Talk:Papua (province)

Actually, it was renamed 'Papua Barat', which translates as 'West Papua', and then more recently re-renamed 'Papua' (I think in late 2002). This last change could cause confusion as the southern half of Papua New Guinea is also known as Papua. I don't like the line about 'Papuan people have been racially and linguistically different from the Pacific Melanesian people...' 'Papuan' refers to the people who speak the Papuan languages, ie those languages that are neither Austronesian nor Australian. 'Melanesian' refers to the people of the western Pacific that have the darker skins. It doesn't make much sense to use them together as has been done here. user:Dougg

Agreed, in fact the rest that paragraph doesn't make sense either since there were no "Asiaic people of South East Asia" 30000 years ago. Be bold in updating pages! Pm67nz 09:43, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

As far as I know Papuans are Melanesian, and have no relation to the entire Asian racial group. The only two age figures I've seen have been 40 & 45 thousand years, however without explanation for those "over 30" seems much safer. Also the comment about language seems redundant due to the hundreds of languages & dialects. user:Daeron

I would copyedit the accompanying piece, but do not have the stomach to try to bring a badly needed Neutral Point of View to this article.... Any takers? -- user:Caltrop

So far as the facts of the matter go, there isn't much room to manouvere. A colony is a colony, and the history of the place speaks for itself. Still, Ive tried to at least tone it down a little and tidy it up a bit. I'm not going to try to do anything much more with it though, I'd have to spend quite a while chasing down details and refreshing my memory, and I have other tasks I want to get on with. Tannin

The bit about an invasion in 1961 is not correct. There were some attempts to infiltrate by Indonesian forces, which did not meet with much success. They had counted on support from the local Papua's but that was not forthcoming.

Indonesia then threatened with invasion but it never came to that.

untrue according to US State Depart records and West Papuan Government and other wittnesses.Daeron

Holland had promissed the Papua's their own independence. Some of their leaders had already asked for that at the Round Table Conference in 1949. After 1960 Holland lost the support of the US on this issue and decided to negociate. At first there was an attempt to reunify the whole island in a treaty with Australia, that was signed but never ratified by Canberra.

The Kennedy adminstration then decided that there were more indonesians than dutch, so the indonesians had to be right (Robert Kennedy, quote).

untrue as the public US State Dept. records state JFK decided to give West Papua to Indonesia as an appeasement (bribe) for them not to associate with the Soviets.Daeron

I did not include the US State Dept. URL because I did not want West Papua used as a mud throwing exercise at the US, of course pro-Indonesia & Islamic interests also want it hidden, but that's to avoid having their claim on West Papua seen as the sham that it is.

The only concession Joseph Luns got from the negociations was the Act of Selfdetermination, which was turned into a total sham by the Suharto regime.

Indonesia did not have that much influence on the UN, try the US.

The territory was then transferred to the UN, who administered it for a year and then the Indonesians took over. Peacefully.

try 5 months, and had ten days to hand it to the UN. And odd rush for some reason?Daeron

There's a map of the province, at [1], that may be of value to others for research. It's 1140x863 pixels, fills my whole screen, color-codes 4 grades of elevation and 3 of ocean depth. One of 12 at [2] (Do note copyright at front page of site.)--Jerzy 04:51, 2003 Dec 9 (UTC)

Page history of article formerly at West Papua

15:15, 16 Nov 2001 . . ASJ (West Papua)

West Papua forms the western half of New Guinea and shares its eastern boarder with Papua New Guinea. Under Indonesian military occupation since 1961 the Organisasi Papua Merdeka (OPM) has continued its fight with bows, arrows and spears against the Indonesian military armed with assult riffles; Huey helicopter gunshps; and F-16s.

Though New Guinea is one of the few significant rain forest regions left, Indonesia has been strip logging vast areas of forest to provide cheap wood for the Japanese paper industry. There are are crediable though company disputed reports that the worlds largest gold and copper mine operated by the Freeport Corporation has be pouring untreated toxic wastes into the local river system poisoning many villages.

Since Abdurrahman Wahid was replaced by Megawati Sukarnoputri as Indonesian President there has been a massive build up of the Indonesian miliaty base on the West Papuan Island of Biak; and the August 2001 US State Department travel warning advised "all travel by U.S. and other foreign government officials to Aceh, Papua and the Moluccas (provinces of North Maluku and Maluku) has been restricted by the Indonesian government". As few NGOs (non- government organisations) are allowed into West Papua and these are restricted to the Indonesian townships, there is no means to report an any new military operations against the Papuan populations.

18:31, 25 Nov 2001 . . ASJ

Added some links. No change to text

10:29, 26 Nov 2001 . . Zundark (link to Irian_Jaya)

Added the line:

See also Irian Jaya, with which this article should be merged.

No other changes

m 15:51, 25 Feb 2002 . . Conversion script (Automated conversion)

Replaced entire text with:

# REDIRECT Irian_Jaya

13:50, 17 Nov 2003 . . Pm67nz (Irian Jaya is history)

Changed to:

# REDIRECT Papua

This history posted here by Tannin 08:21, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC) prior to deleting West Papua to make room to move the article on that place out of the location it is presently at - Papua - which is so wrong it's absurd. West Papua may or may not be the best place to put this entry, but Papua is the southern part of Papua New Guinea and always has been. Tannin 08:21, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Papua is the proper name of the Indonesian province. For disambiguation it should be at Papua (Indonesia). --Wik 11:27, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)

Incorrect. "West Papua" is NOT a Province, until last year it didn't even have the pretense of having its own layer of government, and as the US document states, Indonesian regional 'governments' are token at best.

"West Papua" does qualify as a Colony, do you want to start the article with that? Why should Wiki take the Indonesian side against the West Papuan government just because there is a military force keeping them in exile. I tried to find the most neutral terms possible, write the facts and let them speak for themselves. But removing the sugar coating, Fact is that West Papua is under a hostile military occupation, being colonised against its peoples wishes. The body counts sort of prove it.Daeron 16:18, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Err ... OK. But which week are we talking about? Just so long as you don't go all fanatical and try to move the original Papua to a new location. Tannin

BTW Tannin, I did mean temperate not tropical. My point was that Greenland is not very habitable, that New Guinea is most desirable island on the planet.. which real reason Indonesia wanted it. If you're willing to clear fell the forests & farm the entire thing it should support 200 million people easy. Lots of water, hydro, minerals, oil, a real gem.

A while ago the start of this article was change from "West Papua is .." to "The Indonesian province of .." ; which has an affect of starting the article with a political claim of procession. I have check several other island articles and none of them start with a claim of procession. Upon that basis alone I submit the article should start with "Papua is .."

I would further submit that the first sentence finish with ", it is claimed as a procession of Indonesia.". This would provide NPOV wording regarding the active dispute of legal status and natural ownership of the country by the native population since 1961 while indicating the government which currently controls the country. Daeron 14:20, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

After reading the Wikipedia definitions of Colonialism and province in relation to Papua which has no local government but is administered from Jakarta, and is being mined & colonised by people of different race and ethnic group from Papuans; the only correct term would be Indonesian Colony. Given the Indonesian propensity for objecting to independant journalism or review I suspect the term "Indonesia possession" would be optimal.

I would also point out to Wik that I have seen his apparent support of the dispute of countries etc. in both the Jerusalem and Israel articles; that you have the opposite view concerning West Papua was ... disappointing. A definate bias POV seems to have less to do with human rights than the religion of the governments & oppressed people concerned. Perhaps that's a wrong impression, but to date I've seen no other explanation for the opposite views on the identical situations (except Indonesia has killed hundreds of thousand of Papuans and moved 1.2 million settlers into a area under military occupation; and Israel hasn't come near those figures..Daeron 02:44, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The world does not recognize Jerusalem as part of Israel. The world does recognize Papua as part of Indonesia. --Wik 02:53, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

Untrue, if you read the wording was that Indonesia "gained United States support for the invasion and claim in exchange for non-engagement with the Soviet Union (Refer to US Dept. State declassified Summary of South East Asian Foreign Policy for 1962, third parapgraph)"

Nobody supported the ridiculous Indonesian claim until, as the US State Departemt document says; it aplied pressure on those concerned out of fear of the Soviet Union. The Indonesians had already been invited to present their alleged case to an Internation court during the 1950's, and they declined. If Indonesia had any legal claim, then please provide that. I have followed the West Papuan situation for twenty years, live in Australia, know West Papuans, have been invited to write a paper to a US think-tank about Indonesia; if you have better knowledge then please provide it instead of deleteing what does not match your political vetting of the Wikipedia.Daeron 04:17, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

from the entry

Also in 1945 the people of Java about 4000 km to the west were encouraged by Japanese Imperial officers to create a new country from Dutch possessions. Though loath to relinquish lands to a social elite which Holland suspected of being collaborators, the Dutch in 1949 gave independence to a new nation called Indonesia.

I'd like to see more evidence for this. Is it a fair way of describing the genesis of Indonesia? It may be perfectly true in every detail, but it sounds rather POV. Tannin 03:44, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Your wish is my command. I wouldn't say it was "the" genesis; but it is correct and I felt germane given the local (Papua) subject. Have a look at History_of_Indonesia and verify with external link somebody else had already included http://www.gimonca.com/sejarah/sejarah.shtml

The Indonesian Republic which came into existance, did so only due to the Japanese setting up Sukarno as war-time leader and especially because they setup the independance committee. A different Indonesia would have come into existance about the same time; if not for the Japanese. Would have been a more left wing government and probably less corrupt IMHO. (probably would only have claimed the areas which already had Islamic Malay people; maybe none, or a smaller part of Borneo and none of West Papua).(BTW I'm 'right' wing myself).Daeron 04:32, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC) Daeron

Thakyou Daeron. In between 16 other tasks (only some of them having to do with the Wikipedia) I'm taking that on board. Tannin 13:33, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I would also like to suggest that Wik purchase and reads "The West New Guinea debacle" ISBN 90 6718 193 5; which may help his understanding.Daeron 04:32, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Daeron is obviously too blinded by his POV to work on this article. Above he says "untrue", only to confirm what I said. It doesn't matter what the U.S. motivations were - as a matter of fact it did, and still does, recognize Papua as part of Indonesia, as does the rest of the world, whether one likes it or not. Therefore it is absurd to call it "disputed territory". A disputed territory is disputed between countries - not one where there is a separatist movement. Would you call the Basque Country "disputed territory, claimed by Spain and its native inhabitants"? I will continue to revert any Daeron-based versions of this article. --Wik 13:09, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

Looks like your reversion deleted all of Tannin's last round of changes too, tsk tsk. Time for another session with the AC I guess. Stan 13:20, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Daeron's POV is something he has taken the trouble to document with a great deal of hard evidence - something you have conspicuously failed to do thus far, Wik. If you disagree with his claims, please provide us with some evidence to discredit his view.

It's time, Wik. Ante up or shut up. Tannin 13:31, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Can't you read? --Wik 13:35, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

Wik

I see you have been 'reverting' articles yet again, last time you wanted to revert it to Tannin's version; this time you don't like Tannin's work? You may have failed to have notice that he had put an herculean effort into coming up to speed on the subject matter and performing careful reviews. Your thoughtless reversions appear to be pure vandalism at its mindless worse.

I sincerely hope your motives in doing so are not out of some perverseness, that you are doing these things just because you are a lonely person who spends every day week after week on Wikipedia so you can have the last word on every subject. That's o,k,, everyone gets lonely sometimes. But stop destroying good work. Mine was good & well researched & supported, Tannin's is good.

Above ALL, do not deny the West Papuan people the ONLY VOICE they have, THE TRUTH.

You may think it is funny to insert the Indonesian mis-naming on this article, and to deny the murders and tortures of Papuans on the West Papuan Genocide page; but it is not.Daeron 04:57, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The purpose of an encyclopedia is not to give the West Papuan people a voice, but to convey information. At any rate, I have to say that I agree with Wik that it's sort of ridiculous to say that the territory is disputed between Indonesia and "its native peoples". This territory is not like, say Western Sahara, where the international community doesn't accept the annexation. Obviously, the fact (if it is a fact) that the majority of the population resents being part of Indonesia and wants independence, and all the shenanigans involved with how it came to be part of Indonesia, should be discussed, but the current phrasing of the first paragraph is kind of bizarre. john 23:45, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

John, yes I agree an encyclopedia is to convey information. Hopefully, the whole truth, and not just a version of history which suits one party or another. I believe the truth helps the Papuans because the Papuans have a honest case.Daeron 13:14, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There is no lack of evidence, John, the territory is disputed. Rephrase it if you wish, but please do not start distorting the facts Wik-style. Tannin

While I don't condone Wik's mass reversions, Why is this sentence wrong:

A disputed territory is disputed between countries - not one where there is a separatist movement. Would you call the Basque Country "disputed territory, claimed by Spain and its native inhabitants"?

No, but had the Basque formed their own government before the Spanish arrived?Daeron

Before I try to reword, I'd like to hear an answer to this question, and some explanation, before I make any changes to the wording. john 04:31, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Just to note, I do recognize that the situation of Western Papua is different from the situation of the Basque Country in numerous ways. john 04:45, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wik, if you don't like the beginning, change the beginning, but don't revert the whole article and take out information. john 06:43, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

First, John, let me make it clear that I am not irrevocably wedded to any particular or exact phrasing in the introduction. This is a wiki, after all, and there is always room for improvement in any entry.

You asked why Wik's sentence was wrong. Simply, because it argues from a distorted set of starting assumptions. Wik talks about West Papua being a territory "where there is a separatist movement". In order to have a "separatist movement", one must first have something one belongs to (i.e., something to seperate from). This has never been the situation in West Papua. In the chaos that followed the Second World War and the decolonisation period, Java made a great many territorial claims, and a fair number of these have been disputed, rejected, or overturned in the period since. The most obvious recent example is East Timor, but there are several others.

Geographically, West Papua is not part of the Indonesian archipelago. It is part of New Guinea, itself part of the Australia-New Guinea continental land mass.
Historically, West Papua has never been part of the Indonesian archipelago - it was not part of the Dutch East Indies, nor of any previous political union.
Culturally, West Papua is utterly distinct from Indonesia.
Religiously, Indonesia is Islamic, West Papua never has been.
Racially, West Papuans are Micronesians - as different from Indonesians as New Zealanders are from Inuit.
Linguistically, the two areas are just about as different as it's possible to be.
Legally, the incorporation of West Papua into Indonesia is highly questionable. The geo-political events that led to the decision to hand administrative power over to Indonesia, however regrettable in terms of human life lost, are not subject to legal challenge. The extraordinary charade of the "Act of Free Choice", however, is deeply questionable. There is an excellent case to be made for the view that West Papua is occupied territory, no more and no less. Let us remember that the exact same arguments were laid down in support of the view that East Timor was a "part of Indonesia" - and when, through a combination of circumstances, an actual UN "Act of Free Choice" was conducted (i.e., a UN supervised poll), the vote against Indonesian occupation was close to 80%.

To simply call the circumstances in West Papua "a separatist movement" is to grossly mislead the reader. We need to express ourselves in terms that accurately reflect the situation on the ground. As I said earlier, I'm not irrevocably wedded to the existing phrasing of the opening para. The final para, however must take care not to commit itself to either of two gross errors:

(a) Saying "West Papua is a part of Indonesia". That is just wrong. There is a great stack of evidence to reject this simplistic view.
(b) Saying "West Papua is an independant nation currently occupied by a foreign power." This is equally wrong. There is a great deal more to it than that.

In short, it's not a simple or a clear-cut situation, and it is not amenable to simplistic solutions - least of all, barberous wholesale reversions of the Wik variety.

PS: I don't know enough to make an informed comment about the Basque Country situation, but I seem to remember that Spain has been a more-or-less unchallenged single political unit for quite a few centuries. If so, the comparison is ludicrous.

Best -- Tannin 12:20, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't think I disagree with anything you've said. (Of course Spain has been a "single political unit" for several centuries. And I agree the analogy is not the best one. But clearly it's not like Western Sahara, either, where a large number of governments do not recognize the Moroccan annexation and recognize the opposition as the legitimate government) At the same time, I continue to dislike the phrasing that "it is disputed between Indonesia and its native peoples." Native peoples are not an organization, and do not, I think, have standing to dispute the sovereignty of where they live with a sovereign country. I mean, is there some organization of West Papuans who claim embryonic sovereignty, like the Polisario Front in Western Sahara? If not, then I'd prefer some sort of phrasing like "Although it is administered by Indonesia, which considers it to be an Indonesian province, the native peoples dispute the legality of the Indonesian annexation, arguing that the Indonesian presence is an illegal occupation. The United Nations and most other countries consider Western Papua to be a part of Indonesia." john 14:34, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How long a country has been a "single political unit" is entirely irrelevant (and contrary to Tannin's claim, the territory was of course part of the Dutch East Indies and therefore, except for the 1949-63 period, was part of the same political unit as the rest of Indonesia ~~for centuries~~ ever since the Dutch took control of it) - what matters is the present status, and it is nonsense to write "Although it is administered by Indonesia, which considers it to be an Indonesian province..." It is not only Indonesia but the whole world that considers it an Indonesian province (if you say "most other countries" please tell me which countries exactly don't recognize it). Nor can you pretend to speak in the name of "the native peoples" - you can only say that there is a local movement that wants independence. I will continue to revert those ridiculous POV versions - if you want to make uncontroversial edits, you have to make them on top of the NPOV version, I can't be expected to remove the POV by hand again and again if Tannin always reverts to the POV version and then makes other edits there. --Wik 15:50, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

Wik is correct that it was part of the Dutch East Indies before 1949. "Centuries" would seem to be exaggerating, though - it wasn't until the late 19th century that the Dutch claim to Western New Guinea was delineated and made effective. Beyond that, I will agree that I do not like pretending to speak in the name of "the native peoples". On the other hand, the issue does seem to be more complicated than simply there being a local movement that wants independence. There do seem to be questions as to the legitimacy of the annexation, and the case of East Timor ought to make us pause. I said "most other countries" because I have absolutely no way of confirming that every other country recognizes Indonesian sovereignty over the region (does East Timor?). I have to say, though, that I think it is far less POV to say "West Papua is a part of Indonesia" than to say "West Papua is an independent nation currently occupied by a foreign power". I think an explicit comparison with Western Sahara and East Timor is in order. As far as I can gather from the East Timor article, other countries did not recognize Indonesia's annexation of East Timor. similarly, few countries have recognized Morocco's annexation of Western Sahara. This is not the case with Western New Guinea. I don't think, however, that the Basque territories, or the Kurds, or whatever, are good examples, either. These peoples have no claims in international law to independence, while the West Papuans seem to have some claims of this nature, although it's hard to see what would be a comparable example. At any rate, Wik, reverting is not going to get you your way on this. the only way to get what you want is to try to come up with an alternative way of doing it that will be acceptable to the other people who've been involved with this page. john 18:15, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No, it is perfectly clear that Daeron and Tannin are pushing a POV here and I will never come to an agreement with them. Since the world recognizes the legitimacy of the annexation, any questions about the fairness of the procedure have no impact on how we should describe the current status. East Timor ought not to make us pause - until 1999 it should have been described as an Indonesian province too, as of course any encyclopaedia did. What may happen to Papua in the future is idle speculation and is not to affect the description of its current status. Many territories in the world may get independent some time in the future. If you check out Britannica's article, by the way, it not only describes it straightforwardly as an Indonesian province, it does not even make the slightest mention of any dispute or independence movement, nor of course does it mention the name "West Papua", which is only what the separatists use. (You are right about the "centuries" part though, it wasn't that long.) --Wik 18:27, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

Wik, East Timor was recognized by the UN to still be a Portuguese colony after 1975. I assume that other countries must have done the same. So the case for East Timor not being part of Indonesia before 1999 seems to be better than the case for Western New Guinea. I don't think the fact that Britannica has a not very good article is any reason to exclude details about the independence movement, but it is a fairly good argument for an intro which just says the place is part of Indonesia. The details about the questionable legitimacy of the plebiscite can be discussed later in the article.

By the way, here's the worldstatesmen.org/rulers.org summary of the status of the region:

24 Aug 1828: Western New Guinea claimed as part of Netherlands East Indies (Netherlands New Guinea).
1885: Partition of New Guinea agreed by Netherlands, UK, and Germany.
15 Apr 1942 - Aug 1945 Northern areas occupied by Japan (in Hollandia to 22 Apr 1944).
29 Dec 1949 Netherlands New Guinea a separate colony.
1961: Independence declared by the armed nationalist group "Free Papua Movement" (Organisasi Papua Merdeka [OPM]).

[Note: This suggests to me that the account of this stuff given in the longer version of the article, which suggests that the declaration of independence was recognized by the Dutch, is highly dubious.]

1 Oct 1962: UN Administration (United Nations Temporary Executive Authority [UNTEA]) replaces Dutch rule.
1 May 1963: Part of Indonesia (Irian Barat province)
Aug 1969: Plebiscite endorses Indonesian rule.
1 Jul 1971: Separatists proclaim independent "Republic of West Papua" with no effect.
Mar 1973: Renamed Irian Jaya.
1 Jan 2000: Renamed Papua.

Compare with East Timor (cut to include only relevant parts):

1951 Portuguese overseas territory.
9 Apr 1961 - Apr 1961: Republic proclaimed in Batugad, sponsored by Indonesia.
28 Nov 1975: Unilateral declaration of independence (Democratic Republic of East Timor).
7 Dec 1975 Occupied by Indonesia.
17 Jul 1976 Annexed by Indonesia (Timur Timor province). (remained recognized by UN as Portuguese territory).

Or Western Sahara:

12 Jan 1958: Overseas province of Spain (Spanish Sahara).

1 Apr 1958: Tarfaya restored to Morocco.
4 Jul 1974: Autonomy granted, but not implemented.

14 Feb 1976: Spain announces it has transferred sovereignty to Morocco. 26 Feb 1976: Spain terminates its administration. 14 Apr 1976: Spanish Sahara is partitioned by Morocco and Mauritania (Tiris El Gharbia); Morocco later divides its area into the provinces of (from 1979) Ad Dakhla (Oued Eddahab), Boujdour, Es Smara, Tan-Tan, and Laayoune. 29 Feb 1976: Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic¹ proclaimed by Polisario Front. 11 Aug 1979: Mauritanian part of the territory annexed by Morocco.

9 Sep 1991: United Nations monitored cease-fire implemented.

So, clearly, Western New Guinea has a less valid claim to be considered not part of Indonesia than East Timor did before 1999, since East Timor was not recognized to be part of Indonesia by the UN. Western Sahara would seem to be closer to the situation of Western New Guinea, save that the Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic is recognized by some governments (Algeria, I think). The Wiki article on the Polisario Front claims that it is also recognized by the UN, but I'm not sure of that. It's certainly the case that most atlases color Western Sahara differently from Morocco, but certainly none do the same for Western New Guinea and Indonesia. john 21:43, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And yet, East Timor is 1,800Km closer to Java than West Papua; of Papuan related people.. strange that they are not suitable.

How on earth is that relevant to anything? john 05:40, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Could it be that the UN was less influenced by the US in 1975 than 1962?

What nonsense. Sukarno's Indonesia was not an ally of the United States. john 05:40, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Or that the global media coverage of the 1991 Dili massacre helped? Should an encyclopedia still be denying the deaths in East Timor if/just because the Indonesians were still in power there? Or should an encyclopedia be trying to print the reasonable assured facts without promoting one political agenda over another? These are real questions thank you.:)Daeron 04:55, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're asking me, but I do notice that you've completely ignored my point, which is that Western Sahara and East Timor seem to have had (or to have, in the first case) recognition as not being part of the country that annexed them from various countries, while Papua does not. On what basis are the claims of a nationalist group of uncertain size and importance to be considered equal to the opinion of every single government in the world?

Wik is right. You're the one who's trying to promote a political agenda here. You yourself have admitted as much, and, to be honest, Wik, for all his faults, cannot be charged with being a pro-Indonesian (or pro-US, for that matter) POV pusher. I don't agree with Wik's methods of dealing with this issue, because they're rude and entirely counterproductive, but he's absolutely right that you should clearly be kept as far away from this article as possible. All you have to offer are non sequiturs, straw men, and appeals to emotion. At any rate, I've put this up on Wikipedia:Requests for comment, so hopefully we'll get some new voices on this question. john 05:40, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Facts are Facts

Dear John, I said I have a personal view. I said it was NOT in the article, that the article should ONLY contain facts, NOT promote one agenda over another.Daeron

Jayapura is 1,800Km further away from Java than East Timor and the Indonesian border there. West Papua's only population was Papuan and a handful of Dutchmen; the people of West Papua had never seen a Javanese person before 1961. Like the Japanese invasion of Papua during the Pacific War the Melanesians of West Papua decided within weeks that they wanted these Asian Malay people to take their guns and go back to their home in Java Indonesia.Daeron

I state again, the article SHOULD STATE THE REASONABLY KNOWN FACTS AND nothing more.Daeron

I have no idea what you're arguing with me about anymore. All I'm saying is that the article should say that the province of Papua is part of Indonesia, since there is no dispute under international law that it is part of Indonesia, and that we should avoiding referring to it as "Western Papua", primarily, because that is the name applied to it by a separatistgroup, and to use it would be POV. I have no objection to a frank discussion of the history of the region. john 19:39, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

THat was it? The last time I saw read the article, it did say that. Except I replaced 'province' with 'territory' ; because of the reasons I specified four days before the edit and Nobody commented or objected, so I proceeded with that edit. I think that's about when Wik deleted the article, and he moved it and reverts it and reverts it. and you never know which version he's reverted it to. He reverted again while I was editing. Meanwhile I've got matterial and would like to write the first versions of following parts of the article:

Tribal & other Regions (I've only just found a map of the Indonesian regions inside West Papua, that's what was hold this stuff up)
Geography
Ecology
Economics
Demographics
Cultures

But I havn't been willing to edit it since Tannin kindly came over to give a hand with this Wik silliness. I prefer a rational environment that isn't trying to wind me up. I'm the ASJ that wrote the thing back in 2001. As better information became available I just wanted to return every so often to update the thing. See if anyone else had added to it, to date there hadn't been much. this time I could at last add the Melanesian issue. Driven the Papuans nuts for for years; they say they're Melanesian and get challenged on it. Well at last there's generic tracks on top of the blood work, and at last the people at Stanford have settled that issue. Not only are they Melanesian, but as a race Melanesians definatly came from Papua (the geographic item, the Island, not neither of the two Papua sub-regions) in the first place. So everyone in the Moluccas are correct when they say they are Papuan.Daeron 20:42, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Alright, Daeron, we seem to mostly not particularly disagree, then. Maybe. I'm still not sure what on earth is going on. Is the current version of the article acceptable to you? It features Wik's preferred version of the introduction, and I've edited the body somewhat, mostly to remove inappropriate references to West Papua and I clarified what was going on in 1961-1962 somewhat (in particular, the fact that the declaration of independence was not recognized, and that 1970 was to be the date that the Dutch gave the region independence). My main concern is that the article say clearly that the region is a province of Indonesia, which is the case. It can then go on and discuss the questionable issues surrounding Indonesia's sovereignty later on, but I don't think that saying something like "it is disputed territory between the Indonesians and its native peoples" can be viewed as POV by any definition. john 20:57, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Explaning Ford Foreign Policy Plans

John said something about "pro-Indonesian (or pro-US, for that matter" , did you think West Papuan Independance is anti-American? It's not, they don't care about 1962, or that the Indonesians were using US manufactured guns at that time. That's just an historical trivial item. I don't imagine anyone at the Whitehouse considers West Papua as a threat to US interests. Their support of Indonesia stems from a steady stream of pro-Indonesia rethoric initiated by the Ford Foundation. By time Indonesia invaded West Papua, the CIA had invested ten years of work on creating a pro-US business elite in Indonesia; not an evil plan; and it wasn't the CIA who thought it up, the RAND Corp. was talked into it by the Ford Foundation which had been involved in flying the Indonesian elite families around the US in 1945-49. Soedjatmoko was a product of the Ford Foundation.

I do wonder what the US President was told in 1962; because the three organisations that gave primary advise about the 'Domino effect', where the same three who had over ten years invested in the Indonesian military Generals. (I don't imagine they would have expected a democratic President would approve of the Ford plan if told of it). Added to that, any study of the Indonesian elite who formed government and their behaviour before & after, there was no way in hell they were ever going to invite the Soviets in. Meanwhile the business plan which Soedjatmoko had proposed a decade before was still in the works, Ford Foundation records state that their original plan to use the land owning elite was changed in the 1950's because the Indonesian Military Generals were found to be more eager to offer favourable business arrangements in exchange for political assistance. It paid-off when Gen. Suharto took effective power in 1965, at which point he was able to offer sweat-shop factories, the wealth of Borneo, the wealth of Papua which his men had invaded a few years eariler. Put into those terms, isolated from other issues, perfectly good plan.

Why do you think the contract for Freeport was signed in 1967, two years before the "Act of Free Choice"? Because Henry Kissingers company had an assuraance from the Military that the Vote go go their way. And it did, according to the Indonesians 1022 out of 1022 (this number varies a bit according to source 1022-1025) selected voters all voted for the Military to stay in control of their country. An unanimous vote, how often do you see that?

Why did Kissinger advise Pres. Ford to support the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in 1975; some people think that board member of Freport McMoRan Inc. Mr Kissinger didn't want the Indonesian military to get upset and revoke the Freeport License; other people think it was in the national interest of the US for un-specified reasons. Again, we don't know.

Much of the real truth, we can not know, but there are things we do know and do have reasonable evidence of. The document I quoted, the US State Dept. summary of Foreign Policies for S.E.Asia 1962 where the third paragraph says JFK decided to gve West Papua to Indonesia due to the Soviet threat, is also one of those facts. And it helps Americans to understand why their nation apparantly supported the Indonesian invasion at that time.

I would also hope, that if the US President (John F Kennedy) had known of the Ford plans which came to light ten years later, that he would have doubted the validity of the think-tank's alleged Soviet domino threat, and have told the Indonesians to withdraw from West Papua. Nobody said America evil, please don't read that into it; the US Pres. was lead to believe that there was an imminent danger of being run-over by the Soviets unless the Indonesians were made happy with the US. I think that threat was illusion, and it was unfortunate. THat's all.

FYI: I have NO intention of any of the above Ford stuff to be mentioned in the West Papua article. It goes outside the scope of an encyclopedia coverage IMHO. Also, I only know of one book where the above Ford Foundation records are bibographed and summarized. I don't imagine the Foundation is ever going to give open access to those records again. And I don't think a single book published in 1970 is enough to base an encyclopedia article upon. That the book was never challenged, that the Ford Foundation then spent years disassocuating itself from the Ford family & companies; Mr Henry Fords personal beliefs from 1915-1947. Are all consistant. I mention it for your information only.I believe it is suitable for personal understanding, just not enough to base another publication upon.

BTW I'm not anti-Kennedy either, in fact it's the Robert F Kennedy Memorial Human Rights Center that's been supporting West Papuan independance and human rights reports for the pass ten years. Both it and and US State Department, are independantly funded.Daeron 10:40, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There are essentially three theories about the American involvement in the takeover of West Papua. (Or East Timor, for that matter - these apply equally to that place.)

(1) The paranoid. It was all a dastardly capitalist plot to gain increased access to the natural resources of South-east Asia.
(2) The realist. West Papua was just a bargaining chip that got thrown into the pot as part of the greater game of global politics. The US has no real friends in SE Asia (no nation there is committed to a close and long-term US relationship in the way that, for example, the UK and Australia are), and yet it has considerable interests in that region that need protection (security interests, financial interests, an interest in promoting democracy, economic growth, free enterprise, and so on). Lacking committed allies, the US must buy its friendships with favours. This was one of them. The State Department paper linked to in the article clearly takes this view.
(3) The cynic. The US cares little and knows less about unimportant places like West Papua. These things just happen sometimes.

Me, I lean toward explanation #2. It's what the US State Department itself says, and I'm inclined to believe them. I guess I'm biased toward that view because it is exactly how the Australian relationship with Indonesia has worked over the years, so it's an easy one for me to conceptualise. Tannin 15:02, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Quick dissection of the US Dept. of State Summary

Because even now on this page people have been talking as if the Americans were just ignorant of everything or had no moral sense; but that isn't what the document indicates:

Elsewhere in the area, the Kennedy administration was attempting to win over Sukarno's Indonesia by facilitating its claim to West Irian, then the Netherlands colony of West New Guinea. Determined not to lose Indonesia to Communist influence, White Houses officials overcame Secretary of State Rusk's skepticism of Sukarno and Rusk's attachment to the Netherlands, a NATO ally. They shifted U.S. policy from neutrality in the dispute toward pressure on the Netherlands to relinquish West New Guinea to Indonesia. The Netherlands had initially insisted on a long-term UN trusteeship and UN- supervised self-determination for the inhabitants. The final agreed plan included only a minimal UN role in the transfer procedures; it was a virtual handover from Netherlands to Indonesian control. President Kennedy and his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, played a major role in this process. During the final stages, the President intervened to insist that Indonesia accept the Netherlands' last best offer and not escalate its guerrilla war against Netherlands forces in West New Guinea.

The obvious is the stated motive.
"Secretary of State Rusk's skepticism of Sukarno"

So Sec. of State didn't want to

"pressure on the Netherlands to relinquish West New Guinea"

No legal language or claims, pressure had to be used

"Netherlands had initially insisted on a long-term UN trusteeship and UN- supervised self-determination"

who didn't trust the Indonesians? The US of course was more worried about the Soviets.

"President Kennedy and his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, played a major role"

so it's nice that one of the first causes for the RFK Human Rights Center started in 1988 was West Papua in 1993.

"During the final stages, the President intervened to insist that Indonesia accept the Netherlands"

which would support the Dutch PM's biography about receiving the personal phone call from JFK

All up, O.K. the US did a dubious thing, but it knew it was dubious, we also know it wasn't the Dept. of State that was suggesting this course; and it wouldn't be hard for the Kennedy family to now say that it was something that Robert Kennedy regretted. I'd assume the Pres. and his brother talked with Mr Rusk about his views on the matter. So every reason to believe it was something the US administration of the day didn't want to do either; it just believed it had no option.

To the best of my knowledge, I am unaware of the US ever saying or inferring that the Indonesian claim had any legal status. This is also consistant with some legal challenges to the UN actions which lawyers for the West Papuans have been trying to get the UN to face.Daeron 21:54, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Daeron, I don't think anyone is trying to argue that Indonesia had any pre-existing legal claims to Netherlands New Guines prior to the 1962 treaty. The question is what the legal status is today. And that has nothing to do with the question of Indonesian claims before 1962. Some of this detail about American policy in 1962 could be put into the article, of course. john 23:06, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Indonesian province" is an even worse title than "Papua (Indonesia)". Wik, you are completely out of control. Tannin 23:39, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thank Daeron for it, he moved it again to West Papua and prevented me from moving it back to Papua (Indonesia), so I had to choose another NPOV title. --Wik 00:01, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

John. I'm having huge difficulties doing anything sensible with this page at the moment. Wik is reverting stuff faster than I can type, and the Wiki is going so slow at the moment that I can't keep up with the changes. (How does Wik do it? Is his connection faster than mine - unlikely, as other sites are loading just fine, it's only the wiki that is ridiculously slow) or (more likely) does he just revert everything without bothering to read?) I'll return when the connection improves. Tannin 00:03, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm confused. Wik reverted once. As he points out in his edit summary, all he did was change the date of the name change (which I can't vouch for the accuracy of - worldstatesmen.org gives 2000, but which is surely minor), and remove an anachronistic reference to "West Papua" in the 17th century. Are you sure it is not my edit which you were objecting to? john 00:31, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As a general note, worldstatesmen.org is full of errors and should never be used as a source. See here for example for confirmation of the 2002 name change. I think the autonomy package that came into force on January 1 made it official already, though a special ceremony was held on January 7. --Wik 00:56, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, rulers.org confirms 2002. It's generally more accurate, I find, where the two differ, although usually they have the same lists. I have to say that they're both tremendously useful, even if there's occasional errors. Of course a more reliable, non-internet source trumps them, though. BTW, should the map in the article show the whole of the Indonesian half of the island as part of the province, when Irian Jaya Barat seems to have been split off into it's own province last fall? BTW, Indonesia is (sort of) a democracy now, isn't it? How have Papuan separatist parties done in provincial and national elections? Isn't that worth considering in terms of whether the province can be considered to be part of Indonesia or not? According to [3], in 1999 10 of Irian Jaya's 13 parliamentary seats went to members representing national Indonesian parties (9 of the 13 either to Megawati's Democratic Party of Indonesia or the Golkar Party, the two main national parties), with only 3 going to "etc.", which presumably would be nationalists. john 03:39, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the map should be changed, but I haven't found any map showing the new boundary yet. As to the elections, I suppose the separatists may have boycotted them. --Wik 17:33, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry John, I now realise when I said check the names on the various NGO Reports such as listed at West Papuan Genocide; first problem is you always have to double check that you're not REDIRECTed to a different article of Wiks he calls Attacks in West New Guinea; he's deleted & replaced the West Papuan Genocide with a REDIRECT some ten times so far. Also the link at the bottom to the Yale Uni. documentment seems to have had the "West Papua" part of its title missing, fixed now.Daeron 07:15, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Daeron, Wik, has not deleted pages, as he cannot do that. Moving pages is quite different. Might I suggest, BTW, a title like Human rights violations in western New Guinea? I don't think we should assume genocide, but Attacks in West New Guinea is an absolutely awful title. john 07:19, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Tannin raised this same question on the Talk page. I must admit I couldn't read the whole Yale document in one sitting, for a couple of reasons;-) ; its entire aim to to address whether the term is appropiate and legally correct according to International and US standards; they further explain that the term does not just refer to a few physical attacks, that something like hacking a hundred thousand people to death does not by itself qualify despite what the newspapers think. The paper does a indepth review of various aspects they feel are required to qualify; and thankfully after all their detailing of examples and required issues, they do include a summary. Their answer. Yes it is G..ocide.

I considered trying to use some other term, but then I realized I'd be doing the same thing as if I'd ignored the whole situation in the first place. I'd already decided to write the separate article so that such details could be kept out of the West Papua one here. I realised if I didn't boldly use the G-word then it be the same as ignoring the deaths in the firts place (and not just physical death which seems to be part of what the Yale people actually also cover, their concern seems to include issues of the Papuans having their government, church leaders, and representation removed).Daeron 07:53, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Daeron, this attitude you have about this is very troubling to me. We are not writing an encyclopedia in order to advocate for politics we like. We are trying to describe things in as neutral a way as possible. I don't think one study (by the Allard Lowenstein foundation, no less! That crazy student leader shares a surname with my mom, oddly enough) is enough for us to say definitively, in the article title, that this was genocide. The question of whether or not it qualifies as genocide ought to be brought up in the article, of course. BTW, most of the examples cited are from the 80s and earlier. Is that because repression has lessened of late? john 08:04, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Crazy student leader? You are a doctor as well as a lawyer; or a Republican? Yale University not to be trusted? What about people from Harvard? What about the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Center for Human Rights, another Crazy? The Catholic Church and Franciscans International, more Crazy people? U.S. Department of State in Washington DC, yet another Crazy? Are you sure that it's all of those people who are crazy.

I was referring to Allard Lowenstein as a crazy student leader with fondness. He was a radical student leader in the 60s, and has been dead for some time. I was just bemused that he has a foundation at Yale named for him, especially as my middle name is Lowenstein. The statement I'm not saying Yale, or whoever, isn't to be trusted. I'm saying that genocide is a very serious charge, and I don't think it is NPOV to call this "genocide". john 14:38, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm only interested in publishing facts. Any conclusion you or anyone else draw from these is none of my interest. You appear to have a strong political agenda, would you care to explain why a list of reports upsets you so much?

I have no political agenda. I have nothing at stake here. The list of reports doesn't upset me at all, and I'm perfectly fine with having it in the article. I don't think I ever said differently. john 14:38, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You seem to wish to insert political statements into the first paragraph of this article; I did not; who has the political agenda seems to be subjective. I think facts are not political, you claim publishing facts is. You wish to delete documents you don't like, I do not.Daeron 12:13, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm sick of this. You're accusing me of all kinds of things that are not true. I have never said that I want to remove information. Certainly not that I wish to delete documents. I have no clue what you think I'm on about, but this is all entirely ridiculous. Throughout this conversation, you've been completely ridiculous and non-responsive. You seem to be responding not to things I actually say, but to what you think I say. As to the first paragraph, it's not a "political statement" to say that it is a province of Indonesia unless you can show me why we should not consider it to be a province of Indonesia. It functions in every way as a province of Indonesia - it has a governor, representation in the Indonesian parliament, and so forth. Furthermore, it is recognized by every country in the world and by the UN as being part of Indonesia. That is to say, whether Papua is part of Indonesia is a question of fact, not a question of judgment. And it is, in fact, a province of Indonesia. This is ridiculous. john 14:38, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Daeron is clearly bullshitting. But when you refuse to waste any more time with such a person, some people here will accuse you of being unresponsive. --Wik 17:33, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I think Daeron is sincere, but horribly confused. You may be right, of course. At any rate, not appearing unresponsive is important to me, and I'd rather vent my irritation through long reponses on talk pages than through revert wars...but there we differ, I suppose. john 19:38, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Who was the person throwing around highly belittling POV statements like "a separatist movement" ?

Whuh? How on earth is that belittling? john 23:13, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Reading that in the article, I just gave up on your extreme POV.

After Tannin had the infinite patience to write 3Kb of text explaining why that was so offensive; you next belittle the 'clash' of foreign cultures by saying it was most like Western Sahara? Did the Western Shara have its own government when invaded; Have the members of that government killed over the next several years? Did the Western Sahara have one third of its population exterminated in the most horrific fashions?

I have no idea. Western Sahara is no picnic, I'd imagine. There are tons of refugee camps in Algeria, for instance. Do you actually know anything about Western Sahara, or are you maumauing? The situation of Western Sahara was rather similar, at least superficially. In both cases, a neighboring country invaded a receding colonial province, leading the colonial power to give it up to the invading power, in spite of the existence of a native independence movement. john 23:13, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And yet I said none of this in my version of the article, I simply listed the known and legal facts, offered no opinions (at least tried to), allowing readers to form whatever understanding they wish. I was going to great lengths to keep a NPOV for the article; then Wik and yourself started your editing war; I have not added content for six days waiting for you two to finish your great re-writing of the article.

But when you make statements like "clearly, Western New Guinea has a less valid claim to be considered not part of Indonesia than East Timor did"???? How charming of you to tell us which opinion to have.

The UN never recognized East Timor as part of Indonesia. West New Guinea has been so recognized since 1969. Many other countries never recognized East Timor as part of Indonesia. As far as I know, no countries have refused to recognize West New Guinea as part of Indonesia. john 23:13, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I think you're wrong on both accounts. I think West Papua's case is much more like East Timor than the Western Shara. And I think West Papua has just as much claim to not being part of Indonesia as East Timor.

Western Sahara's case is actually stronger than West Papua's. The UN is still demanding an "Act of Free Choice" in Western Sahara. That already happened and been recognized in West Papua in 1969, whatever its legitimacy. I notice that you still haven't addressed my earlier point about election results in the parliamentary elections in Irian Jaya in 1999, which saw national parties receiving 10 of the 13 seats for the province. The Irian Jaya information page that I added a link to seems to have a strongly pro-Papuan perspective, but mostly seems to be advocating for autonomy, rather than independence. It uses Scotland's home rule since 1999 as a model for Irian Jaya/West Papua. john 23:13, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And this evening when I saw your talks with Wik about how to coordinate your activities against Tannin's possible future edits... I just felt sad for you.Daeron 22:16, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. I wanted to make changes to the article that would result in a version that would, hopefully, remove some of the problems that both Wik and I had with it, while still including the extra information that Tannin was upset that Wik was reverting. So I set out to do that, and asked Wik not to revert, because I was afraid he would do so if there was something he didn't like about it. I have no idea how this was a plot against Tannin, and certainly not against future edits.

This argument is completely insane. I have no idea what you're even on about. john 23:13, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Quick Google Count

Just to clarify the google count issue concerning the names;

"Papua New Guinea" 3.81 million
"papua" 3.81 million
"west papua" 46.8 thousand
"irian jaya" 114 thousand
"west papua" "irian jaya" 10.6 thousand

What this indicates to me is that less than one in one thousand people mis-spells 'New Guinea' ;-)

That less than 10 thousand sites use the term "Papua" for either "West Papua" or the PNG Territory of Papua; while over four times as many call it "West Papua". Also, when you factor in issues like journalism is not allowed, that US and other countries advise their citizens to avoid the area, that the Indonesian consider the name 'West Papua' as offensive and tied to the pro-independance movement; and that the official name for twenty years was "Irian Jaya". It's significant that only 104K sites use that long standing official name to the exclusion of West Papua. I submit yet again, that West Papua is the established common English name, as is also used by the various NGO and Government reports such as listed on the non-redirected / non-reverted version of the West Papuan Genocide page.Daeron 23:21, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

When you fake figures, try to make them at least internally consistent and not as obviously impossible as the ones above.

Real figure:

"papua" -guinea -"west papua" 378,000

--Wik 23:52, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

I can help you Wik, if that's the figure you got then for years you must have been getting Google pages in Korean, Indonesian, and other such languages. You must have been very confused; just go into your Google Preferences and select the English language. Doing your above search I get 388K not 378K, but if I check English language pages then I get 178K; the top three pages of which are:

Royal Paua Yacht Club in Port Moresby Papua New Guinea (PNG)
www.petra.ac.id which is filled with graphic buttons written in Indonesian which Google doesn't recognise as non-english; and
http://www.petra.ac.id/english/kti/irian/ which if you read their 'Overview' you will find says:

"Later, during the colonial rule of the Dutch, the Spanish name was changed and became known as 'Ducth New Guinea', which in turn became 'West Papua' to be subsequently changed to ' West Irian' at the time of intergration with Indonesia, and finally she became known as Irian Jaya, the name by which this province is now known." BTW: it's the Kristen University in JKarakar Indonesia that's repeating that use of West Papua.

Hmm...sounds like they're using "West Papua" to refer to it from 1961 to 1963, at best. john 06:10, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

So your search found 1) PNG; 2) Indonesian site that may be the Gold-kar political party site (judging by it's logo) or a registar (do you speak Indonesian?); and 3) a University that agrees the West Papuan government did vote to change the country name to West Papua in 1961. Thank you for proving my point; I'd never have found that Indonesian University info without your help.:) :) Daeron 05:51, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't think anyone disagrees that the Dutch-convened assembly voted to call it West Papua. The point is it's not called West Papua at present. john 06:10, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

By the way, +Papua +Indonesia -"west Papua" gives 2.7 million hits. john 00:01, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

John, IF West Papua is the common english term as I say, then your listing would target towards sites that gave place listings without enough text to explain who or where West Papua is; fair readers? Lets see your top three:

Current local time in Jayapura - Papua - Indonesia
http://www.alternatives.ca/article136.html - a 2 paragraph item
USGS Earthquake Hazards Program: Earthquake Report: PAPUA ...

But I did want to see your search's first indepth page would say, it was next; a one page Luke Society Page article http://www.lukesociety.org/news/fall2003papua.html Daeron 06:32, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There are 550,000 hits for +Papua +Indonesia -"Papua New Guinea" -"West Papua". There are only 60,000 hits for "West Papua". john 00:04, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My search gives as top results...

[4], calling it simply Papua, Indonesia
[5], which seems quite sympathetic to the people of the province it refers to as Papua
[6], from the US Geological Survey, calling it simply Papua, Indonesia
[7] a missionary group in the region, calling it Papua
[8] another missionary group, calling it Papua
[9] another missionary group, calling it Papua
[10], the world gazetteer, calling it Papua

And that's the first page of results. All clear references to the area as just "Papua". john 06:10, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

John, Actually I think you are sincere, and passionate in your beliefes. Just horribly unexperienced in what English speakers traditional call West Papua. If you were Australian or spent a few years here, you would not even imagine calling 'West Papua' by the name of the whole island.

Has it not occurred to you that it's the two Australians who've been saying it's called 'West Papua'. Now I know you're from Marylands and Pennsylvania and relay upon upon sources like Encyclopedia Britannica as your initial reference upon subjects you've not known about before; and that's all very good as a start. But you need to understand that locals sometimes know what's going on in their own backyard, even better than some encyclopedia or government report says. I don't know where Wik hails from; but I'm certain he is not familiar with Melanesia nor Australasia which are to two regions New Guinea falls into geographicaly and culturally; it is only natural to expect Australians would be more aware of New Guinea and events there, just as you would be more aware of the geography and events in Mexico or Canada than I would be. Did your local televison service news program have an item about West Papua last night, no?, well mine did. Common sense enough.Daeron 06:57, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If West Papua was not the commonly used English title for West Papua, why would a search at the Australian ABC News site return any results? ABC News search "West Papua". For the benefit of our international audience ;-) ; the Australian ABC stands for Australian Broadcasting Corporation; it use to stand for Australian Broadcasting Commission; it is the original government funded free to air radio and televison service; the 'BBC' of Australia I susppose, and using correct language is a very big deal for them.:)Daeron 08:35, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Daeron, I would imagine that the province is generally known as "Papua, Indonesia", as most of the references from the Google search I made had that, rather than just "Papua", which is, indeed, confusing. Second point - just because Australia calls it something doesn't mean that's the general English term for something. At any rate, considering that the name change to "Papua" occurred only two years ago, I would imagine that, when referring to the Indonesian part of New Guinea, it is probably still more common to say "Irian Jaya" than to say either of the alternatives - note that there are three times more results for "Irian Jaya" than for "West Papua". Also, it would make sense for Australian news media to be more precise than accurate, because the term Papua is ambiguous - it can refer to the Indonesian half of the island, to the southern half of Papua New Guinea, or to the entire island. "West Papua" clearly shows what is being referred to. But that doesn't mean it's the most accurate name. The fact is, that there is a province called Papua. Furthermore, given the new existence of the new province of Papua (or Irian Jaya) Barat, that is to say, "West Papua", which is not the same as the province under discussion, this term is ambiguous. So, Papua (Indonesian province) is both precise and accurate. "West Papua" is neither precise nor accurate, even if it is more commonly used. john 14:57, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The actual Indonesian name for the region is Propinsi Papua, your title Papua_(Indonesian_province) is, neither precise nor accurate; but that "West Papua" is as you say "more commonly used" is relevant and suitable as the name used in an English language version of Wikipedia; I have no problem with the Wikipedia Indonesian version using the title Propinsi Papua where it would be better understood. But I think this edition of Wikipedia should used the name West Papua in accord with what every western news report and every NGO has called it for forty years, IMHO.Daeron 09:16, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

On an entirely different matter

Unrelated to all this irritating argumentation and reverting, is it correct to say that "the Papuans are Melanesian"? Some of the things I've read suggest that Papuans are a different ethnic group from Melanesians, both of whom live in Melanesia (the Papuans being the group formerly known as "Negritos") john 19:01, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Honest question? Yes, I've seen something about the 'Negritos' theory. You could easily find sites that still sprout it, though hopefully only from people who collect such documents and not from anyone who had read the more recent studies. It includes a 'opinion is fact' item by claiming the Melanesia languages belong to the Malay group, and an assumption that Lapita pottery had to be Polynesian; it comes from the days when Europeans where trying to figure out pre-history by the dubious means of identifying language and culture development paths (one of the many problems with it always was that trade also transfers words from one language to another). These days we tend to use genetics to confirm or disprove such theories as reasonable hypothesis or impossible. It's now accepted that Maori and other Polynesians came into the Pacific 'recently' via Taiwan. The Malay were a separate movement of another Asiatic people.

Before them there had been the ancestors of the Australian 'aborigines', of course when they arrived, New Guinea was part of the Australian mainland. After the waters rose they've been split into two groups. As far as I know it is assumed the Australians came via the Malay (Indonesian) archipelago, much of which was possibly a land bridge at the time. but in any event they certainly were here tens of thousands of years before the Malay people came south.Daeron 16:23, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know enough about this to do anything but take your word for it. That said, on the larger issue, why don't you outline specific things that you don't like about the article, instead of just reverting, so that we could work towards finding some kind of consensus. john 18:00, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Because I would be delighted if people were willing to do so; my problem has been that some people have been inserting their concepts and refusing to allow others to edit or discuss the subject with those people.

For example I raised the issue two weeks ago that 'Province' as defined in the Wikipedia is not a proper description, that it would be therefore mis-leading to use that translation of the Indonesian name, and that 'province' should not be used as an initial description. I did so days before editing it. Later I also raised the issue that when sovereignty is in dispute, that it should not be mentioned until later in the article where a more neutral statement (if any at all) can be made.

After this, a Mr Kenney said I had been denying that West Papua was part of Indonesia, statements which I took exception to in whichever talk pages the issue was raised. I suspect Mr Kenney may have become emotionaly invested in his edits and had accepted at face value some derogatory comments made by a Mr Wik, and have failed to have checked just what I had actually written.

Are you now saying that you are willing to stop reverting, to discourage Wik from his constant reverting, and to discuss issues before putting them in the same article for the second time?Daeron 11:26, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Name of Article

Propose poll of Wikipedians as to which article name should be used; article had been under the name 'West Papua' from Nov 2001 - Apr 2004; it has since been moved to 'Papua_(Indonesian Province)' .

Papua is the name of the island New Guinea
A West Papuan government in 1961 voted to adopt 'West Papua' as the nations name; however, since the 1962 invasion and UN transfer of the country to Indonesia the region has not used this name inside Indonesia; only Papuans, other Melanesians, and English speaking countries call the region 'West Papua'.
the current Indonesian name is Propinsi Papua, Indonesia
the English common name for the region remains 'West Papua' ; see Google CNN, Google ABC (Aust), or above Discussion or Govt. and NGO Report titles such as listed in External Links of this article.
also some concern has been expressed that to use the english translation of the Indonesian term 'propinsi' as 'Province' might infer an operational regional governmentDaeron 08:57, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Flat-out lies by Daeron as usual. The article was named Irian Jaya from November 2001 to November 2003, when pm67nz renamed it Papua (belatedly recognizing the actual name change of the province that already took place in January 2002). Only in April 2004 did Daeron and Tannin try to move this to West Papua. --Wik 12:13, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

oohhhh, 4months out; geeze that's reason say that non-sense, for your racist editing, and your efforts to expunge West Papua from the Wikipedia. Klan members must be having a right old laugh with what you've done so far. Some people write about subjects they know about, but you and John seem to search for articles you can drive the authors away from; whatever subject just so long as you can push your POV.Daeron 14:28, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]