Chinese Indonesians was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 21, 2011 Peer review Reviewed September 6, 2011 Featured article candidate Not promoted March 28, 2012 Good article nominee Listed May 22, 2012 Peer review Reviewed July 20, 2012 Featured article candidate Not promoted November 29, 2025 Good article reassessment Delisted Current status: Delisted good article

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Ethnic groups High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks. Indonesia High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IndonesiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate:WikiProject IndonesiaIndonesia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. China Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by Chaosdruid, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 03 July 2011.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

The place of people of Chinese descent in Indonesia is contentious and this article has clearly undergone many revisions which have improved factuality and tone. The article still has two problems. One is that a significant number of sources cited are tertiary, i.e. authors who have read the academic literature and digested it, sometimes exaggerating or misunderstanding points that were made more carefully in the secondary (research-based) literature. The second is that the article deviates from NPOV by focussing on a narrative of Chinese victimization. Victimization is part of the story, but putting stress on it is a political narrative, not consistent with the principles of Wikipedia.

Both these issues arise in a recent edit by Davidelit, who has inserted "Dutch colonial rule saw the beginning of anti-Chinese policies, including killings and ghettoization.[22]"

The reference here is a 2010 article in the Los Angeles Times which focusses on the failure of the Indonesian government to address the violence committed against Chinese Indonesians in 1998. The only reference in the article to the colonial period is as follows: "Discrimination against ethnic Chinese here dates back centuries to the Dutch colonial era, when thousands were killed or forced into ghettos." This article is a poor source, both because it is vague and because it mistakes two separate phenomena, the 1740 massacres of Chinese in Batavia which took place under the VOC, and the laws restricting Chinese residence that were introduced in the colonial era (i.e. after 1815). The sentence introduced by Davidelit (""Dutch colonial rule saw the beginning of anti-Chinese policies, including killings and ghettoization" is tendentious, because it elevates a negative judgment over factual information. It is factually incorrect because it implies that killing Chinese was a matter of policy in colonial Indonesia (and that the policy dates from the start of the VOC period); this was never the case in the VOC or colonial periods. The mention of ghettoization is factually incorrect because the system of community-based government described in the previous sentence was not intended by the VOC as anti-Chinese (it applied to all ethnic groups); nor did Chinese in the archipelago experience it as anti-Chinese.

Davidelit's insertion needs to be reverted. There is a great deal more work to be done to bring this article to a standard that reflects the situation of Chinese Indonesians factually and in a balanced way. Atla5Atla5 (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The over use of the word fact and assertions that are not backed up apart from opinion, leave this above comment somewhat problematic. May I remind the editor that requesting reversion, and simply asserting an unbacked up fact this and fact that, is neither any use to a reviewing editor or outsider, as there is nothing to back up the assertions, some clear indication of sources to predicate the assertions is sorely needed here for anyone to go anywhere with the issues. JarrahTree 09:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The information you deleted is cited. Your opinion of the source is not pertinent to this. The deleted section is a paraphrase from a source. Your contention is unsoured. Regards Davidelit (Talk) 11:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want an edit war. I am disappointed that Davidelit reversed my edit without addressing the issues I raised above. Davidelit has misrepresented the source, which does not claim that the killing of Chinese was policy. The article 1740 Batavia massacre makes clear the complex circumstances of these killings. There were no other such killings in the colonial period, so referring to killings as policy or suggesting that they were commonplace is misleading. I take your point on the need to provide sources on the nature of Dutch rules on segregated residence and on the way in which Chinese experienced segregation. I will address this issue in edits when I have time. Atla5Atla5 (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For heaven's sake, bothering about Davidelit totally misses the point.

The two main english sources on the 1700s in Java, have interpretations from individuals that have very different takes on the materials available, having read the books and the reviews of them, I would suggest that there is no such thing as a clear 'fact' on the era as we would expect in usual western historiographical traditions, simply interpretations of the material available.

Also to make assertions no other such killings in the colonial period, hello? Says who? In view of such comments, with nothing to clarify or backup - really require a more rigorous examination here on talk pages, not in text, otherwise there will in all likelihood be edits wars and blocks.

Please do not address the issue in edits - you will need to have your exercise here, on the talk page for third parties to review. In WP:AGF. Otherwise the conversation will not be possible, and the nuances of the claimed 'facts' will never get explored adequately. JarrahTree 23:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I recently reverted alot of edits made by this user, he keeps on using this source but if you actually check on it, you can definitely see that there's around 4 predictions based on birth rate percentage and 3.3 million is one of them which obviously not reliable enough and can cause confusion. That's why I revert it to the one that use single calculation so that the numbers directly match the source one. But tbh, I think de-facto estimation should've been omitted for now simply because there're alot of sources which use various amount of numbers. Egapehtnokcilc (talk) 06:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The figure of 8 million comes from the Taiwanese Overseas Community Affairs Council, an organization specializing in Overseas Chinese affairs. Given their expertise, their data is likely more accurate than that of a National Geographic article, making it the preferred source in this case. Cal1407 (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming there are no other arguments, we can reach a consensus to adopt the 8 million figure. Cal1407 (talk) 06:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overseas Community Affairs Council isn't reliable. As per source in the Dutch East Indies (in which its last form comprises of modern-day Indonesia) census of 1930, there were only 1.2 million Chinese-Indonesians. If 1930, Indonesia only had a population of 60 million, now in 21st century roughly 250 million (4 times the size of its 1930 population), how could the Chinese population in Indonesia increase by 8 times, they have lower birth rates than the general population. On the other hand, @Egapehtnokcilc there is needed to include de facto census aswell since Chinese-Indonesians aren't limited to those who stays in Indonesia or withhold Indonesian citizenship. Chinese communities in Suriname, China, Australia, Netherlands and the USA might consider themselves as Chinese-Indonesians, yet without Indonesian citizenship. Around 300,000 Chinese-Indonesians went back to China post-Indonesian independence, 5,000 moved to the Netherlands. These might be considered as Chinese-Indonesians aswell that now have significant community in the diaspora, as the infobox said, the "Significant diaspora populace" in other countries also counts. Pineapplethen (talk) 11:45, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If de facto is necessarry, please use a source that is only include single calculation such as this one. The one that you use are basically one of four predictions based on birth rate which can easily cause a confusion since other calculations within that source are ultimately disregarded, and that source clearly explaining in a subjective view since they already stated that the actual population is still disputed. Egapehtnokcilc (talk) 12:01, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The de facto estimate can't contradict overtly with Indonesian sources and Dutch colonial sources. The number of Chinese-Indonesians also can't be more than Thai Chinese (7-11 million) or Malaysian Chinese (7 million) since these countries have a better policy towards the Chinese by accommodative policies, compared to Indonesian assimilative policies in the past and limited accommodative policies now. Pineapplethen (talk) 13:35, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate why OCAC data is not reliable. Also, just because Thailand and Malaysia have more accommodative policies towards the Chinese does not mean that they have more Chinese population than Indonesia. Cal1407 (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This source here is pretty much more reliable I believe, it's published in 2024 and was taken from a survey in 2023. Tbh, I agree with you, like USA for example, they didn't have specific law for chinese yet they managed to have like 5 million, and saying "can't contradict overtly with Indonesian sources and Dutch colonial sources" is a BS because Chinese Filipino for example, only 1 million of them according to official cencus but by de facto it can be as high as 30 million which is clearly exceed their sources. Egapehtnokcilc (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed a statistic previously cited from Visual Capitalist, which ultimately originated from Statista.com. Upon review, Statista did not provide any verifiable source or transparent methodology for how it obtained the figures.

Moreover, the number was about five times higher than the official figure reported in the 2010 Indonesian census, which is a far more reliable source. Per WP:RS and WP:VERIFY, statistics from commercial data aggregators like Statista should not be used without clear sourcing, especially when contradicting official government data.

If there are objections or if someone can provide a more reliable, verifiable source supporting the removed statistic, feel free to discuss here. Native99girl (talk) 01:02, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ping @Amrflh00, I noticed that you re-added the statistic without addressing the sourcing concerns I outlined above. As previously explained, the source (Visual Capitalist/Statista) does not meet WP:RS and WP:VERIFY, and the figure contradicts the 2010 Indonesian census. Please discuss any justification here before restoring the statistic. Native99girl (talk) 05:04, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 2010 census data is no longer relevant considering the significant population of Indonesia as well as the Chinese Indonesian population. Current data mostly says the population of Indonesia is more than 10 million people and I also tell you, the 2010 data does not include the population of peranakan and mixed Chinese Indonesians 125.164.0.171 (talk) 05:16, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. However, per WP:VERIFY and WP:RS, all statistics on Wikipedia must be supported by reliable sources with transparent methodology, not personal knowledge or assumptions. Statista.com, as a commercial data aggregator, does not provide clear sourcing or methodology for its figures, which is why its data is not considered reliable here.

If you believe the 2010 census data is outdated or incomplete, please provide a more recent reliable source that clearly documents its methodology and comprehensively covers the Chinese Indonesian population, including Peranakan and mixed-heritage groups. Until such a source is provided, the 2010 census remains the best verifiable data available. Native99girl (talk) 05:31, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to consider that relying solely on the 2010 census data can lead to inaccuracies and outdated information. In the absence of more recent and comprehensive data, it is possible that Wikipedia's information on Chinese Indonesians will become stagnant and no longer reflect current reality. Rather than relying solely on outdated data, perhaps we can consider using estimates that still depict the current situation accurately, which can provide more up-to-date insights into the demographics of Chinese Indonesians. 125.164.0.171 (talk) 05:54, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is important for Wikipedia to reflect up-to-date information. In fact, the article already includes more recent estimates, such as 3,280,000 (2020, National Geographic)^[1] and 6,000,000 (2018, UNHCR estimate including Overseas and mixed Chinese Indonesians),^[2] both of which are clearly attributed and from identifiable sources.

However, this is why we follow WP:RS and WP:VERIFY: estimates are fine as long as they come from reliable sources with clear attribution. Statista, in this case, does not explain its methodology or provide a verifiable primary source, making it unsuitable under Wikipedia’s sourcing policies.

If you are aware of any other up-to-date and reliable estimates (with clear sources), please feel free to share them here so we can improve the article further. Native99girl (talk) 06:06, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the estimates that have been provided from UNHCR and National Geographics sources. But these estimates also have limitations.Because this article as wikipedia provides states that the Chinese population in Thailand, Malaysia, and the United States is larger than Indonesia. This is very contradictory to other studies. For example, according to the Poston, Wong 2016 study, the Indonesian Chinese population is the largest in the world besides China and Taiwan. Therefore, by updating this data to re-evaluate so that it does not become stagnant and can provide more current insights into the demographics of Indonesian Chinese. 125.164.0.171 (talk) 06:36, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that different studies may present varying estimates, and it is important for Wikipedia to reflect the best available data. However, any figures added to the article must comply with WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. As discussed, Statista does not meet these standards.

Also, a single claim that the Indonesian Chinese population is the largest does not automatically make it factual without broader verification. This is especially important for an article with Good Article status, as introducing poorly sourced content risks the article no longer meeting Wikipedia’s quality standards.

If you come across other reliable sources such as the Indonesian national census, National Geographic, or UNHCR, as already cited in the article, please feel free to share them here so we can work on improving the article. Native99girl (talk) 06:54, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand about Wikipedia's standard regarding the sources used. Since I am not a new user in Wikipedia. I noticed that you keep denying the data I gave and deleting it arbitrarily. Who do you think you are?? You are not even Wikipedia Authority!! Statista is not amateur statistical data, they are professional statistics and have a good reputation and are widely used as data sources by organizations and institutions in the world. After I noticed it seems like you are a Malaysian who does not accept facts / denial syndrome, I find many Malaysians like you. 120.188.72.31 (talk) 07:20, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep the discussion focused on the content, not on other editors, as per WP:NPA. I am working to maintain the article’s Good Article status and ensure it follows Wikipedia’s sourcing standards. This is not about deleting content arbitrarily but about removing material that does not comply with WP:RS and WP:VERIFY.

While Statista is a data aggregator, in this case it does not provide a clear underlying source or transparent methodology. The figure it presents is also significantly higher than those reported by more established sources, being over three times higher than National Geographic (2020), nearly twice the UNHCR estimate (2018) and around five times higher than the official Indonesian national census (2010). This discrepancy raises serious verifiability concerns.

On Wikipedia, verifiability means that readers and editors must be able to trace information back to a reliable, published source that clearly shows where the data came from and how it was produced. Statista’s page does not cite a primary study, official report, or detailed methodology for this figure, making it impossible to independently verify the data’s accuracy. Without knowing the source or method, we cannot assess whether the number is based on government statistics, reputable research, or an unverifiable estimate. That is why it does not meet WP:RS and WP:VERIFY standards.

If you have a reliable source that clearly explains the origin and methodology of the data, whether from a government census, peer-reviewed research or a reputable demographic study, please feel free to share it here so we can review it together and work on improving the article. Native99girl (talk) 07:32, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know Wikipedia's standards on sources, you don't need to lecture me anymore. I notice you focus too much on Statista's shortcomings just because of the lack of transparency in methodology without realizing that other sources have limitations as well. I have explained to you several times that the 2010 census is inaccurate and outdated, because it does not count many ethnic Chinese who do not identify as ethnic Chinese. Furthermore, the census does not accurately reflect the current situation.

On the other hand, you keep denying that National Geographic and UNHCR are more reliable than Statista, but don’t you realize that both sources also have limitations in calculating the Chinese Indonesian population? Don’t you think that Statista might have a better methodology in calculating the population? Why do you trust a source that has limitations more than a source that might be more comprehensive? 120.188.72.31 (talk) 08:28, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that the UNHCR estimate also has its limitations, and due to the lack of a clearly documented primary source, I would personally support removing it as well. The only strong, academically verifiable source currently available is National Geographic, which in 2020 cited calculations by Evi Nurvidya Arifin, a recognised expert in the field of demography.

In addition to her 2020 report cited in National Geographic, Evi Nurvidya Arifin is also a co-author of the 2016 academic paper "Chinese Indonesians: How Many, Who and Where?" which provides a detailed demographic analysis and population estimates of Chinese Indonesians based on rigorous methodology. This paper further supports the reliability of her population figures used in the article.

Evi Nurvidya Arifin holds a PhD and is a researcher at the Centre for Ageing Studies, University of Indonesia, as well as a lecturer at the Postgraduate Programme in Public Health, University of Respati Indonesia. Her research interests include Chinese Indonesians, ethnicity in Indonesia, migration, and the ageing population. She is also a co-author of the book Demography of Indonesia’s Ethnicity, research paper Three Mega-demographic Trends in Indonesia and Chinese Indonesians in Indonesia and the Province of Riau Archipelago: A Demographic Analysis.

If you have a verifiable source that clearly explains higher figures with transparent methodology, please feel free to share it here so we can consider it for the article.Native99girl (talk) 08:44, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your view is too narrow on the source of Evi Nurvidya Arifin from National Geographic, and considers it as the only reliable source. However, I have data that shows that according to Statista data, the graph of the overseas Chinese population as of December 2013 and 2023 shows estimates derived from the Official source of the Taiwanese Government, namely the Overseas Community Affairs Council (OCAC). This data notes that the Chinese population in Indonesia is at more than 10 million in 2023) much higher number than the narrow estimate from one academic study that you provide. In other words, Statista uses official and verified data from the Taiwanese government which has historically and administratively monitored the global Chinese diaspora. 120.188.72.31 (talk) 10:43, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a direct and verifiable source from the Taiwanese government's Overseas Community Affairs Council (OCAC) that clearly explains how the Indonesian figure was calculated? Simply citing Statista’s reference to OCAC does not clarify the underlying methodology or explain how the number was derived. This lack of clarity is exactly similar to your concern about the UNHCR estimate, which you also acknowledged has limitations.

By contrast, Evi Nurvidya Arifin is a recognised demographer with a PhD and an extensive academic background in migration and ethnicity studies, with her work published in respected scholarly sources. Her estimates are based on transparent demographic analysis and methodology, making them verifiable and reliable in line with Wikipedia’s sourcing standards. Native99girl (talk) 11:11, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback, Without reducing my respect to you, I would like to share direct and verifiable source from the Taiwanese government's Overseas Community Affairs Council (OCAC) that clearly explains how the Indonesian figure was calculated. For your information, this statistic is written in Chinese language because this data itself is directly from the Taiwanese Government

Attached :

https://www.ocac.gov.tw/OCAC/File/Attach/313/File_485675.pdf

I will help you to make the summary :

Based on the latest official data in 2023 from the Taiwanese government through the Overseas Community Affairs Council (OCAC), it is stated that the total number of overseas Chinese in the world has reached around 50.11 million people. Of that number:

Around 34.64 million live in Asia, or 69.1% of the total.

Among Asian countries, Indonesia occupies the highest position, with a Chinese diaspora population of 11.15 million, or around 30% of the entire Chinese diaspora in Asia.

Followed by:

Thailand: 7 million

Malaysia: 6.89 million

Singapore: 3.07 million

Myanmar and the Philippines: millions each.

With this official data, it is clear that the figure of 11 million for Indonesia is not just an assumption, but the result of a Taiwanese government agency that does have an interest and access in recording the Chinese diaspora globally.

So, limiting the article to only the figures cited by one academic study that you have shared previously, while ignoring state institutions such as OCAC, will actually create a bias in data representation.

This OCAC data is very worthy of consideration as one of the main references that is valid and relevant. 125.164.0.171 (talk) 12:00, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can refer to page 12 section 2. Distribution of Overseas Chinese and Taiwanese Citizens in Each Continent

(I) Number of Overseas Chinese Citizens in Each Continent. in the pdf link that I shared above 125.164.0.171 (talk) 12:03, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. Since these two figures reflect different scopes, both are relevant to show the range of estimates. A balanced approach would be to present them as follows:

• 3,280,000 (2020, National Geographic)

• 11,150,000 (2023, OCAC)

Perhaps we can wait for the upcoming Indonesian census for more definitive verification. Native99girl (talk) 12:18, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan doesn't have any real data apart from what they get elsewhere. We know that the 6.89 million of Malaysia is the number from the census, and it counts only the citizens, it doesn't include large number of Chinese non-citizens who are resident in the country. The 11 million of Indonesia is not a census figure, so where they got the number from is still unclear. I would ignore that. Population figure is always problematic, personally I would just give official figure (but make a note that the actual figure may be higher), and then explain the figures (including estimates) in the demographic section. Hzh (talk) 12:42, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hzh You raise a valid point. My main concern is exactly how that 11 million figure was derived, especially since it is not based on the Indonesian census, whose methodology we understand more clearly. Native99girl (talk) 12:50, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response.

However, I need to re-emphasize that the Indonesian national census cannot be used as the sole reference for calculating the overall Chinese Indonesian population, because:

1. The Indonesian census does not explicitly classify Chinese ethnicity.

Since the reform era, BPS no longer presents detailed ethnic data in the census. As a result, the number of ethnic Chinese is difficult to track through the census, and is very likely underreported because ethnic classifications are mixed with national or regional identities (for example: "Javanese", "Betawi", or simply "Indonesian").

2. Assimilation and dual identities complicate census recording.

Many people of Chinese descent have assimilated and do not always identify themselves as "Chinese" in official surveys. Thus, the census does not accurately reflect ethnocultural identity—even though this is the basis for the calculation in the OCAC data.

3. The OCAC data is an estimate based on the Chinese diaspora and community, including Chinese associations, schools, houses of worship, and other socio-cultural networks.

The OCAC approach is more appropriate for estimating ethnic populations, not just nationalities, and is closer to the socio-cultural reality we observe today.

4. Waiting for the census means waiting for data that was not designed to answer this question in the first place.

In the meantime, we have two credible estimates from different sources:

National Geographic (2020): 3.28 million

OCAC Taiwan (2023): 11.15 million

By comparing the two openly, we get a more informative picture of the realistic range than waiting for data that may not exist and may not be relevant. 120.188.73.58 (talk) 12:58, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation. However, it is important to note that the Indonesian national census did record ethnicity in the 2000 and 2010 censuses, although it is true that detailed ethnic data was not included in 2020.

For reference, please see the 2010 Population Census report by BPS, the national statistics agency of Indonesia, where ethnic group data is presented. Kindly refer to page 9 of the official BPS 2010 report available here. The census records 2,832,510 people identifying as ethnically Chinese.

While I agree that assimilation and self-identification issues may affect census data, the census figures are still based on household surveys with direct enumeration and have a clear methodology, making them useful as a demographic baseline.Native99girl (talk) 13:07, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the response, but we need to be very clear: the 2010 census figure of 2.83 million ethnically Chinese Indonesians is not an accurate reflection of today’s reality and never was. Here's why:

1. The data is outdated and intentionally limited.

You're citing a number from 2010, that’s 15 years ago. Since then, Indonesia’s population has grown by tens of millions, and ethnic Chinese communities have expanded, urbanized, and intermarried at significant rates. But more importantly:

The 2010 census was already operating within political limitations that discouraged accurate ethnic reporting.

2. There is systemic underreporting of Chinese identity in censuses.

Let’s not pretend that a household survey with “clear methodology” can override decades of state-sponsored assimilation and social stigma. After Orde Baru, many Chinese Indonesians adopted local names, downplayed their ethnic identity, and avoided official recognition. This didn't magically change in 2010 especially outside major cities.

So yes, people were asked about their ethnicity, but what matters is how many felt safe and willing to answer honestly. The number is almost certainly an undercount.

3. OCAC uses a broader, more culturally grounded lens.

Unlike BPS, OCAC is not interested in what people feel safe ticking on a census form. Their estimates are based on community-level data, including:

Local Chinese associations

School enrollments

Religious and cultural institutions

Community leader reports

Heritage-based identification, not just self-labeling

That’s why OCAC can present a far more accurate and up-to-date estimate: 11.15 million ethnic Chinese in Indonesia as of 2023.

4. It’s not about which number is “right” but it’s about scope.

The BPS number reflects a minimal baseline, not a total. The OCAC figure reflects cultural-religious-linguistic presence , the actual lived identity, not just census boxes.

2.83 million (2010 BPS): conservative, underreported, outdated

11.15 million (2023 OCAC): comprehensive, current, culturally aware

They are not contradictory, just measuring different things. But if we want to talk about real-world presence of ethnic Chinese today, OCAC’s number is far more useful.

5. Waiting for the next census won’t fix this.

If the 2020 census omitted ethnicity, and there’s no sign the 2030 one will restore it, then what exactly are we “waiting for”? This insistence on future census data is just a way to dodge the current evidence.

The OCAC estimate is not only legitimate , it’s essential if we want to move beyond outdated, sanitized versions of Indonesia’s ethnic makeup. 125.164.0.171 (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anywhere how OCAC got its data, is that your own OR? Even if true, I don't see how that makes it more representative since people are prone to exaggerate their numbers. It could be an OK guesstimate, or it could be an exaggeration. We have no idea. Hzh (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback, everyone. I hope we can work collaboratively to resolve this matter and reach a balanced consensus. I welcome further input from other editors to help improve the article. Native99girl (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We should be just as critical toward the illusion of certainty in other sources like national censuses, which also come with limitations.

Let’s break this down:

1. No demographic estimate is perfect (including censuses).

Censuses are not divine truth. They reflect what people are willing to disclose, how they’re categorized, and what the political climate allows. Ethnic Chinese in Indonesia have long faced social pressure to assimilate or conceal identity, so census data (especially from 2010) reflects a highly conservative baseline — not the actual size of the population.

In short: low numbers can be just as misleading as high ones.

2. OCAC’s data is not invented, it reflects diaspora tracking practices.

While OCAC doesn't publish raw methodology in a technical journal, its numbers are compiled through well-established diaspora networks:

- Overseas Chinese community organizations

- Cultural and language schools

- Religious centers and temples

- Taiwanese consular services

- Long-standing population studies from the Chinese diaspora in Southeast Asia

Are there margins of error? Of course. But this approach captures what censuses miss: people who are ethnically Chinese but don’t or can’t report that in official surveys.

So yes, OCAC’s numbers are an estimate. But so is any number that tries to measure a population that is fluid, partially assimilated, and historically marginalized.

3. If we discard OCAC for "lack of perfect methodology", we must also discard the 2010 BPS number for the same reason.

You can’t hold diaspora estimates to an impossibly high standard, while accepting old census data at face value, especially when that census is:

- 15 years old

- Known to suffer from underreporting

- Lacking in updated follow-up (2020 census excluded ethnicity altogether)

That is selective skepticism — not critical thinking.

4. In the absence of definitive data, responsible writing means showing the range, not picking one "safe" number.

Presenting both the BPS and OCAC figures , with context, allows readers to understand:

- That the actual number is debated

- That different sources reflect different scopes

- That identity and population measurement are politically and culturally loaded

That is honest, balanced, and intellectually rigorous, far more than pretending one outdated government figure is the gold standard.

OCAC's figure may not be perfect , but no other data on ethnic Chinese in Indonesia is as well. What makes OCAC valuable is that it attempts to reflect the real scope of a dispersed, partially assimilated, and historically invisible population.

Dismissing it entirely is not skepticism, it’s clinging to an illusion of certainty. 125.164.0.171 (talk) 14:47, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the number may be, you certainly can't say that Indonesia has the largest overseas Chinese community in the world, since the basis for that number is entirely speculative, and Wikipedia should not use speculative number to make assertion. Compare to number for countries like Malaysia which is the actual census figure (it could also be argued that the true figure for Malaysia is also higher, but that will also be speculation). You still haven't given a source for your claim of where the 2023 OCAC number is derived from, and you have to reconcile their 2006 number with the 2023 one that shows a big jump when the fertility is lower. By all means give the higher guesstimate (I would give a range of estimates instead of a single figure), but it cannot be stated as the true figure, but one of a number of estimates to be discussed in the Demographics section. The census number is imperfect, but there are other estimates that may be more valid. Hzh (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After I saw your comment, I know you are brainless. I noticed you keep denying the fact and claim that Chinese Indonesians not the largest Chinese community population in the world?. It seems you are a Malaysian who has a denial syndrome, I found many malaysians like you.

Based on diaspora estimates, Indonesia has the largest overseas Chinese population. If we compare with census, Yes, census numbers are lower — but if we compare diaspora estimates (like OCAC), Indonesia is at the top in the world. Malaysia is around 6–7 million, others are smaller. So, Indonesia is #1 only when we include full diaspora estimates not just censuses.

The Indonesian census has not included ethnic breakdowns in its latest census, but that doesn’t mean estimates like OCAC’s should be ignored. OCAC isn’t making it up — it collects data through real community networks, schools, cultural organizations, and diaspora institutions. It’s not a wild guess, it’s a recognized approach to estimating ethnic populations, especially when official figures are lacking.

Malaysia, on the other hand, has clear census data — but that doesn’t necessarily make it more “valid.” In Indonesia, due to decades of discrimination, assimilation, and mixed heritage, many Chinese Indonesians either don’t identify as Chinese on official forms or aren’t asked. That means the census data is likely undercounted.

I’m not saying OCAC is a census, but that doesn’t mean it’s fake or random statistics. OCAC is a Taiwanese government agency that has been tracking the overseas Chinese community for years. They collect data from Chinese community groups, schools, cultural organizations, local networks. It’s not a perfect number, but it’s based on real tracking, not wild guesswork. It’s a common way to estimate the diaspora population when the census is incomplete or missing.

So Again, The OCAC number is not “speculation” — it's a serious estimate based on many sources. No number is perfect, but ignoring the largest and most updated estimate is also not fair or balanced. The best approach is to show a range and explain the differences clearly to readers. 125.164.0.171 (talk) 17:19, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should note the rule on WP:NPA, avoid personal attacks. I will also note that making assertions without support from sources isn't going to convince anyone. The 2006 figure given by OCAC was an estimate assuming certain growth rate and assuming certain starting estimate (although frankly not enough information is given there on the numbers, but it is not the data from "Chinese community groups, schools, cultural organizations, local networks" you claimed), so far you haven't provided a source to show how and where the 2023 OCAC figure came from. As I've said the 2023 figure is much higher than the 2006 figure, much higher compared to the percentage increase for the Indonesian population as a whole, which would not make sense when the Chinese fertility has dropped. The number simply does not make sense if it's based on growth rate. If I say that the number is likely to have been invented (and it looks like a number plucked out of thin air), you will have nothing to counter it because you haven't provided a source that explains it. A source is therefore required to explain the discrepancy. Hzh (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’re only focusing on OCAC’s flaws while you don't realizing many sources has own limitations in Wikipedia, especially the outdated 2010 census, which no longer tracks ethnic Chinese at all.

OCAC doesn’t publish publically detailed methodology, but that doesn’t make the number “made up.” OCAC works with Chinese community networks, schools, cultural centers, and associations — this is standard practice in diaspora tracking, used by scholars around the world. It’s not guesswork, it’s just a different method from a census.

Also, the population didn’t grow just through fertility — it grew through increased visibility. Many Chinese Indonesians who were invisible in 2006 (due to stigma or assimilation) are now counted by diaspora groups. That’s why the number increased.

So instead of rejecting OCAC just because it’s high, the balanced solution is to present a range of estimates, explain their differences, and let readers decide. Dismissing the most recent estimate just because it’s not a census doesn’t give the full picture. 149.113.60.57 (talk) 03:33, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see both sides of this discussion, but I tend to agree with Hzh's concerns. Without clear documentation from OCAC explaining how their figures were calculated, it’s difficult to assess the reliability of the 2023 estimate. Unlike a government census, the OCAC data lacks transparent methodology, making its accuracy hard to verify. It’s fair to acknowledge that the Indonesian census also has limitations, but it remains an official source with publicly available methodology. I think it’s reasonable to mention the OCAC figure in the article for context, but it should be clearly presented as an external diaspora estimate, not as an official count. Lastly @Amrflh00, I would kindly suggest that for the sake of clarity and transparency in this discussion, it would be helpful if editors used the same account rather than switching between an IP address and a registered account for talk page discussions and article edits. This helps maintain a consistent and constructive dialogue. Native99girl (talk) 05:55, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Native99girl

I’ve noticed from the start of this discussion that your stance keeps shifting, and it's becoming increasingly clear that there is a lack of consistency on your part. Initially, you asked for a source other than Statista because it was deemed unreliable. Fine — I removed Statista and replaced it with OCAC, an Official Taiwanese Government Body that specifically tracks overseas Chinese communities.

But once the data didn't align with what you personally believe, suddenly OCAC is also “invalid”? That’s clearly inconsistent.

If every source is rejected just because the numbers don’t match your personal view, then what’s the point of asking for sources in the first place and discussion? You requested a new reference, but when one was provided, you dismissed it anyway. Let’s be honest — this isn't about the quality of the source anymore; it’s about being you uncomfortable with the result.

And if OCAC is being dismissed merely because its methodology isn’t fully detailed, then the older source you prefer should be judged by the same standard. Why reject one and protect the other? That’s a double standard.

So if you really don’t want facts about the size of the Chinese Indonesian diaspora to appear, then just say so. Don’t hide behind shifting technical objections. And if you don’t agree with the data, be upfront about it, instead of constantly moving the goalposts. Don’t ask others to find new sources and then reject them just because the result doesn't suit you.

Wikipedia is a place to build articles based on reliable sources, not personal comfort zones. If we want to be fair and neutral, then all valid data should be presented, not filtered according to preference. 149.113.60.57 (talk) 06:59, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve noticed from the beggining of this discussion that your stance keeps shifting, and it's becoming increasingly clear that there is a lack of consistency on your part. Initially, you asked for a source other than Statista because it was deemed unreliable. Fine — I removed Statista and replaced it with OCAC, an Official Taiwanese Government Body that specifically tracks overseas Chinese communities.

But once the data didn't align with what you personally believe, suddenly OCAC is also “invalid”? That’s clearly inconsistent.

If every source is rejected just because the numbers don’t match your personal view, then what’s the point of asking for sources in the first place and discussion? You requested a new reference, but when one was provided, you dismissed it anyway. Let’s be honest — this isn't about the quality of the source anymore; it’s about being you uncomfortable with the result.

And if OCAC is being dismissed merely because its methodology isn’t fully detailed, then the older source you prefer should be judged by the same standard. Why reject one and protect the other? That’s a double standard.

So if you really don’t want facts about the size of the Chinese Indonesian diaspora to appear, then just say so. Don’t hide behind shifting technical objections. And if you don’t agree with the data, be upfront about it, instead of constantly moving the goalposts. Don’t ask others to find new sources and then reject me just because the result doesn't suit you.

Wikipedia is a place to build articles based on reliable sources, not personal comfort zones. If we want to be fair and neutral, then all valid data should be presented, not filtered according to preference. 149.113.60.57 (talk) 07:37, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there may be some misunderstanding here. As I mentioned earlier, I have no objection to including the OCAC figure in the article for context, provided it is clearly presented as an external diaspora estimate rather than an official figure. It should also be noted that Indonesian census remains the standard and reliable source across articles on Indonesian ethnic groups such as the Javanese, Sundanese, Dayak, Bugis and Minangkabau, ensuring consistency and comparability.

But then again, Hzh also raised a valid concern regarding the OCAC methodology. This is not about rejecting the figure because of its result, but about ensuring transparency for readers on how different sources arrive at their numbers. At present, the OCAC source does not explain how it calculated its figures. Since you were the one who introduced this source, I believe it is reasonable to ask for clarity on its methodology. Native99girl (talk) 07:57, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comment and I know you are brainless, because your argument is starting to go to the nonsense things. You're asking me to explain OCAC's methodology, but I'm not the person who created the data. I'm not a researcher at OCAC or a Taiwanese official. I simply added a figure from an official government source, just like other editors use census data from BPS or other government bodies.

If OCAC didn't explain its methods in detail, then the issue is with OCAC, not with me and this is normal as a research institution. You're basically asking a Wikipedia editor to explain how a foreign government collects data, that's not reasonable.

Also, many diaspora figures in other articles come from estimates, and they don't provide detailed methodology either, but they're still accepted. Why is it only OCAC that you suddenly question so strongly? Honestly, it feels less like a concern about the method and more about the results of the data.

I've already said I'm fine with presenting OCAC's number as a diaspora estimate, that was never the issue. But, Don't you shift this discussion and act like I'm responsible for how OCAC did their research. We use available sources, we don't filter them based on whether someone here can personally explain the numbers. 149.113.60.57 (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OCAC did give calculation for its 2006 figures (the reference is in the article), although how it came up with the numbers is still opaque. It quoted Mary Somers Heidhues in The Encyclopedia of the Overseas Chinese as giving the population Indonesian Chinese (1998) at 5-6 million, which is actually similar to the population of Malaysian Chinese (around 5.7 million in the 2000 census). How the OCAC number for Indonesian Chinese population exploded in the years since is frankly unexplained, and dubious. It is, however, just another estimate, and as I said, use a range of estimates from different sources instead of just one, and that could be explored in the demographics section. And yet again, please note, no personal attacks. Hzh (talk) 09:10, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification, Hzh. I appreciate your explanation regarding the earlier OCAC figures and the concerns about how the later numbers seem to have grown without clear explanation.

From my perspective, the Indonesian national census remains the more reliable source, as its methodology is publicly documented and has been consistently applied across Wikipedia articles on other Indonesian ethnic groups. In contrast, the OCAC figure lacks transparency regarding how its numbers were calculated.

I also feel that Amrflh00 has repeatedly questioned the national census based on personal assumptions, without presenting any reliable evidence that Indonesian demographers or the census data are incorrect.

As far as I am aware, even experienced Indonesian demographers such as Evi Nurvidya Arifin do not dispute the results of the Indonesian national census, and there is no significant controversy over the official figures within the contemporary Chinese Indonesian community.Native99girl (talk) 09:51, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The way to deal with it is just to give the official figure, and then a range of unofficial estimates. The demographics section gives a reasonable account of the issues with the numbers, all it needs is just to update and add a bit more. The OCAC number can be added, but it seems to be an outlier, and should be noted as such. It is plausible to explain part of the changes in OCAC number by the return of Indonesian Chinese who fled after the riots/racial attacks at different periods of history, but that is just my speculation, and it's unlikely to explain it all, which is why an explanation from OCAC would be useful. Hzh (talk) 10:40, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good and balanced approach. I think we can align with this by presenting the official census figure alongside a range of unofficial estimates, with appropriate context to explain the differences. Native99girl (talk) 10:54, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be clear, I have never "questioned the national census based on personal assumptions." What I have pointed out is that like any population data, the Indonesian census has its limitations, especially when it comes to historically marginalized groups such as Chinese Indonesians, who were systematically discouraged or even prohibited from identifying themselves as Chinese during Suharto-era policies.

If you think the Indonesian census is flawless, then you're ignoring decades of social and political context. Many ethnic Chinese were either not counted properly or simply didn’t identify themselves for fear of repercussions. That’s not an "assumption", that’s a documented fact in Indonesian history.

Also, please don’t bring up scholars like Evi Nurvidya Arifin as if she has explicitly endorsed your position, unless you can show a clear citation where she rejects more recent diaspora estimates like OCAC's. Claiming support from experts without any sources is exactly what you accuse others of.

You keep repeating that OCAC lacks transparency, and I don’t disagree that it should be flagged as an estimate, but this obsession with discrediting only OCAC, while ignoring the methodological vagueness in other diaspora data used elsewhere on Wikipedia, is selective and inconsistent.

I’ve said it before: using a range of estimates is a reasonable compromise. But trying to shut down one source entirely, especially one from an official body, while pretending other sources are beyond question is not neutral. It’s gatekeeping. 125.164.0.171 (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned the OCAC data “dubious” simply because it is higher than the old estimate. But you don’t mention that the old estimate you consider “reasonable” is from 1998 which more than 25 years ago. Oddly enough, you don’t question the old figure at all. But when OCAC releases a new figure, you immediately become suspicious.

So let’s be honest: it’s not about the method, but because you don’t like the results.

Diaspora data can indeed change drastically, especially for groups like Chinese Indonesians who have historically been suppressed, hidden, and even erased from official statistics for decades. If the data is up now, that makes sense. What’s odd is if the figure is still the same as in 1998.

You also talk about transparency of the method. But funny enough, other sources in the article you support don’t provide any explanation of the methodology either — and you keep quiet. This double standard only appears if the data mentions Indonesia.

That’s not objective. That’s cherry-picking sources to maintain the comfort of your own opinion. And that’s not how to compile a neutral encyclopedia.

If you want to use multiple estimates, go ahead. But stop acting like OCAC is the only one that needs to be examined with a magnifying glass. If you're going to be skeptical, be skeptical of all of them, not just one. 125.164.0.171 (talk) 11:41, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should really learn to discuss number calmly and rationally, don't take discussion on number somehow as an attack on you or question the motive of people talking about it. I said how the 2006 figures were derived was "opaque", that is a criticism, and if I have more information, I could certainly say more. The difference with Malaysian Chinese figure in 2006 was around over a million, and you could explain it away by saying estimates are just estimates, and the difference could be acceptable, but by 2023, the difference had grown to over 4 million, and it is entirely reasonable to ask, where did all these extra millions come from in less than 20 years, especially when the Indonesian Chinese population seemed to be growing at a faster pace than Indonesians as a whole, at a time when Chinese fertility rate is falling. It just seemed very odd and worthy of comment. Maybe there were a large number of migrants from China or elsewhere that we are not aware of, maybe OCAC changed how Chinese are defined and counted, or maybe there is another unexpected reason, and those are the details we really need to know if we want to understand why there is such apparent lack of internal consistency in their data. Hzh (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The irony here is that you tell others to “stay calm and rational” when you are the one raising doubts based on what feels strange to you, not because there is real proof of error.

The OCAC number is higher in 2023 compared to 2006, but that doesn’t make it wrong. You’re assuming the old number was perfect and that nothing has changed, no change in how people identify, no better data collection, no effort to correct past undercounting. That’s not realistic, especially for a group like Chinese Indonesians, who were discouraged from identifying themselves for years because of political pressure and discrimination.

You say, “it seems odd,” but personal feelings like that aren’t enough to dismiss a government source. Unless you have real evidence that OCAC made a mistake, this is just speculation. And speculation isn’t a reason for you to discredit a source.

Also, calling someone “emotional” just because they don’t agree with your doubts is not fair. That’s a subtle way to shift the blame and avoid the real issue, which is your own discomfort with the numbers.

If you want to question OCAC’s method, fine. But don’t act like OCAC is the only source that needs to be questioned, while other estimates with zero transparency get a free pass. That’s not fair. That’s selective and biased. 125.164.0.171 (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem like you know what people have been talking about. Hzh (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When you say “you don’t know what people have been talking about,” it usually means they’ve run out of actual arguments and are now just throwing shade.

Let me remind you: this is not a argument about who sounds more in-the-loop, it's about the content, the data, and the double standards being applied. If you disagree with what I’ve said, address the points. Don’t dodge the discussion by acting superior.

That kind of passive-aggressive remark doesn’t make your argument stronger, it just makes it look like you’re trying to shut down the conversation because the facts are no longer on your side.

If there’s something you think I misunderstood, explain it. But if all you can offer is sarcasm, then maybe you’re the one who needs to read more carefully. 149.113.60.57 (talk) 02:44, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When you say “you don’t know what people have been talking about,” it usually means they’ve run out of actual arguments and are now just throwing shade.

Let me remind you: this is not a argument about who sounds more in-the-loop, it's about the content, the data, and the double standards being applied. If you disagree with what I’ve said, address the points. Don’t dodge the discussion by acting superior.

That kind of passive-aggressive remark doesn’t make your argument stronger, it just makes it look like you’re trying to shut down the conversation because the facts are no longer on your side.

If there’s something you think I misunderstood, explain it. But if all you can offer is sarcasm, then maybe you’re the one who needs to read more carefully. 149.113.60.57 (talk) 03:33, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An agreement has already been reached as to what to do with this issue. We are not here to entertain whatever slight you imagined you have suffered. If you think other people have behaved badly, there are other places to complain about that, like ANI, but note that your behaviour will also come under scrutiny. Hzh (talk) 08:19, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you say “an agreement has already been reached” doesn’t mean the discussion is over. Wikipedia is built on open discussion, not just what one or two people decide. If something is still being questioned, people have the right to keep talking about it.

Also, telling me that I’m just “imagining” problems is unfair and disrespectful. I’ve brought up real points about how the data is treated differently, and instead of answering them, you’re trying to make it look like I’m just upset. That’s not a serious way to reply.

And yes, I know about ANI. If I decide to bring this there, it won’t be because I’m emotional — it’ll be because some editors are trying to shut down others by making personal comments and acting like only their view matters.

Let’s stay focused on the sources and the content, not on throwing indirect insult. 149.113.60.57 (talk) 09:30, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of what you said is in your imagination. You can't seem to read without adding what you imagined to be what other people said. We have no interest in discussing whatever that's in your imagination, so I'll leave you to your own imagined conversation. Hzh (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you say that everything others say is just "imagination", then it really looks like you’ve run out of arguments.

From the start, I talked about actual data, sources, and context, Not made-up things. But instead of answering the points, you focus on attacking how I read, not what I actually said. Funny thing is, you’re the one who keeps guessing other people’s intentions.

If you don’t want to continue the discussion, that’s fine. But don’t end it with a passive-aggressive comment like you’re always right, while you’re the one who avoids the actual points. 125.164.0.171 (talk) 11:58, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you say that everything others say is just "imagination", then it really looks like you’ve run out of arguments.

From the start, I talked about actual data, sources, and context, Not made-up things. But instead of answering the points, you focus on attacking how I read, not what I actually said. Funny thing is, you’re the one who keeps guessing other people’s intentions.

If you don’t want to continue the discussion, that’s fine. But don’t end it with a passive-aggressive comment like you’re always right, while you’re the one who avoids the actual points. 125.164.0.171 (talk) 12:41, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for staying calm and for contributing to a constructive discussion on references and sources, @Hzh. As far as I’m concerned, Wikipedia relies on reliable sources and consensus, and all parties have agreed that both data points can be included in the article (which we have done). What we raised was simply a concern about how some third-party figures were obtained, especially when their sources and methodologies are unclear.

I don’t think the discussion on this talk page has gotten out of hand yet, but if needed, other editors can be invited to review the situation, especially considering the repeated switching between a registered account and IP addresses, as well as personal attacks that have included inappropriate comments on mental capacity, national origin and other baseless accusations. @Amrflh00

@Hzh, thank you also for reminding others about the importance of avoiding inappropriate language, which unfortunately has sometimes been overlooked and repeated.

For now, I will step back from this discussion, as the consensus to include both estimates, along with supporting context regarding their origins, has been reached and incorporated into the article. Native99girl (talk) 14:21, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s so funny how two people agree on something and suddenly it’s called “consensus.” Wikipedia doesn’t work based on what two all say just because they think they’re right. There are still valid concerns — not just about adding the data, but about how one source keeps getting questioned heavily, while others are accepted without much thought.

And about your accusations — “switching accounts,” “personal attacks,” “mental capacity,” “national origin,” and so on — if those are serious claims, then show real proof. Don’t just throw vague things around with no evidence. If nothing clear is shown, then it looks more like you’re trying to discredit someone rather than solve a problem.

Also, saying “I’ll step back” after dropping those accusations and claiming the matter is settled — that’s not neutral. That’s a way to get the last word while making sure no one can reply. That’s not how respectful discussions work.

If you want real discussion, let’s have it. But don’t act like you run Wikipedia or decide who’s allowed to speak. 125.164.0.171 (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a consensus because all three editors involved in the discussion agreed to include both the census data and the external estimate in the article.

Regarding the concerns about account switching and personal attacks related to mental capacity and national origin. On 6 July, you stated, "I noticed that you keep denying the data I gave and deleting it arbitrarily." For clarity, I have not deleted any data from IP address edits. I have only reverted or removed edits made by the account Amrflh00, based on points raised in the ongoing talk page discussion.

That said, it is important to note that this discussion has included personal attacks, such as the use of terms like "brainless" and stereotyping remarks implying that Malaysians are unable to accept facts. Such comments are unhelpful and contrary to Wikipedia’s policies on civility (WP:CIVIL) and no personal attacks (WP:NPA).

I chose to step back from this discussion because the main issue raised was simply a request for clarification on how OCAC obtained its figures, especially in comparison to the publicly documented methodology of the Indonesian national census and the analyses of Indonesian demographic experts such as M. Sairi Hasbullah, Evi Nurvidya Arifin, and Aris Ananta. The data from OCAC appears inconsistent with these sources, and that is why clarification was sought.

Unfortunately, rather than addressing these valid questions, the discussion shifted toward personal accusations and name-calling, as can be seen in this thread. Even if we were to continue, the same unresolved points would likely be repeated. The core concern was always about sourcing and verification, both of which are fundamental to Wikipedia's reliability.

As far as I am concerned, the consensus to include both estimates with appropriate context has already been reached and implemented in the article. For me, the matter is settled, and I will step back from further discussion.

Thank you. Native99girl (talk) 23:44, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I need to clarify a few things because some parts of your message are misleading.

First, I never agreed to any so-called “consensus.” Adding both estimates was a step forward, but that doesn’t mean I accepted how the OCAC source has been treated or how my contributions were edited without clear agreement.

Second, it’s disappointing to see you keep shifting the focus to personal accusations, instead of answering the main question: why one valid source is treated with double standards, That's my question that I always ask, but you are too cowardly to answer so you dodge, look for excuses and other personal accusations. I have explained it many times, OCAC is an official institution. but instead of discussing the data, you keep digging into who said what and how they said it. That’s not how good editorial judgment works.

Then, you’ve said more than once that you’re “stepping back,” but you keep returning to push your narrative and close the discussion your way. If you’ve stepped back, please actually step back, not leave while trying to take the last word and frame others unfairly. 149.113.47.64 (talk) 04:33, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to explain further, anyone who read the discussion knows what you said is entirely reasonable. The only issue is with the IP editor concerned who believed what he wants to believe rather than what other people actually wrote (for example, the person complained about me calling them "emotional" when I didn't), which made rational discussion impossible. If that editor wants to complain, they should take it up with the ANI, and let the admins deal with it, and they can also deal with the IP issue. It's not something we can deal with. Hzh (talk) 09:22, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a while since this article has been reviewed, so I took a look and noticed the following:

• There are lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs, in the article.
• At over 11,500 words, this article is too detailed and WP:TOOBIG. I recommend that article information be spun out, summarised more effectively, or trimmed. One area to start might be the "Demographics" section, which needs to be updated with the 2020 census: once it is updated, older census information can be removed as outdated.

Should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 22:31, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the constructive feedback, @Z1720. I agree that some parts of the article could benefit from improvement, including addressing the citation gaps and considering whether some sections, such as the "Demographics," need to be summarised or trimmed in accordance with WP:SUMMARY and WP:TOOBIG. I also support the idea of bringing this to WP:GAR for a broader review. Native99girl (talk) 23:43, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Native99girl: Sorry that I did not respond to this sooner. If the issues are still present in the article, would you be interested in bringing this to WP:GAR? You can ping me if there are any questions about the process. Z1720 (talk) 02:23, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]