg The early raid on Long Jawei. This outpost was mostly held by police, etc, with only a handful (literally) of Gurkhas. No way could it accurately be described as a 'Gurkha Garrison'!

Claret ops were formally approved in Sep 1964. They were never limited to special forces. They were routinely by normal infantry. The only area of doubt is how deep they were allowed into Kalimantan, judging by the variety of conflicting numbers it may have evolved. It was probably on the lines of normal infantry - inside artillery range, semi-SF - 10km, proper SF - 25km, but its likely that these were guidelines only. Nfe (talk) 03:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The Claret Ops entry also needs coordination.


The 'Gurkha Garrison' were assigned along the Upper Baluy river, and they were stationed in all upriver villages. So the ones stationed at Long Jawi [or Long Jawe - but not Long Jawei] were no more than 10 as the Sarawak Tribune [6 Oct 1963] indicated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borneoaddict (talk • contribs) 03:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Dates

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

There are two different date formats used in this article mmddyyyy and ddmmyyyy - which is correct? Either way we need to pick one and stick to it.Anotherclown (talk) 13:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

dd month yyyy for a couple of reasons, its the expanded form of the standard format for military use (ddmmmyy), most countries follow the logical structure, either up from day to year or international standard down from year.Nfe (talk) 02:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I can live with that and the dd month yyyy is the format I use normally, however, on wikipedia there are geographical sensibilities to consider. I believe that the general rule of thumb is that in articles about British and or Commonwealth topics, or battles, etc. that we use the dd month yyyy format as it is more common there, but in the ones that relate mainly to US, it is more common there to use month dd, yyyy so that is the guideline that some people follow. It is basically the same with spelling pecularities. The point of this is that there is no need to get into an edit war about what is the more appropriate format. As a result the best policy (at least in my opinion) is to follow regional or geographic sensibilities. Hence in an article say about the President of the United States the date format and spelling should be consistent with US standards, but in an article about the Prime Minister of Australia it should be Australian or British spelling and date format. Basically following this code means that people from the US shouldn't tinker with a British/Commonwealth article (in regards to spelling and dates, etc.) and people from British/Commonwealth countries leave spelling and dates as is in US articles. This is *meant* to stop edit wars. It doesn't always work, but there it is. — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Photo

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It's hard to think of s less suitable or more irrelevant lead photo than that of a Vulcan bomber.Nfe (talk) 11:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

ORBAT

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Only complete units including their HQ, serving in whole. Otherwise they should be stated as "Detachment (or named flights) of nn Squadron". It's my understanding that no complete RAF sqns served in Borneo. AAC is not unit it is a "regiment or corps". Nfe (talk) 03:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted reference to Green Jacket Bde - administrative bde irrelevant to order of battle, all the highland battalions were in the Highland Bde, equally irrelevant.

A full ORBAT includes grouping, but due to rotating units kept changing, so is probably too much to do (there would proably need to be one for each month). The best that can reasonably be done is to highlight the difference between units that served complete in Borneo and those that had rotating elements there. Listing units with rotating elements as being fully present is highly misleading and totally misrepresents the order of battle.Nfe (talk) 03:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Indonesian command structure

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I think the current listed names are wrong. Was not Nasution head of the army until his murder? Below that did not the two regional commanders (E and W Kalimantan) report directly to him? Then in 1965 an overall commander for Konfrontasi was appointed.Nfe (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Moerdani belongs on any list of high level commanders. He was well down the chain of command at this period. He was an RPKAD battalion commander for some of the time and an operative in Bangkok for much of the rest of the period. He compares to, for example, the battalion commander of 2RGJ, who these days sits in the House of Lords as Field Marshal the Lord Bramall and no one is suggesting that he was a high level commander during Konfrontasi. Nfe (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Philippines = Sabah dispute

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Resolved
 – Buhay Tao (talk · contribs) BLOCKED for socking and POV pushing, with all his controversial edit entries on this page reverted by me.

See the Sabah dispute.--[[User:Buhay Tao|Buhay Tao (ᜊᜓᜑᜌ᜔ ᜆᜂ)]] ([[User talk:Buhay Tao|Buhay Tao (ᜊᜓᜑᜌ᜔ ᜆᜂ)]]) (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Philippines = Sabah dispute - part of political background to Konfrontasi. However, Philippines was NOT a belligerent in Konfrontasi and Philippines was not an 'ally' of Indonesia in their actions against Malaysia.Nfe (talk) 01:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The Amazon description of Pöulgrain's book is; "This study of the final stage of British colonial involvement in South East Asia begins with the arrival of British troops in Indonesia as liberators in 1945-6 and culminates with the 1963-6 period of confrontation between Malaysia and Indonesia. Greg Poulgrain seeks to show how confrontation with Indonesia was deliberately provoked to facilitate the inclusion of Sarawek in Malaysia and to bring down Sukarno. At the crux of this policy was the Brunei revolt of 1962. In examining the political situation of Brunei before the instigation and the reactions of Indonesia at the time, this text aims to vindicate the role of Brunei's A.M. Azahari who had anticipated a federation of the three Borneo states headed by the Sultan of Brunei as constitutional monarch." So a contrarian (or conspiracy theory) history that Konfrontasi was a British plot. It's well established that pre-Konfrontasi Philippines gave some political support to Sukarno's aspirations, they backed of once Konfrontasi started.Nfe (talk) 06:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Renaming of Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation to Konfrontasi

Latest comment: 14 years ago24 comments8 people in discussion
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Resolved
 – The consensus has spoken, again!

Hello wikipedians: I would like to propose a suggestion that the title Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation can be renamed to Konfrontasi without any problem. First of all, if you refer to Konfrontasi in the wikipedia, you usually mean the conflict between Malaysia and Indonesia lasting from 1963 to 1966. The use of the local term also emphasizes the local character of that conflict. If I see other titles using local terms like the German Machtergreifung for respective local events (instead using the English translation seizure of power), I don't see any reason, why Malaysian terms can't be used here, too. (Konfrontasi is not the most difficult Malaysian/Indonesian word, either. ;)) And, the title wouldn't be also that bulky like Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation. No mixing up with other events, shorter title, regional character of that conflict and so on are my arguments to propose such a move. Sukarnobhumibol (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Forget it, its been discussed before (see top of this page). The consensus hasn't changed much, the current style of naming convention stays since this is English language Wikipedia. As for Machtergreifung and Luftwaffe, both are well-known terms around the world since the European public knows it, as does the Americans and the Russians. Konfrontasi cannot be compared in the same way as the aforementioned as they are our view from around South East Asia... the European public knows nothing of it, as does the Americans and the Russians. Anyway, we thank you for the interest and we really appreciate if you could actually improve the article page instead. Regards. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 16:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Support. To the overly brusque reply above: consensus can change, especially when the last proposal was 4 and a half years ago and didn't come to a clear outcome either way. There is nothing in wikipedia guidelines that precludes non-English names in article titles. Instead, the requirement is for the title "most common in the English language". I am satisfied from the above discussion, that of all the possible titles to this article, Konfrontasi is the most commonly used in English language sources. Essentially, per the fruitful discussion between SoLando and Grant65 4 and a half years ago, that everyone else seemed to unhelpfully ignore in !voting. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the purpose of that statement is. Every man and his dog on this project knows that consensus isn't achieved by voting. That's why I'm disappointed that there was a very fruitful discussion between SoLando and Grant65 that seems to have been ignored by everone else in coming to a consensus outcome. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
The particulary english-Wikipedia is not only for the so-called Europeans but also for an Asian audience, as you should know. Your statement was more Eurocentric. --Sukarnobhumibol (talk) 05:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
And the wikipedia was created to explain terms. --Sukarnobhumibol (talk) 05:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Claims of 'Eurocentricism' are rather unhelpful, and inaccurate. Please assume good faith. Nick-D (talk) 07:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
When I look at the last debate, it was a very close decision. --Sukarnobhumibol (talk) 09:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Support. It is widely known that Konfrontasi is an internationally recognised term, regardless of the fact that the word Konfrontasi is Bahasa Melayu / Bahasa Indonesia (though, of course, the word originates from the English language in any case). Qwerta369 (talk) 07:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose 'Konfrontasi' is not the common English-language name for these events. It's commonly called the 'Indonesian Confrontation' in Australia, for example (eg, on the Australian War Memorial's website). Nick-D (talk) 07:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this has already been discussed. As per Nick-D Konfrontasi is not a common english language name, and most readers of English wikipedia would not have clue want it meant. A redirect from the term to this article as it is currently named is more than sufficient. Anotherclown (talk) 08:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
They are names, so you can't compare those cases. --Sukarnobhumibol (talk) 21:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Because of my proposition to rename this article to Konfrontasi? Wow. Is that something like a crime? Or is it because you hate to see non-European words? --Sukarnobhumibol (talk) 10:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I am stunned of your reaction, wikipedia-user (I refuse to call you with your username from this day on). --Sukarnobhumibol (talk) 10:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

About the [[WP:STICK]: I will not come here every month to discuss this. I was just suggesting a harmless matter and then that "Dave" there accuses me of being a certain 23prootie (talk · contribs). If that is your reaction, then sorry. I am really disgusted. No sincerely yours --Sukarnobhumibol (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The vote is closed. --Sukarnobhumibol (talk) 10:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Next election 2015. --Sukarnobhumibol (talk) 12:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Single language

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have reverted a recent edit, so that "The Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation (also known as Konfrontasi in Malay)" now reads "The Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation (also known as Konfrontasi in Indonesian and Malay)" again. I am aware of the linguistic similarities between Indonesian and Malay, but not everyone will be. Konfrontasi was between two countries. It is inappropriate that reference to one country's language is made while the other is ignored. Qwerta369 (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Reference to the role of HMS Albion

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I was surprised that no reference is made to the role of HMS Albion in this very detailed account of the Malaysian Confrontation. HMS Albion was a converted fix wing aircraft carrier designated as a Commando Carrier. HMS Albion was off Gan on 9th December 1962 en-route to Singapore for a Far Eastern tour of duty. On boards were 845 and 846 helicopter squadrons and 40 Commando. Six days at 27 knots and after picking up more stores and reinforcements in Singapore, Albion was deployed off Brunei. For the next eighteen months or so Albion deployed constantly around the coast of Sarawak, Brunei and North Borneo. HMS Albion became known as the ‘Grey Ghost of the Borneo Coast’. Albion and her sister ship Bulwark represented a new concept in rapid deployment and pursuit that was more than just a troop ship. Colin Madden, Captain of Albion said in his decommissioning remarks that without Albion and her squadrons the story of Brunei and Borneo might have been different. Thus surely Albion warrants a mention in any account of the Brunei revolt and Malaysian Confrontation for both its strategic and tactical contribution. 86.131.129.71 (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Edward

Relevant to the Brunei affair and its aftermath but not to Confrontation, 18 months takes it to mid 64, when things were still relatively quiet in Borneo. Nfe (talk) 05:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Surely still relevant? Likewise no mention of the Inshore Flotilla operating from Singapore against Indonesian forces? Also....RMs based at HMS Sembawang.....Should that not be HMS Simbang? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.182.54 (talk) 12:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

List of participating Units

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A minor point - it would be nice to see "units of the Royal Electical and Mechanical Engineers" included in the Uk listing.

More important:- On the Malaysian Units listing there is no mention of the 1st Batallion Malaysian Rangers - the old Sarawak Ranger batallion reformed. They were based in Simmanggang (2nd Division) from Oct 65 (taking over from 1 RNZIR) to ?Apr 66 with company bases at Jambu, Lubok Antu, Batu Lintang and Sungei Tenggan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.220.233 (talk) 13:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Gallantry Awards

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The section states that no Distinguished Flying crosses were awarded in the conflict.

That is factually inaccurate.

I regret that I cannot provide beneficially detailed information even of the award of the DFC of which I have absolute certainty, that to Flight lieutenant Ronald Alexander Lord DFC, who was my older brother. Divorce having lost me or separated me from all my records.

However I can absolutely confirm that he and fellow pilots from his unit were awarded DFC's in an action to rescue an SAS patrol who had become surrounded and I was advised, meaning that all the aircraft involved came under fire.

I only learned of the details of the mission from his C/O (or senior colleague)at the time of the action. I regret I cannot provide a name but was advised that the gentleman concerned was the ultimate source of detail during my attempt to contact his closest contemporaries following my brother's death.

I came to this article having found my brother's and known colleagues of the time missing from your organizations list of Post War DFC awards.

That article is similarly incorrect therefore.

The fact that my brother never provided the details makes me reluctant to add the one element that could be considered politically sensitive. Though it seems highly unlikely to remain so at this distance and given the at least formerly "restricted" details of far more "Dark" ops and highly restricted "need to know" details of equipment and operations now paraded so freely in the media. 

Having worked in the Defence Industry I am stunned by the current level of detail provided on specialist TV programes that include a great deal that I remain sworn not to discuss outside  informed circles.

However, the fact that I cannot find details on sources so far tried is beginning to cause me to wonder.

My brother's award appeared in the London Gazette if I remember correctly and I can certainly confirm that his medal was awarded by the Queen as I attended the award ceremony with my parents. Awards for sensitive ops are usually only made after they have ceased to be contentious ?

I simply don't believe that this action could still be in that category if it ever was.

I apologize if this questioning observation is outside the spirit of the system. I feel certain however that there will be many who have the detail that could either explain the omissions or rectify them.


94.196.47.47 (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there a citation in the TNA files (where all the other UK awards were found)? The tactical situation described doesn't seem very likely, since a/c were banned from flying over Indonesia. Perhaps it was another theatre such as Radfan?Nfe (talk) 07:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello all. Lord's DFC does indeed appear in the London Gazette - issue 43838, page 11687 on 10 December 1965. Pls see here: [14]. Also I found this page which is quite interesting: User:Necrothesp/List of recipients of the Distinguished Flying Cross (United Kingdom) since World War II which lists 11 DFCs awarded for actions during the conflict. I hope this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

RAAF involvment during the Confontation of Malaysia.

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I was surprised to see no mention of RAAF involvement in Wikepedia's quite elaborately detailed account of the Confrontation. RAAF 77 Squadron was based at Butterworth during this period and Wikepedia says: "The Squadron was disbanded at RAAF Base Williamtown on 12 August 1956 but was reformed on 19 November 1956 equipped with CAC Sabres. In December 1958 the Squadron moved to RAAF Base Butterworth in Malaya where it flew ground attack missions against Communist guerrillas during the Malayan Emergency. The Squadron remained at Butterworth during the 1960s and served in the air defence role during the Indonesian Confrontation." I can vouch for the last statement because I was sent to Butterworth and then to Changi to look after them! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dim Duck (talk • contribs) 14:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Gday. I agree it could be mentioned as long as it is not done with unnecessary detail (per WP:UNDUE). FYI it is covered here also: Military history of Australia during the Indonesia–Malaysia Confrontation. Anotherclown (talk) 11:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


New wiki article 'Combat operations during the Indonesian-Malaysian Confrontation'.

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Have started a new article, 'Combat operations during the Indonesian-Malaysian Confrontation', in effort to make the page more easier to read. Existing article was extremely long and difficult to digest. Hopefully everyone supports the major structural/design change??? :-) Gfcan777 (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Added some smaller 'combat operations' articles to break up the article into easier bite size chunks. Gfcan777 — Preceding undated comment added 17:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Much appreciated, thank you for your help. Hope in the next coming years, more images can be added when the copyright period in the awm.gov.au site have expired. I see this article needs more images. :) — ᴀʟʀᴇᴀᴅʏ ʙᴏʀᴇᴅ ʜᴜʜ? 13:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Given the security at the time there are not a lot of official photographs, and soldiers did no carry cameras on operations so private collections are a limited source. Australia's very small contribution to the campaign means that there won't be much useful to illustrate it. Eg photos of Gurkhas or even British troops.Nfe (talk) 04:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

INDONESIA- MALAYSIA

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

THE V.C.MEDAL ISSUED 1N 1966 TO THE GURKHA IN SARAWAK, WAS I believe 1/10 Gurkha stationed at Samanggang NOT 10 GURKHA. 


                  B.D.YARDLEY  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.96.244.146 (talk) 07:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


His regiment was 10 GR, he was serving in one of its two battalions. Nfe (talk) 03:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

"Moral support"

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

...seriously? The war infobox is becoming more and more like a parody of itself. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed ~ Muffin Wizard ;) 02:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation. 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: 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) 04:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation. 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: 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) 14:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 08:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

UK Armed Forces Deaths: Operational deaths : 140 !

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/uk-armed-forces-operational-deaths-post-world-war-2-2018 140 killed in Borneo, 7 in Brunai L'amateur d'aéroplanes (talk) 18:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article itself is more focused from the Malaysian point of view. Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Someone has removed the POV tag from the top of the article. This seems to be in keeping with the conditions for removal at Template:POV, particularly, "3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant." Meticulo (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Commanders

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Is it accurate to label 'Omar Dhani' as POW, and 'Ahmad Yani' as KIA, etc. if its from an entirely different events outside the Konfrontasi? Interested to hear everyone's thoughts on this. - EvoSwatch (talk) 04:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@EvoSwatch: Agree to remove label POW and KIA as even though both Omar Dhani did arrested and Ahmad Yani did killed during the period of Konfrontasi, it didnt happen due to the Konfrontasi itself. If we put POW and KIA label here, then average reader may think that Omar Dani is arrested by Malaysia or Ahmad Yani is killed by Malaysia during a mission. Ckfasdf (talk) 22:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Its settled then, will do an edit on it shortly. - EvoSwatch (talk) 06:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Result of the conflict

Latest comment: 1 year ago10 comments4 people in discussion

Is it accurate to put the end of conflict as 'Commonwealth of Nations victory' on result parameter in the infobox esp. when there is no statement like that in the article itself. Refer to Help:Infobox#What should an infobox contain?, information in the infobox should be also mentioned elsewhere on the article.

Based on what's written in the article Sukarno are willing to continue to wage war against Malaysia even though Indonesia didn't have much success in borneo campaign (he declared 'the year of dangerous living' and expand the conflict to West Malaysia). Again, based on what's on the article, the reason that this conflict ended is due to Sukarno was deposed and new administration signed Indonesia-Malaysia peace treaty in 1966 (known as Jakarta Accord 1966). Hence, IMO the result should be peace treaty signed Ckfasdf (talk) 22:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Given that the psychological operations by the British and the CIA (see Counter-measures section) directly contributed to Sukarno's downfall, we can infer that the change of power was part of the conflict.
Also, accoding to the Transition to the New Order article, the split between the left-wing and right-wing military factions of the Indonesian military was exacerbated by the Konfrontasi.
To add to that, the Eastern Front of WWI page contends that it was a Central Powers victory, despite the fact that the government and leaders of Russia that started the war had been replaced.
Regarding your assertion that the result need to be mentioned in the article itself, I believe it could already be inferred by the fact that both Sukarno and the Indonesian military failed to achieve their objectives of the conflict. OwlCityzen (talk) 09:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I have some concerns with your arguments. Firstly, both of references that you mentioned (Counter-measures section and Transition to the New Order) are unsourced (both have {{citation needed}} tag, one is as far back as 2009). Secondly, since there is no reference, your argument can be possible WP:OR and your conclusion is may be considered as WP:SYNTH, esp when you said this conflict is directly contributed to Sukarno downfall. Thirdly, per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article which means whatever info in infobox must be explicitly mentioned somewhere in article. And there is no single mention of "Commonwealth Victory" in the article itself. Instead Aftermath section explicitly mentioned the result of this conflict with proper sourcing. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, OwlCityzen is right that British Commonwealth victory could already be inferred by the fact that both Sukarno and the Indonesian military failed to achieve their objectives of the conflict. But that is the problem. It is a conclusion not stated by the sources. So it is not allowed according to the first paragraph of Wikipedia:No original research.
I am sure it was a British Commonwealth victory. So I tried but failed to find an explicit statement that would support that conclusion in the following books:
  • Confrontation: The War with Indonesia, 1962–1966, by Nicholas van der Bijl (2000)
  • Malayan Emergency and Indonesian Confrontation: The Commonwealth's Wars 1948-1966, by Robert Jackson (2011)
  • The Time of My Life, by Denis Healey (1989)
No source, no statement.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
OK, I have put {{cn}} tag per WP:BURDEN as an interim step. "Victory" claims may be removed in the future if it's still unsourced. Also please note that per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, any information in infobox must be explicitly mentioned somewhere in article. Ckfasdf (talk) 05:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
If there is still no citation by 28 April, then I think the "victory" claim should be removed.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
How about changing the word "victory" to "success"? With the following citation:
  • Foxley-Noris, Christopher Neil (1967). Air Aspects of Operations Against 'Confrontation'. William Clowes and Sons. p. 281. The recent successful campaign to repel Indonesian aggression directed against Malaysia... {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Technically, you could. But please keep in mind that per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article, hence you should also edit the article itself.
Btw, regarding the result of conflict itself, Christopher Tuck on his publication has interesting opinion on the result of this conflict. victory is not a zero-sum condition: just because one side might appear to win, it does not exclude the possibility that elements within the ‘defeated’ adversary benefit significantly or lose even more comprehensively. I think this should be included in the article as well. Ckfasdf (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
@Eastfarthingan: Please could you join in this conversation.-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, I agree that the aftermath section should be a balance in regards to the result of the war from both sides. Clearly the Commonwealth won the war tactically, strategically and politically. With the latter, the change in government in Indonesia with Suharto replacing Sukarno obviously had a benefit on the outcome of the war. In this, comparisons can be made with similar conflicts where a change in government/power/monarchy etc, reflected a war’s oucome; prime examples are Third Anglo-Dutch war, the First Boer War, Eastern front of WWI, Angolan and Mozambican wars of independence. I see that this article is no different to those in that respect. Eastfarthingan (talk) 10:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indonesia–Malaysia_confrontation/Archive_1&oldid=1221486016"