Talk:Papua (Indonesian 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] (http://www.accommodationsbali.com/maps/html/ijayamap1.htm), 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] (http://www.accommodationsbali.com/maps/html/maps.htm) (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 (http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/frus/summaries/950306_FRUS_XXIII_1961-63.html))"

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 (http://www.laksamana.net/vnews.cfm?ncat=35&news_id=1815) 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] (http://psephos.adam-carr.net/indonesia/indonesia.txt), 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)

Referring to your question about election results for West Papuans, the 1999 elections were boycotted by OPM & the Papua Presidium. User:Roisterer

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] (http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/city.html?n=759), calling it simply Papua, Indonesia
[5] (http://www.alternatives.ca/article136.html), which seems quite sympathetic to the people of the province it refers to as Papua
[6] (http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/bulletin/neic_hdaf.html), from the US Geological Survey, calling it simply Papua, Indonesia
[7] (http://www.lukesociety.org/news/fall2003papua.html) a missionary group in the region, calling it Papua
[8] (http://www.hcjb.org/displayarticle1238-mode=thread.html) another missionary group, calling it Papua
[9] (http://www.spu.edu/depts/ocm/sprint/sprint_team.asp?teamId=112) another missionary group, calling it Papua
[10] (http://www.world-gazetteer.com/d/d_id_pp.htm), 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" (http://search.abc.net.au/search/search.cgi?collection=abcall&form=simple&num_ranks=20&query=%22west+papua%22). 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 (http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Acnn.com%20%22west%20papua), Google ABC (Aust) (http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aabc.net.au%20%22west%20papua), or above Discussion or Govt. and NGO Report titles such as listed in External Links of this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=West_Papuan_Genocide&oldid=3460991).
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)

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, and your efforts to expunge West Papua from the Wikipedia. Some people write about subjects they know about, but you and John seem to search for articles you can drive the authors away from; that you knew nothing about West Papua didn't matter to your desire to leave your smell in it.Daeron 14:28, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

I apologise to everyone for lossing my cool. I am however very tried of John's claims to have community 'concensus' upon the basis he and Wik were more NPOV than Tannin and myself.Daeron

John's Statement

You have yet to provide any examples of an encyclopedia using the term "West Papua" as the primary way of referring to the region. There is an Indonesian province called "Papua". There ought to be an article on it. It was called "Irian Jaya" before 2002, and many sources still call it that. It is sometimes informally called West Papua, and is called that by separatists/nationalists. But that is not the official name, and to call it that is to take a POV - calling it by its official name cannot be POV. I have no idea about the Australian media - perhaps they call it West Papua. This would be a convenient designation to distinguish it from Papua New Guinea. But that doesn't mean it's correct. And you've yet provided nothing to support such a stance, except appeals to authority and claims that I'm ignorant. And constantly reverting the article (and reverting it to a very old version which has less, and more inaccurate information) does not help your case. john 16:27, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Almost every word of this has already been extensivly refuted; I shall again go through each if that helps.Daeron 06:14, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

You have yet to provide any examples of an encyclopedia using the term "West Papua" as the primary way of referring to the region. There is an Indonesian province called "Papua".

No, there is a Indonesian Propinsi called Papua.Daeron

There ought to be an article on it.

There would be if you didn't keep reverting over the main West Papua article where English language people could find the article. The article he keeps reverting over of course includes a link for Indonesian Regencies of West Papua or the like; but John may not have read what he reverted over repeatly.Daeron

It was called "Irian Jaya" before 2002, and many sources still call it that. It is sometimes informally called West Papua, and is called that by separatists/nationalists.

"To simply call the circumstances in West Papua "a separatist movement" is to grossly mislead the reader." - quote from Tannin, this page where he itemizes 7 reasons to support his conclusion.Daeron

But that is not the official name,

To the Indonesians, it is Propinsi Papua; to the Papuan population it is West Papua (despite not speaking English! They speak Papuan, Dutch, and Indonesian, but call their country West Papua); to the Papuan government of 1961, wrong, they have never voted to change its name from West Papua, they may be dead but that's besides the point; and Papua Province or Province Papua is certainly wrong, no such place; Province is an approximate english translation of Propinsi with regional government meaning not valid in West Papua. But this is NOT an Indonesian encyclopedia; it is english and should use the common english name (wasn't there a Wikipedia Poll upon that subject, didn't John vote yes to using the Common English names, I don't understand his rejection of using West Papua so people know we're talking about the western half of Papua); see above Google section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Papua_(Indonesian_province)#Quick_Google_Count) or Name of Article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Papua_(Indonesian_province)#Name_of_Article) section regarding common name (nil question), world-wide it is known as West Papua, the other names were only used as a courtesy to the Indonesian government.Daeron

and to call it that is to take a POV - calling it by its official name

It's official Indonesian name is Propinsi Papua which is meaningless to English readers.Daeron

cannot be POV.

Yes it can, it endorses the Indonesian claim instead of remaining neutral in the issue. Also, by putting it first, it implies to the reader that West Papua must be a 'natural' or 'near-by' country to Indonesia, instead of 4000Km away on, even on a different contintental plate. Never mind race, religion, culture, or histories which have nothing in common. Putting it first would be extremely powerful pushing of POV that Indonesia is a legitimate and natural ruler of West Papua. I personally know of no place where black Christians welcome Asian Muslims to rule them and their country.Daeron

I have no idea about the Australian media - perhaps they call it West Papua.

As does the US Media as I have pointed out repeatly above. And provable by search CNN or others for West Papua.Daeron

This would be a convenient designation to distinguish it from Papua New Guinea. But that doesn't mean it's correct. And you've yet provided nothing to support such a stance, except appeals to authority and claims that I'm ignorant. And constantly reverting the article (and reverting it to a very old version which has less, and more inaccurate information)

This is another example of John stating his POV as fact, perhaps he believes it. But a look at the history page of the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Papua_(Indonesian_province)&action=history&limit=500&offset=0) disproves his assertion; truth is I talked about stuff on discussion page 14/Apr; I edited article 18/Apr; Wik started reverting on 24/Apr and I quicky decide not to play your games, I did not even edit the article from 24/Apr to 1/May except for one effort to get a message to Wik on 27/Apr. I submit, again you state your POV as if it were fact.Daeron

does not help your case. john 16:27, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Stans Statement

So which country is in charge in the western half of New Guinea? To organize things on the assumption that a country's rule is not legitimate seems like a pretty strong POV; doesn't seem like WP should be in the position of deciding the legitimacy of the various claims. Since articles have to have a single title, we pick as close to an official title as possible in English, and not, say, an unofficial title used for political purposes. After all, we do have an article at Israel, even though there are many who think it should go away and the whole area be called Palestine. Stan 07:02, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Goodness sounds like the same old territory, perhaps I'll repeat Tannin eariler staement for you:Daeron

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

So which country is in charge in the western half of New Guinea?

Indonesia, read my article and you would know that.;-)Daeron

To organize things on the assumption that a country's rule is not legitimate

I make such assumption; why does John promote the other, seems POV.Daeron

seems like a pretty strong POV; doesn't seem like WP should be in the position of deciding the legitimacy

If you say a country's population is unqualified to state its position, that's your opinion, I never stopped you from giving opinion as opinion; but my article is only about the facts, not about your or John's opinions.Daeron

of the various claims. Since articles have to have a single title, we pick as close to an official title as possible in English, and not, say, an unofficial title used for political purposes.

In fact, the Wikipedia concensus is to use the name best know in English, isn't it?.Daeron 08:50, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

After all, we do have an article at Israel, even though there are many who think it should go away and the whole area be called Palestine. Stan 07:02, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Could it be because the majority of English speakers call it Israel; just like the majority call West Papua by that name not Irian Jaya (Eastern Victory); not Papua (New Guinea); nor Province; no matter what it is called inside Indonesia.Daeron
- Ga...when have you demonstrated that "the majority of English speakers call it West Papua"? You are merely asserting this. There are more google hits in English for "Irian Jaya" than there are for "West Papua", and Irian Jaya is an obsolete name. john 08:59, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Stan, although I feel your intervention will only result in you getting abused by Daeron.

That is abuse? And when you try to convince Tannin that I was a "raving" whatever; or when you told 172 that I was a "lunatic" - was that your prfessional opinion, or where you just trying to set the tone for others to follow your POV.Daeron
- It was my response to the nonsensical claims you've been making on this talk page for weeks. So, um, neither? At any rate, I'll admit that neither of us has particularly shone in the level of our discussion here, and that it would have behooved me to carry on at a higher level. john 08:59, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

To try to put in a reasonably concise manner Daeron's position, I believe he would respond to you that Wikipedia is "deciding the legitimacy of the various claims" by referring to the region by the Indonesian name and calling it an Indonesian province. IMO, at least, this arises out of a willful (it must be willful because I've been trying to discuss it - alternately calmly and not so calmly - for quite some time now) misunderstanding of NPOV. Daeron, as far as I can tell, is immune to the normal procedures of argument. For instance, his entire argument that the West Papua name is more used is based on the claim that he just knows that it is, and that Wik and I are ignorant for noting that he's provided no basis for this claim, and that what little information one can find through google doesn't particularly support it. So, basically, I don't think you're going to convince him. But who knows? john 07:20, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Hoping we can take up issues one by one

Since several people have asked me to weigh in here, I guess I will.

Whoever you are, thank you.Daeron

It seems to me that, since this area is generally internationally recognized as part of Indonesia, the least POV title is the one it has: Papua (Indonesian province).
At google, or Wikipedia itself; a person looking for some article upon the country in question, which name are they likely to try? Wikipedia only responds to percise word matching doesn't it? Is it reasonable to assume people to guess the multi-part 'Papua (Indonesian province)'? I think it more reasonable that people would quickly try 'West Papua'Daeron
"West Papua" should be a redirect to this page
At the same time, a quick web search indicates literally thousands of web sites referring to this area, in the present tense, as West Papua. This strongly suggests that the article should feature prominently the contention over the name and the politics behind that contention. I would expect the name "West Papua" to appear within the first two paragraphs. I would expect a far larger section dealing with what is barely touched upon in the section "Papuan government in exile."
? Did you have a chance to see the version which they keep reverting over?Daeron 09:09, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
(more to come) -- Jmabel 08:02, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
Also, unless Daeron is wrong about "Propinsi Papua" being the official name in the national language, that should be prominently present, much as we do for, say, Germany. (I can't readily tell whether this was disputed or just got reverted unselectively.)
- Quoting Daeron's Introduction: "West Papua has been an Indonesia territory since being annexed in 1969; the region has had several names West New Guinea, West Papua (1961), Irian Barat, Irian Jaya (1973), and is currently known as Propinsi Papua, Indonesia (2002)."-Daeron 16:00, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
- Anything wrong with that?
- As far as I understand it, "Propinsi" simply means "Province". We don't prominently feature this word in our articles on any other Indonesian province. Not am I aware of any other English source that does so. john 08:35, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
  - see Provinces_of_Indonesia - propinsi does mean province. Given that the term is not used for any of the other Indonesian provinces, my assumption is that Daeron is emphasizing Propinsi Papua in order to make it seem as though simply "Papua" is incorrect, and replace it with a name that looks outlandish and difficult to understand. But I probably shouldn't assume bad faith. john 08:46, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
  - Sounds reasonable to me. Daeron, if you have an issue about this, could you try to be specific?
  - Again, have you had a chance to see my Intro? I think it does include it, I think my Intr has 3 paragraphs, Geo, Ethnic, Admin/Names.
  - Problem with 'translating' Indonesian terms to English, is that it carries new meaning which are NOT in the Indonesian version. Propinsi does NOT mean a regional government; as the US Congress Library statement says, regional offices are simply extensions of Java; do NOT expect Melanesian justice or control of commerical activities.
    - The word "Province" does not suggest that Melanesian justice or control of commercial activities is involved, either. What you are describing is an autonomous region, or something. A province is merely a subdivision of a country - there are no particular connotations to it. john 09:41, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
  - Just like Indonesian Military does not mean the same as in western countries; in the west we expect the Military is subject to Government control, not visa versa as in Indonesia; we expect the Military is financed by the Government, not by its own commerical logging and mining interests.
    - Certainly, the Indonesian military has a different function than in many western countries (as does, say, the Turkish). That does not mean that the word "Military" itself does not mean the same thing. john 09:41, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
    - West Papua has been claimed as an Indonesian territory, seem much more NPOV to me, does it infer something? Every country has a territory or two, seems a neutral term and not inferring local governance.Daeron 09:23, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
      - I'm sorry Daeron, but that's completely POV. Indonesia views Papua as a province, like any other,
        And I never said it wasn't a 'Province' by Indonesian standards; just that 'Province' according to Wikipedia apparantly does mean something different to the Indonesian concept of 'province', that 'Territory' seems a more neutral term; what POV does it push? I think 'Territory' is NPOV enough to be allowed into the Intro.Daeron
        Daeron, the Wikipedia definition of province implies nothing of the sort. All it says is "Province is a name for a subnational entity of government usually one step below the national level. In some countries an alternative term is used, e.g. state or department." I don't see how Papua does not qualify by that standard. john 04:23, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
      - and it is administered as a province (whatever that involves - if it has less self-government than other Indonesian provinces, we should say so, of course). Furthermore, Indonesia calls that province "Papua," not "West Papua," and it is recognized to be an Indonesian province by other countries (the World Factbook, for instance, which is of course not an authoritative source, but an example of western opinion, lists Papua as one of 27 Indonesian provinces). While many countries do have territories, Papua is not defined as a territory, but as a province, and it would be misleading to say otherwise. john 09:41, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
        You're fighting for the Indonesian's right to use the term 'Province' even though you don't know what that involves? How do you know they object to the term territory? Seriously I doubt they object, just so long as they control it, which I dodn't think you're denying; though for some odd reason at some point you seemed to decide I had, I know not why, you never explained.Daeron 16:00, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
        I know what a province involves. The Indonesians call it a province. It is a province. You have presented no evidence as to why it should not be considered a province, except that you don't like the term, and that you've made bizarre claims for what a province consists of that you can't back up. All a province is is a subdivision of a country. Papua is a province because Indonesia says it is. There is nothing in the definition of a "province" that implies that there is self-government. john 17:56, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
Daeron says, "312 known cultures / languages and over two hundred additional dialects." The article as it stands says, "253 known languages and over two hundred additional dialects.". In either case, a reference would be in order, and if they both have reasonable references, we should be explicit that there is a range of reasonable estimates and where they come from. Assuming the web references are online, this can be done very compactly, since the reference reduces to three visible characters. If not... well, let's cross that bridge when we come to it, it's been dealt with successfully elsewhere, I'll be glad to help.
(more to come) -- Jmabel 08:21, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
I don't disagree with anything you say here. The name "West Papua" should be mentioned more prominently - I've just added it in, although the wording might be improved. I'm sure Daeron will object. As to the "government in exile," I'm rather dubious - this government in exile is not recognized by anybody as being the government of a country called "West Papua." It should certainly be mentioned, but I'd want to do more research from dispassionate, non-advocacy sources as to what the exact nature of it is. I think Daeron has written more material on the subject that remains locked in the history, which could be brought out, but it looked POV to me, so I haven't done so. john 08:07, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
- - John, do you not think it would be easier, to allow my version up; and then for you and Wik or anybody else, to go through any problems you have with it? Perhaps you did not have time to read my article.Daeron 09:33, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
    - Actually, Daeron, I already did that once. You then reverted for several days to your version, and then reverted to that version and added a bunch of stuff. At any rate, I already moved some of the stuff from your version to the me and Wik version (the stuff on regions, geography and ecology). I'll try to bring as much of the stuff on the governments in exile, and all that, as is relatively salvageable and NPOV - I'll admit I didn't look it over that closely, although the glance I had of it seemed kind of POV to me. john 09:41, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
      - I wasn't asking you to copy my work on Geography, Regions, or Ecology. You say it's "relatively salvageable and NPOV"; is there anti-NPOV element in my History section that is beyond repair; I would welcome hearing of any non-NPOV elements, that's what I was hoping for by giving people four days notice before I did the initial edit 18/Apr. I did not even object to Wik changing "West Papua" back to "Indonesian Province" or whichever.
        I already edited you and Tannin's version of the sections that were already there, to try to NPOV them. You objected and then went to reverting to a pre-Tannin version. I see no reason to do the same thing again. john 17:56, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
        You keep saying over & over that I, and then Tannin were evil POV pushers; that you brought the first and only NPOV to the article; yet you also say you don't know enough about the subject to comment on it. But not once have you ever said what non-NPOV Tannin and I were 'pushing'.Daeron
        As Tannin put it: If you disagree with his claims, please provide us with some evidence to discredit his view. It's time, ###. Ante up or shut up.
      - What Wik obviously didn't realise was that he was re-inserting something that had been specifically addressed and talked about on the discussion page and untill this instant I thought was still at the top of this page! Idon't care how it got removed, and forgive everyone for all imagined 'trespasses' if we can all start behaving like adults from now.
      - Both User:Jmabel & User:Wik please look at the top of this Talk page as it was back on 18/Apr (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Papua_(Indonesian_province)&oldid=3238076)
      - Wik, I did NOT un-do your edit without due care or discussion.Daeron 16:00, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
It seems that Daeron's introduction of the name Don Jorge de Meneses, as the Protuguese captain who (in 1526) first sighted Papua and also (according to Daeron's version of the article) named it "Papua." Are these claims disputed or did they also get caught up in a general reversion?
- Probably caught up in the reversion, but I don't know - I think Wik may have had a problem with at least the phrasing of it. john 09:41, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
Daeron's proposed "The Papuan people welcome the Dutch as fellow traders conditional to mutually acceptable behaviour," seems to literally go without saying, and I would omit it. However, his "The majority of the estimated 800 villages of West Papua would have been unawares [sic] of the Dutch claim to their country," seems to me to be relevant, NPOV, and a good corrective to a blindly Eurocentric perspective. I'd restore that before the sentence that now begins "The 1930s saw the first stirrings..." Any objections?
- I would suggest that we not use "West Papua", which is POV and anachronistic (I'd prefer "western New Guinea," which is a purely geographical designation, or maybe "Netherlands New Guinea", although that seems possibly POV and Eurocentric). As to the unawareness, my understanding is that no Europeans went up to the highlands until the early 20th century, but that once they got up there, they were brought under control (in the 1930s or so). So I'd want to verify and specify. john 09:41, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
- "Netherlands New Guinea"? Are you trying to figure out the old term for the region? The name as it was actually called by people during the 20th century until 1962, was Dutch New Guinea; though I think "Netherlands New Guinea" may have been the offical designation since WW-II.Daeron 16:24, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
  - It was called "Netherlands New Guinea", at least in official documents. At any rate, I was saying it should be referred to that in the context of a discussion of it during the period of Dutch rule. john 17:56, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
- The reason westerners then started to call it "West Papua" was because it was no longer 'Dutch', and "West Papua" is the shorest & easiest description so you knew percisely where you were talking about; Indonesia was using something that no-one could pronounce or remember straight. It's only coincidence that it was also what the Papuans had decided they wanted their nation called. "West Papua" remains the simplist geographic description that people will most commonly try to refer to it as.Daeron
  - "Irian Jaya" is no harder to remember than any other geographical name. And, as far as I can gather, before 2002 it was the term most commonly used to refer to the area. At any rate, I agree that "West Papua" is more unambiguous than "Papua", which can have several meanings. Unfortunately, the province is not called that, and it has connotations that suggest we're taking a POV. john 17:56, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
- A person says he's from West Papua, you know what he means; he says he's from Papua, you assume he's form PNG.Daeron
  - Obviously, I have less experience with people from New Guinea than you do, having never met any. I have no doubt that this is the case, and that the name "West Papua" is in use. However, it is not the official name, and we should avoid informal names, especially a one like "West Papua" which is used by nationalists and thus POV. john 17:56, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
At this point, I'm bowing out at least for now. It's 1:30am where I am. I'm going to bed, and when I get back to the Wikipedia, I'd like to focus on the areas where I feel I know what's going on. I would suggest that, given how contentious this has become, the only way consensus will be reached is to keep going through the controversies point by point at a level of detail like I've started doing here. I suspect you will find that you actually have (or can easily reach) consensus on the vast majority of them. At that point, you can perhaps come up with a mutually agreed list of where you disagree, then pull back in a mediator, maybe from the official list of mediators. Or you can pull me back in, but please at least try to talk to each other civilly enough to get to where you can jointly identify your actual disagreements in terms relevant to the article. And if you feel that nothing in how you've been writing merits my remark about being civil, then there is a fair chance you are not the person it was aimed at.

GAACK. I've tried 6 times to save and interlace things in the right places, but the edits are coming so fast I keep getting conflicts. It's been 30 minutes of this! -- Jmabel 09:06, 9 May 2004 (UTC) Know the feeling.Daeron 09:09, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Jmabel, for coming and discussing this. I think that we've already made some progress, and I think you're right that looking this at a more detailed, point by point basis is the way to go. - -Daeron, would you be willing to call a truce as far as insulting one another goes? I think the history of this dispute, and the assumptions of bad faith on both our parts as to what the other's intentions are, is making it very hard for us to come to any agreement, so I'd like to start anew, with a clean slate, as though none of this earlier discussion has occurred, and hopefully we can come to some agreement, at least for most of the article (I imagine we're going to continue to disagree, at least, on the usage of "West Papua" and the question of how this area's current political status is to be discussed. But at the least we can hopefully come up with some sort of consensus on the rest of the article, and then perhaps call in others to get some sense of what to do about these other questions). john 09:41, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

The Name issue for the third time on this page

I'm responding to Daeron's response to my question above (the phrase-by-phrase interpolation style of response is confusing). I'm just going to focus on the article title; for content we can craft each sentence to address concerns and nuances, but there can be only one title. Let's assume that some part of the population of a place objects to the official name; should that override the official name? I think this would be hard to get right, because at what point do you switch over? For instance, there are Latino separatists in the US Southwest, and I believe they're even a majority in some areas - they want to secede and call their chunk of southern California/Arizona/New Mexico "Nueva Mexico" or some such. Should we now immediately move to rename all articles relating to that region, saying "Tucson, Nueva Mexico" instead of "Tucson, Arizona"? Similarly, we use Polish names for cities that may have a large or even majority German population (the WP edit wars are over content, not titling), and likewise elsewhere in the world. So the use of official names for titles seems less like an expression of a POV and more like the application of a uniform standard for article titles, namely that we follow government usage rather than popular usage, irrespective of how we regard the government and people. Stan 13:48, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

But, that isn't the reason.

The reason to call it West Papua is because that geographic description has become the normal why for English speakers to ensure they know which country they are referring to. In short, the common English 'name' for the region.Daeron 17:11, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Why's the Timor-Leste article still called East Timor, because that's what all the English speakers know it as. In My Opinion the article should be titled either Irian Jaya or West Papua; and once you establish in the article which country you are talking about, and list the alternate names; you should avoid using any name as much as possible.KIS.

I'd never heard "West Papua" before the edit warring started on this article, so it can't be that common. English-speaking stamp collectors use "West Irian", "West New Guinea", or "Irian Barat" for instance. I expect the East Timor article will be moved in the near future, seeing as how Ivory Coast redirects to Côte d'Ivoire now. But I'm a little puzzled now - are you arguing for a title on the basis of common usage, or on the basis that Indonesia's rule is not legitimate, and therefore it doesn't have the right to choose the official name for one of its regions? Stan 18:09, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

If you live in say America, then I suspect it would be *very* unlikely that you did ever heard of the country. You probably also never heard of Freeport McMoRan Inc. before; never knew that a US company owned & operated the World's biggest gold producing mine, did you? It also produces the World's cheapest copper, did you know you had Papuan minerals in your own home? The US is *not* known for hidding it's light under a bush; yet, did you know the US has the world's biggest open cut mine? Considered an engineering wonder, extracts over 190 thousand tons of mountain per day. A whole world of events that's gone on for decades without you or your fellow countrymen knowing about it; it doesn't mean it isn't happening, it doesn't mean they don't have names.

You should take a closer look at my user contributions before being condescending about who knows what about what - among other things, I've described a bunch of the Solomon and other Pacific islands since nobody else was doing it. My personal stamp collection includes material from places I guarantee you didn't know existed. The existence of mining operations has nothing to do with naming - presumably you think it's some kind of compelling point, but to me it seems like a complete non sequitur that makes me think you're more concerned with advocating a POV than writing a neutral encyclopedia article.Stan 05:59, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

I was not condescending, I was raising the point that West Papua and activities there get very little coverage in the US; if you are the person who contributed the section about stamps to the article, then you should be aware that I thanked you for that, though perhaps it got lost among all the re-hasing on this page. I would imagine that the US media and public would have a greater awareness of issues in Mexico and Canada; where as Australians would be more familar with New Zealand and New Guinea (Papua).Daeron

I suggest further comments be held for now until John gets back to us about this 'mediation' he's gone off for.Daeron

Taking CNN as a non-Australia, US media service for you, first three articles; and ALL using the 'name' West Papua to clarify their articles;

"FACTBOX: West Papua (Irian Jaya) Wednesday, February 5, 2003 Posted: 12:17 AM EST (0517 GMT) Separatist leader Theys Eluay was found dead after apparently being kidnapped in November 2001. Story Tools. (CNN) -- The western half of the island of New Guinea -- the world's largest tropical island -- constitutes the Indonesian province of West Papua, formerly known as Irian Jaya."
"June 16, 2000 VOL. 29 NO. 23 | SEARCH ASIAWEEK
Militias Stalk West Papua
The province could be the next East Timor By ALASTAIR MCLEOD Jayapura
Andy Burdam was just sitting down to an evening meal with his family when the police and militiamen arrived. They punched the 45-year-old Papuan elementary school teacher and dragged him away to the local police cells. From outside the station in West Papua's far-western coastal town of Fak Fak, militiamen threatened the independence supporter and threw large stones at him while the Indonesian police watched. "They did nothing to stop them," Burdam says."
"Ninety-nine arrested as West Papua mob kills two police
December 8, 2000 - Web posted at: 6:10 AM HKT (2210 GMT)
JAKARTA, Indonesia (AP) -- A separatist mob attacked a police station in troubled West Papua province and killed two officers with machetes, axes and arrows, police said Thursday. A gang of indigenous Papuans killed the two and wounded four other officers near a university campus on the outskirts of the provincial capital of Jayapura, said Major Zulkifli, who like many Indonesians uses only one name.".
US Department of State (http://www.state.gov)
excerpt of "Background Note: Indonesia"
A subsequent UN General Assembly resolution confirmed the transfer of sovereignty to Indonesia. Opposition to Indonesian administration of Irian Jaya, also known as Papua or West Papua, gave rise to small-scale guerrilla activity in the years following Jakarta's assumption of control.
Note from Daeron, I suspect what they mean by 'small-scale' is that the people taking on the military were armed with a handfull of WW-II vintage rifles and traditional spears and bows; not much of resistance to a handful of people with automatic weapons, never mind any helicopter gunships.:).Daeron

Interesting that "West Papua" is the third alternative - apparently they don't think it's the most familiar name either. News sources aren't always authoritative, they're only as good as the sources they use. These days especially, news outlets don't do as much fact-checking as they should. Stan 05:59, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

To quibble, Stan, no cities in Poland have German majorities (or even sizeable minorities) - the argument is about cities that used to have German populations. At any rate, Daeron, I'd like to see some substantiation of your argument that West Papua is the most commonly used English language name. A quick Lexis-Nexis search reveals that this does seem to be the predominant usage in the Australian press. But even there I see references to just "Papua". I don't think it's at all clear cut - most of the articles referring to "West Papua" seem to come from a perspective sympathetic to West Papuan independence. At any rate "Irian Jaya" is clearly wrong - the province is no longer called that. Why on earth would you rather call it by an obsolete Indonesian provincial name than by the current name? john 17:56, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

John, we have already been through this above: see Google Count (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Papua_(Indonesian_province)#Quick_Google_Count) and Name of Article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Papua_(Indonesian_province)#Name_of_Article) where I give you links to verify West Papua is in use, even in the US which has no publicized involvement or connection with the country. You surely don't expect me to copy thousands of article onto this page just to convince you that West Papua is the common name we've (In Australasia, Melanesia, and Indonesia) known for forty years.Daeron
- Daeron, I am not denying that the name is in use, just that its use is so predominant that it should be the location of the article. john 03:56, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
  - As I understand Wikipedia practice; it is then aim to use the most human logical name for each article in each language edition; therefore 'Timor Leste' is under 'East Timor'; and this article would be under 'West Papua'; the aim of re-directs is not to act as a primary location system. How many people are going to come to Wikipedia and type in the correct sequnece of a three part name with brackets and upper and lower casing? A person who types in 'Papua Province' would probably be looking for Papua Province, PNG; lots of tourism goes on there. The tourism industry is much smaller in the Indonesian Papua province.Daeron
  - And it would be deceitful/misleading to give readers the impression that West Papua enjoyed the social support of Indonesian Provinces like Bali. FYI: Bali is Hindu, but being of Asian stock they qualify for more equal treatment; but a person visiting West Papua would find themselves at the mercy of TNI who typically check you for any camera or recording devices on entry & exit; if you want to take a camera, ensure you are on a pre-organised tour.Daeron

Is it actually true that no Polish cities have German majorities anymore? I thought that it still a hotly-debated issue, because many of the Germans had gone "underground", so to speak. Stan 18:09, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

According to World Factbook, there's a 1.3% German minority in Poland - most all of them were kicked out after World War II. john 18:16, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Hey, folks, may I suggest that the title of the article is one of the most controversial questions, and also the least important (since people will easily find the article if all of the redirects are there). The purpose of this is to write an encyclopedia article that will inform people, not to score political points. I strongly suggest that one (or more) of you who seem to care a lot about this article continue the process of setting up a point by point list of disagreements -- not about your personal histories, not about who is good or evil in the archipelago, but about what the article will say -- and see how many of them you can get to consensus; secondarily, how many of them can come down to specific points of disagreement that others can engage without reading pages of debate. Maybe a separate "section" for each open issue? I don't know. But let's all remember that we're here to write an article, not to have a big political debate. It's OK if on some points we simply cite two conflicting sources, you know. If you want to see an example of two of us doing this sort of thing without biting each other's heads off, you might want to look at Talk:Jorge_Luis_Borges/Archive#20_Feb_04,_edits. -- Jmabel 20:55, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Further discussion like this is pointless. I've requested mediation. john 04:57, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Agree with Jmabel, and potentially with John, I have no axe to grind on this one (except an interest in Indonesia related things), and would be happy to help in any way. Mark Richards 19:49, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Somebody asked if I might help with an independent opinion on this, but I'm afraid I really have no time to look over the issue(s) (I'm in the midst of exams right now). However, I will say that glancing at it, the points Jmabel makes above are very good ones. Just last night, I noticed a nice little footnote on Republic of Macedonia stating "The location of this article is not meant to imply that Wikipedia takes any official position on this naming dispute." I don't know if that exact format is necessary and/or helpful, but the attitude it embodies certainly is. - IMSoP 12:27, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion; hopefully with such a notice this article could be allowd back to the common English name of West Papua; not only would it's return be consistant with established Wikipedia naming policies Wikipedia:Naming_policy_poll, but it would also allow other Internet users a better chance of finding such an article through when they do a Google search for the common English name.Daeron 14:20, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Daeron, you have yet to show that West Papua is the common English name. john 20:13, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Response to request for peer review

This is in response to Wikipedia:Peer_review#West_Papua, which was also linked to from the village pump (now removed) and my talk page.

In brief, and at the risk of bluntness:

1. I don't think this is a suitable use of peer review.

2. I prefer the version currently (see below) at Papua (Indonesian province) to the version at User:Daeron/Scratch.

3. I'm happy with any one of several article names including the current one, although it is certainly not my choice.

In more detail:

Uses of peer review

IMO and as I understand the page introduction, peer review is for requesting a review of your own work in order for it to be criticised, changed and improved. This request seems to be rather for defence from criticism, and criticism of the work of others and particularly their reverts. I'm painfully aware that peer review was recommended on this occasion by others whose judgement I respect a great deal, but I also think I need to call them as I see them fall.

Preferred version

As the above links may not reflect the contents at the time of this review, and to save others searching the history, my comments here refer instead to Daeron's last edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Papua_(Indonesian_province)&oldid=3492469) and the version he was reverting (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Papua_(Indonesian_province)&oldid=3492405). These appear to be similar to the current versions at the time of writing (note writing, this may even have been saved significantly later so the edit time is no quarantee).

I have no objection to the NPOV of either of these versions. NPOV is an ideal and imperfectly realised by both. I think there is an honest and competent attempt at NPOV on both sides. However I think Daeron's phrasing and setting out is generally inferior.

I don't like either map at all, both assume that the reader will guess which territory is Irian Jaya/West Irian/Papua. A name or a key showing which colour is used for the territory in question is essential if Indonesia is to be highlighted too. Please note, this again assumes that the maps have not changed. I don't know an easy way to link explicitly to the current versions of these images, I hope the point is clear anyway.

Article name

I am happy with Irian Jaya, West Irian, West Papua or Papua (Indonesian province) and think we need redirects from at least the first three. These are in my personal order of preference (preferred first) based on the usage of several friends who have lived there for periods of five years or more, and local usage in Australia, which is after all the largest close dominantly English-speaking neighbour. But, this usage is IMO liable to change at the whim of newspaper and TV journalists and editors, whose impartiality falls short of NPOV at times. So I don't think there's a good answer to the name. It is politically sensitive, and there is no neutral ground. Pick one, keep the redirects, and stick to it for the medium term at least is my advice. And let's all do something more productive.

Recommendation

I don't want to do the work of the arbitration committee, but I feel I must add something to the above. If it goes beyond peer review (and it does) then that's because I think the request did.

Basically, I hope Daeron might calm down and look at some other articles for a while. That's not to say it's his fault, just the opposite. IMO his understanding of the political situation and commitment to NPOV are both quite clearly superior to that shown by several others. But he has asked for help (which says something in itself). They haven't. Equally blunt comments are available to any others who ask for them. I hope this helps. Andrewa 16:46, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

His commitment "to NPOV are superior"? I just checked. He also uses IPs such as 211.30.95.182. Here are some of his edits. He redirects a page that has POV title "Human rights violations in western New Guinea" to even more POV title West Papuan Genocide (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_rights_violations_in_western_New_Guinea&diff=9587222&oldid=9582004). The title should be just "Human rights in western New Guinea." More here: Attacks in West New Guinea (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Attacks_in_West_New_Guinea&diff=9665653&oldid=9507917). Papuan Genocide was created by User:Tannin but 211.30.95.182 immediately got involved. Is User:Tannin a sockpuppet? This should be examined. In Papua (Indonesian province), he apparently wants to insert POV assertion in the first introductory paragraph, "site of an on-going genocide since the 1960's". * (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Papua_%28Indonesian_province%29&diff=9581879&oldid=9575466) Are these his commitment to "superior NPOV"?! OneGuy 10:41, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I thought I requested mediation (which Daeron rejected) and listed this page on requests for comment. I also wonder what you mean by "just the opposite" (that suggests that Daeron's problems are the fault of those of us who have been opposing Daeron), and saying that his commitment to POV is "quite clearly superior to that shown by several others." I find it odd that you basically support the current version of the article, and at the same time, make vague, indirect insults at those of us who have worked at creating this version. john 17:24, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

I also wonder if you've looked at User talk:Jmabel, where Daeron accuses me of plagiarism because I put some material he'd written, previously reverted, back into the article with some changes; and possibly of anti-semitism because he perceives my position with respect to a debate at Talk:Jerusalem as contradictory to my position in this article. So he's the one with the superior commitment to NPOV? (I'd add that I won't dispute that his knowledge of this region is clearly superior to that of any of the rest of us - many of my own disputes with his version of the article have come out of a critical eye on facts he himself provides, disputing the conclusions he draws from the facts rather than the facts themselves). john 22:14, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Most of what you raise above doesn't seem to me to be helpful to the goal of improving the page, so it doesn't belong on this talk page IMO. In time I'll probably answer more fully in the section you created on my user talk page.

I will answer one or two things even so. On a personal note, I'm very sorry you are offended. I apologise for the unintended and inaccurate implication that you (or anyone else) hadn't asked for help in forums other than peer review. That wasn't what I said or intended to say but I can see how it could be taken that way.

I often refer to a quote from Reader's Digest marginal notes years ago: The difference between a prejudice and a conviction is that you can explain a conviction without getting mad. You seem to have taken my defence of another user, of whom I was explicitly critical, as an attack on yourself, although you weren't mentioned. Think this over. What does it say about your own NPOV? Should you take a break too, and let others look the article over? I think you should consider it. Andrewa 18:03, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

A recent anonymous edit...=

A recent anonymous edit looks to me to be almost certainly good at least on some points, but it's extensive, anonymous, gives no citations, and was not summarized either in edit comments or here in the talk page. I would suggest that those who have been working on this article and consider themselves expert on the topic -- I am not -- have a good look at it. In particular, some material was deleted without explanation, which often suggests a political agenda. -- Jmabel 06:09, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

meaning of Irian ==

Is there any basis for the acronymical supposed meaning of Irian? It seems highly dubious to me, and it should not be in the introductory section unless it is true (which the article does not actually assert) john k 14:35, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes

My papuan friends certainly seem to think that the acronym is both correct and accurate. --Jkh.gr 21:35, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, this doesn't actually seem to be the case. See [11] (http://www.irja.org/eypij.htm) and [12] (http://www.irja.org/eypij2.htm). While this seems to be a well known myth, it would appear not to be true. And it doesn't even make any sense. We should mention the supposed acronym, but the idea that this is the actual origin of the name Irian should be avoided. john k 22:49, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Also see [13] (http://w3.rz-berlin.mpg.de/~wm/PAP/Re_NameChangeWP.html). The acronym story seems pretty determinedly false. john k 22:53, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, basically my understanding, built on conversations with friends from West Papua, is that they see the term IRIAN as being the acronym stated. Of course if other independence fighters are quoted as seeing the word 'Papua' as a derogatory term, in one language, and favour the term Irian, it is doubtful the issue can or should be resolved on Wikipedia! I therefore propose that somewhere in the beginning of the article, second paragraph, tied in with the term Irian Jaya a brief surmise of this debate be given, and the final link quoted by John Kenney be linked to as an external reference. Thanks for the links you provided, though I am somewhat inclined to see both sites as being less than impartial-IRJA I think toes the Indonesian government line, whereas the German link is very much pro-independence (at least people quoted in it are). --Jkh.gr 05:33, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Undoing POV Revert

"reverts" should be avoided where possible; and efforts at reasonable discusion attempted instead of attempting to undo other people's work without attempt to understand it.

For example, the genocide is very well documented at the link West Papuan genocide provided; the person who 'reverted' did not even read the article he was reverting. He also removed the corrected map; links to several UN documents confirming other new information which had bee added to the article. This POV Revert also removed two new paragraphs of information about the history of West Papua during the 1950's and what was happening at the time of the Indonesian invasion. It also removes important improvement of a third paragraph including the inclusion of US documents verifying the article.

Please reframe from using "revert" or unexplained removal of information unless there has been a concensus reached supporting it.211.30.95.182 07:08, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Propose returning name to West Papua

This article which has always been about Western Papua irrespective of which name you wish to call it; was about ten months ago against Wikipedia policy of using common English names, moved from 'West Papua' to 'Papua (Indonesian province)' in accordance with the Indonesian name.

As other people have pointed out; the region is no longer called 'Papua (Indonesian province)' by the Indonesians, but is a combination of the two Indonesian Provinces called 'West Irian Jaya' and 'Papua (Indonesian province)'.

As this article is about the combine region, commonly known as 'West Papua' and has extensive discusion & edit history ; I suggest this article should be returned to the name 'West Papua' to allow a different article about the current Indonesian Province to be written under the title 'Papua (Indonesian province)'. Does anyone disagree that this article is about western Papua, it's location, history, ecology, and other issues relating to it.; and not the Indonesian Province which a few months old. Daeron 12:10, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, move article back to 'West Papua'

yes -- Daeron 16:19, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, move article to 'XYZ' because ... (please keep reason to one or two lines. Further discussion below).

Naming Discussion

Geez, not all this again. As a historical region then, the article would have to be severely pruned. For instance, ecological stuff should be moved to article about the island as a whole (unless birds and bees are now caring about the location of the borders). I should make you whack all the POV stuff before accepting any name change (everything Indonesia does seems to be "widely criticized", other countries have a "delicate and troubled relationship" with Indonesia which is just not true, and we seem to have remarkable insight into the secret minds of Indonesian politicians, even though we don't seem to have many of their own actual words quoted anywhere). I don't have any particular opinion on the whole subject, but I'm pretty sure the Indonesian government considers itself to be acting honorably in a situation made difficult by a handful of troublemakers, and this article still does not represent their POV accurately. Stan 14:45, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You are again talking about some other article, not this one. This article does not talk about 'bees', nor does it contain your quotes of "widely criticized", "delicate and troubled relationship"; nor does it even talk about Indonesian politicians let alone their 'secret' thoughts. You attempt to slur with 'POV' accusations after all this time is ... remarkable but un-productive. Once the personal comments are removed, you do not seem to say anything; though you seem to suggest that this article is not about western Papua.

In short, you do not object to returning to the English name, just to 'POV' which you have not identified.Daeron 16:05, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How about "Indonesia conducted the widely criticized Act of Free Choice"? I note that Act of Free Choice, which I would expect to amplify on what "widely criticized" is supposed to mean (2 critics? 200? 20,000? 2 million?), but I see it's kind of vague on that point. Also, we have later "Frank expression of views is complicated by the delicate and troubled relationship many nations have with Indonesia.", followed by the lengthy quote from US govt which should have been a link to an article on Indonesia's government. And the ecology section is out of place if this is to become an article about a historical region rather than a present-day province. I think the fundamental problem with this article is that it's attempting to be an imitation country article, but despite all the wishful thinking, the region is not its own country, and the cause would be better served by more careful and neutral writing spread across multiple articles treating various aspects of the issue. Most readers won't even get to the end of this article, and those that do are not going to be convinced by the relentless anti-Indonesia slant on things - first-world readers tend to think of Indonesia as the oppressed, not the oppressor. Stan 23:35, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't have any strong concern for what title this gets, but I see two possibilities here:

We move this to some other title so that we can use this name for the present province of West Papua.
We indicate at the start of the article that the province name "West Papua" referred first to a larger region and then to a smaller one, and that this article covers the history of the larger region down to the time of the split; thereafter it follows only the smaller one, and the subsequent history of the remainder is elsewhere, presumably at West Irian Jaya.

Does anyone have other suggestions? -- Jmabel | Talk 17:52, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

The article as currently designed seems to discuss the current province of Papua, and not the whole western half of the island.

How so ?

The article as currently designed seems to discuss the whole western half of the island, not just the current province of Papua. Please read the article to confirm this, before being sucked into a Bugs Bunny/Daffy Duck routine. -- Daeron 04:23, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The article in the form that is not your preferred form specifically says that Papua is a province comprising part of the western half of the island. There is also a map showing the province. Indeed, the article provides a general history of the Dutch colony and the single Indonesian province up to when West Irian Jaya was split off. But it seems reasonable to organize things in this manner. It makes no sense to move this material to the highly dubious heading of "West Papua". john k 04:36, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, the article as written before your efforts to take private ownership of it was and always has been about the country "West Papua" - just check what Tannin & I had been writting.--Daeron 16:49, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the best way to deal with the whole western half of the island is. I will say that there needs to be an article on the current province at the current location. And that a lot of the general stuff can be moved to New Guinea. In terms of stuff about the entire western half before it was split into two provinces, I'd say that this location is still probably the best place for it, rather than creating an entirely different article on that subject. And I still have yet to see any evidence beyond Daeron's assertion that "West Papua" is the most commonly used name. "Irian Jaya" has twice as many google hits as "West Papua". john k 00:57, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The subject of the name was extensivly covered ten months ago Quick Google Count.

Yes, you'll recall I was involved. The evidence remains highly ambiguous, and can be interpreted in various ways. I see no particular reason that "West Papua is the most common English name" is any clearer a conclusion to be drawn from the mess of google searches than anything else.

Yet there be Western United States, Eastern United States, Northern United States, Southern United States; even Western Sahara. But for some reason we are not to be allowed to discuss or reveal the history or ecology of Western Papua? Or as you would prefer to call it Western half of the Island of New Guinea; I and everybody in Australia says its commonly known as West Papua because that's what it is, it not a political statement, not a foreign language - the english description is simply West Papua. It saves having to explain where 'Irian Jaya' was, or where 'Irian Barat' was, etc.

Both the United Kingdom and Sweden offer precedents, in the form of "traditional counties" and "historical regions" - territories no longer officially recognized as such. (Not a perfect solution, those distinctions were also a source of argument for people interested in those areas.) Another possibility is to treat as a purely political article, about where the concept of a "West Papua" came from and has developed over the years, which is independent of the Indonesian governance. Stan 05:51, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for that informative input.

To clarify, I believe you are addressing the issue of which Wikipedia category the article should be listed in - a good and valid item to consider - but because the majority of countries are now also nations with their own rule Wikipedia has List of countries redirecting to List of sovereign states. The Country article does not even both to distingush the difference until the end of that article. The main difference in those two lists before WW-II were the colonies I think; these were countries which were not sovereign states. The UN had a decolonization program; which ended around 2000. West Papua's name was on that list; then it disappeared one year without explanation & not allowed back on; so the program is finished & West Papua is one of only three (I think & can't recall the other two) colonies left. 'Economic Colonies' do not count.

In short, this article is about a country (in the literal sense), not the story or ecology of a soverign nation; though funny enough by Wikipedia definition it would be Nation as all the West Papuan people especialy Bird Head & outside it consider themselves 'West Papua' and aleigence to one flag (Morning Star), one ethic code (Melanesian culture). But I'm sure the Wikipedia Nation is incorrect in accepted legal terms - so I would have to stick with the article being about a Country, not a Nation. That Country being the non-PNG part of Papua. -- Daeron

Ah, some nice utter speciousness from Daeron about Western Sahara. Western Sahara is recognized as a sovereign country by many countries around the world - I am not sure that any legally recognize the Moroccan annexation. No country in the world does not recognize the western half of the island of New Guinea as being part of Indonesia, for better or worse. The whole situation is fairly confusing. West Papua is not particularly a traditional or historical region of Indonesia. It is a name used by nationalists. So an article detailing the history of the western half of the island since the Dutch period should not have such a name. In that period, the western half of the island was officially known by several names - Netherlands New Guinea, Irian Barat, Irian Jaya, and finally Papua. A smallish part of the island has since been cut off from this province and made into the new province of Western Irian Jaya. So it's awkward. But if we want to do an article on the western half of the island as a whole, from a standpoint unrelated to current provincial boundaries, I'd suggest a neutral, non-political name like Western New Guinea. This is wholly accurate, and seems like the natural English way to designate the region, anyway. I would have no objection to Stan's suggestion of an article at West Papua on the subject of the concept of West Papua, and West Papuan political movements, and so on and so forth, in addition to such an article (or in addition to this article, if it's decided that the other stuff should stay here). john k 06:39, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Again John Kenney is in a world of his own. -- Daeron 07:13, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I assume I am in a world of my own because, despite months of your asserting it, I do not believe that West Papua is the predominant name for this region in English? You have yet to provide any particular support for this claim. Given that we disagree on this point (which, I will admit, is not very clear one way or the other - I don't think I've ever stated that I know for sure that "West Papua" is not used, just that you've never convincingly demonstrated that it is), what of the rest of my post suggests that I am living in my own world? Western Sahara and Western New Guinea are viewed in completely different ways by the international community. This region has been known by several names since the colonial period. Beyond that, I made no factual claims at all - just expressed my opinion on the issue at hand. So am I off in a world of my own simply because I disagree with you on this one issue? john k 08:45, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well that must be the difference between you & I; you believe Wikipedia should list your opinions on the status of people, countries, etc.; even excluding facts in order to maintain your moral judgements about people. Where as I believe Wikipedia should be more like an Encyclopeadia and explain facts and their context without voicing a moral judgments. -- Daeron 09:32, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Daeron, please stop with the ad hominem, you're not helping yourself here at all. You've got two people here who are interested in what you have to say, and there's no Wik to unilaterally rescramble everything. I can speak for myself when I can say that I'm neutral almost to the point of indifference, and I suspect John is of similar mind, so accusations of bias are just not going to get you anywhere, and indeed they damage your own credibility. Anyway, the most famous precedent for difficult regional nomenclature is Palestine, which has gradually been hammered into a complex of articles including Palestine (region), Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian, Views of Palestinian statehood, etc etc. People have done all this as a way of explaining the situation more thoroughly, and because (in some views), assertions like "Palestine is a country" are at the heart of the real-life conflict. So when you say something like "this article is about a country", you are yourself taking a particular POV, as with "all the West Papuan people especialy Bird Head & outside it consider themselves 'West Papua'", which seems unlikely to be true, since people are never 100% on these kinds of things (in the US, you can find a few thousand people who think we should give ourselves back to the British!), and there hasn't been an unbiased election or poll even to give us a general idea of the numbers. Stan 14:56, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, about the only printed source I have the mentions the issue is the Lonely Planet guide to PNG. They have a sidebar mentioning naming, and say "In a last ditch attempt to keep it out of Indonesian hands, the Dutch renamed it West Papua, but it was too late.", and then mention the Indonesian names. LP guides are not authoritative, but as guidebooks are perhaps the most widely-distributed source of information on remote places, they are certainly in a strong position to define what is "most common in English". Stan 15:04, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So when you say something like "this article is about a country", you are yourself taking a particular POV - why do you say this, because you imagine the word "country" means "nation", or because you believe the article is about some other subject? And yes I do think the article always was about the country, its people, history, geography, etc.--Daeron 15:57, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stan - not sure about how elections would work, but I do recall looking up the data on the most recent Indonesian elections by province. The two main Indonesian parties got the vast majority of the votes in Papua, with nationalist parties receiving only very small numbers. Of course, I have no idea how fair such an election was. As to whether this is about a country, you'll note that that article essentially defines a country as a sovereign state. Which this area is not.If West Papua is a country, then what about Bavaria? Or Catalonia? Or, I don't know, South Carolina or New South Wales? All of these almost certainly have more common history and sense of group identity than the various peoples of the western half of the island of New Guinea. You actually have a better case for nation, which is much more loose and involves imagined communities and so forth. But the nation would be something like "West Papuan people". I would add that, given the level of development of the area, with many ethnic groups still engaged in hunting/gathering ways of life, I would find it hard to believe that any sense of nationhood is held by anything but a very small elite. Although any evidence showing the contrary would be accepted with an open mind. john k

John, Daeron: it appears that any reasonable solution is going to involve more than one article related to this region. Can I ask each of you to list what articles you think should exist, and a one- or two-sentence description of what you think should be the scope of each? It is extremely hard to tell from the discussion above, which makes it almost impossible for the group to reach a consensus. -- 21:37, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

There has to be an article at the current location which discusses the current province of that name. I remain highly uncertain beyond that. To be honest, I see little problem with the article as it was in the version I've been reverting to. If I must, I'd suggest that each of the different political units which this has consisted of be given their own article - Netherlands New Guinea, Irian Barat, Irian Jaya, and Papua, which cover the history of the period in which the province was named that. The last article would discuss how this province used to be bigger, and how the West Irian Jaya province was split off. More general information about the region could be at Western New Guinea. General information on wildlife and geology could be moved to the New Guinea article, as appropriate. Discussion of the name West Papua could be in an article of that name, which would describe the history of the term and its use by West Papuan nationalists. john k 22:03, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, if we went that way I would certainly support also having (1) some overview article for the region and (2) some kind of template to let people navigate among these closely related topics. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:18, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed - I think Western New Guinea would be the best location for an overview article. A template would also be sensible, although the exact details would be up for debate. john k 00:43, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. I'd be more inclined toward Western Papua, or West Papua, because "New Guinea" tends to connote the country of Papua and New Guinea. What, if anything, would be the problem with such a naming? And Daeron, would you please weigh in, it looks to me like we might be headed toward a mutually acceptable solution to this contentious fight, at least about what articles should exist if not what they should say. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:51, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

To answer your earlier question; yes I agree with you that there should be one which is about the region Western Papua, or West Papua;
I also think there should be another two about the two newly formed political States which Indonesia has created; for example Papua (Indonesian province) and West Irian Jaya (Indonesian province) in accord with Johns naming convention.--Daeron 06:24, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Concerning New Guinea yes you are correct it is my experience that most American visitors tend to think you are talking about PNG whenever they hear New Guinea and so West New Guinea would mean west PNG to them.

Concerning the common english name for any object or subject; such names only exist IF you talk about those subjects; that is why jaggon sounds like gibberish to people from outside the field or area. In this case Papua & West Papua being part of the Australian environment; they have their common english names in common useage here, as is seen in news reports and NGO reports about the region.

For example, you might have a name for Mexicans or Canadians; or for Mexican mountain folk, or Canada. And even hearing such a word I wouldn't be able to judge if it were just its full implications, that would require someone with considerable local knowledge.--Daeron 06:24, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

However US NGO's and the US State Dept. and others also quite familiar with West Papua as the common name; one of John's arguments last year was that Australian names do not count as English; well what about American reports? People writing about Patsy Spiers, what do they call the place where her husband died?

No, the island as a whole is generally known as New Guinea, that's much more common than Papua, which usually means either the southern part of Papua New Guinea, or the Indonesian province. Gzornenplatz 02:11, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Gzornenplatz on this. New Guinea refers to the whole island, and does not imply anything to do with Papua New Guinea only that I am aware of. Papua can also refer to the whole island, but is not the common term. West Papua, specifically, is a term with strong political connotations, and shouldn't be used as a generic term. john k 03:34, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The idea that anybody would think that "Western New Guinea" refers to the western part of Papua New Guinea seems odd to me. One might just as easily assert that people would confuse "West Papua" for either the southwestern part of Papua New Guinea, or the western part of the Indonesian province of Papua (or, perhaps, that it is an alternative name for West Irian Jaya, given that Irian Jaya was the old name of the province now called Papua). In fact, either of these interpretations makes far more sense than thinking that "Western New Guinea" refers to only the western part of PNG. Papua is a term which, while sometimes used to refer to the whole island, is also used to refer either to the Indonesian province of Papua or to the southern half of PNG. On the other hand, New Guinea is a term which is pretty much always used to refer to the island as a whole. As to use of West Papua, I'd ask Daeron for some citations of US government and NGOs using the term. The Lowenstein Center at Yale seems to use West Papua. Amnesty, on the other hand, uses "Papua". I would add that I certainly have never said that Australian usage does not count as English. I would say that article titles should be based on usage throughout the English-speaking world, except for things that are specifically Australian. If Australian usage differs from general English usage (I'm not sure that it does in this case, I'm just making the hypothetical argument), general usage should win out. I'd add, Daeron, that I'm open to being convinced. The evidence you've presented so far has been rather meager, and seems to rely more on assertion than evidence. If you could, perhaps, find citations for how the region is described by governments and NGOs, that would be extremely helpful. I will say that I don't find links to sites that seem to be supporting the West Papuan nationalist agenda to be very persuasive in determining what terms we should use - clearly, they have an agenda, and we can't take their explanations as being authoritative in any way. But a good summary of international usage would be very useful for determining how to do this. john k 07:03, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Goodness, you're still a funny pair of people, after all this time. And yet again I have to wonder, why, if "West Papua" is not the common english name does it keep creeping into even US Government pages, documents: http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Agov+%22west+papua And they like the NGO's even include West Papua inside brackets, as if, they were explaining to people, what place they were referring to. And why do people keep explaining what 'Irian Jaya' is by saying 'West Papua', strange isn't it ;-) http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Irian+Jaya++west+Papua+%22 --Daeron 07:22, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

With the first link, you have indeed shown that various US government websites sometimes use "West Papua". But this is not a significant piece of information unless we have some way to ascertain how prevalent it is. A google search doesn't seem like a very good way to go about this. If you are so sure of yourself, certainly you can find better evidence than a google search of .gov sites? The second search proves absolutely nothing. john k 08:15, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You can not ascertain how prevalent it is because you do not live in its environment and can therefore not see how regulary it is used in preference for English language audiences.
What you need to do is figure out WHY they include 'West Papua' - not count how many people on earth say x without understanding it.

--Daeron 08:41, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Let me add that here (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2001/eap/8314.htm) the US State Department consistently refers to it as "Papua", occasionally clarifying that it was formerly known as Irian Jaya. This is from 2001. The one from the year before (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2000/eap/707.htm), when apparently Irian Jaya was still in use, refers to the independence movement as "Papuan" - although West Papua is also mentioned as an alternate name. The 2003 (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2003/23829.htm) one just uses "Papua" - no qualification, as does this 2004 (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2004/35399.htm) report on religious freedom - from only a few months ago. I think that State Department reports, rather than google searches of .gov sites, should be more conclusive as to what term the US government uses - it is Papua. Amnesty also uses Papua, as I noted before. The British Foreign Office, here (http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1007029390590&a=KCountryAdvice&aid=1013618385558), also used Papua. john k 08:34, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

'Fine, lets use your document'.

It's first use of the word "Papua" anywhere in it is this sentence that probably explains what place they are later referring to. (fair ?).

"Security forces were responsible for numerous instances of, at times indiscriminate, shooting of civilians, torture, rape, beatings and other abuse, and arbitrary detention in Aceh, West Timor, Irian Jaya (also known as Papua or West Papua), the Moluccas, Sulawesi, and elsewhere in the country."

Again the US Dept. of State also seem s to use 'West Papua' as a means to explain what place they are talking about. Indonesian readers would not require that. --Daeron 08:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Daeron, I mentioned that in my summary. Furthermore, this is the oldest of the State Department documents, dating from the time when the province was still Irian Jaya. Since it's become Papua, Papua is the sole name used by the State Department - never West Papua. Even when it was Irian Jaya, West Papua was the second, not the first, alternate name used. Plus, a parenthetical name doesn't mean that they're trying to "explain what place they are talking about" it means it is an alternate name. It implies nothing about which name is more common - in the report right after the switch to Papua, the report says "Papua (formerly Irian Jaya)". By your logic, that means that Irian Jaya is the more common name. john k 15:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No the words "Papua (formerly Irian Jaya)" mean "Papua (formerly Irian Jaya)" -- that's why they include the word formerly to state why they've include the title 'Irian Jaya'.
- Agreed. They include the words "Irian Jaya (also known as Papua or West Papua)", because the province of Irian Jaya was also known as Papua or West Papua. This doesn't imply that the last name given is the most well known in English. john k 20:41, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You found a document where they don't bother to bracket an English meaningful name... Could that possibly be because they are already using the English common name (Papua) for the Island? And that the western half is the only half that Indonesia has possession of. Indeed I agree with you and the US Dept. of State, West Papua is the logical name for the geographical area.--Daeron 16:49, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, Daeron, you clearly didn't even look at the links I made. They are using "Papua" to refer to the Indonesian part of the island - these reports are on the human rights situation in Indonesia. They have nothing to do with Papua New Guinea. john k 20:41, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Current Form of the Article

I'm not going to revert again just yet, since the main concern I previously listed has been sort of addressed in the latest edit. I will ask why Daeron is sometimes editing as Daeron and (from what I can tell) sometimes editing as an IP address. Is this purposeful, due to negligence, or is the 211.IP guy not actually Daeron? I will say now that I am pretty dubious about the other changes being made. Firstly, I don't think we should say that it is believed that genocide is occurring there. Who believes this? Amnesty International ([14] (http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engasa210522004),[15] (http://web.amnesty.org/wire/October2002/Papua) ,[16] (http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGASA210322002)) seems to report that the human rights situation in Papua is not very good, but nothing there suggests anything near genocide. Looking up "Papua" and "genocide" in Google brings up a large number of results (~45,000), but I'm not sure this is a very good measure. Surely the assessment of a well-known human rights organization like Amnesty should be worth more than the assessment of random websites of uncertain provenance. The Allard Lowenstein Institute of Yale Law School [17] (http://www.law.yale.edu/outside/html/Public_Affairs/426/yls_article.htm) seems to have done a study that there is evidence of genocide. This is more useful, but one report does not seem to me to be enough to carry the kind of narrative that is trying to be introduced here. The report itself seems to rely on a holistic view of Indonesian actions over several decades to make its case of genocide. This makes me tend towards thinking that the definition of genocide used here is a rather expansive one - the study itself states that no single act of the Indonesian government could really be seen as an act of genocide, but only looking at the whole pattern of Indonesian actions makes this work. We should be very careful about the way we introduce the idea of genocide. Certainly, the kind of low-level, long-term actions that the Indonesian government has been engaging in is quite different from the kind of genocide one saw in, say, Rwanda, or even in Darfur. As to the material in the history section, I am quite dubious of the relevance of Papuan contributions to the allied war effort, and so forth. The only purpose to these paragraphs seems to be to create a narrative of how the West Papuan people were betrayed. john k 22:03, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If the article is to take the form of articles on other Indonesian regions (which seems best for this particular article), then perhaps the Ecology section can be moved to the New Guinea article.
Apart from that, a good structure might be to start with information about the formal position of the province, and have a subsection on the independence/nationalist movement that would also discuss the varying views on the name, etc. There is precedence for this in the article on Aceh. I also agree with John K that the history section seems a bit long-winded and parts of it are of little relevance or are too-POV for this article. I would have thought that this article should have a relatively brief overview of the history of the area, which could be fleshed out in a separate History of Papua article if it was thought necessary. Also, while there are numerous External Links, the article is not well referenced, i.e. there are no references given within the article for the material presented, nor is there a good references section at the end of the article. Mistertim 04:30, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks very much for input :) Actually, despite it's wacky title; as you can see from its content it is in fact about the region of West Papua and not a political state. That's why the history, ecology, geography are all primarily limited to West Papua and not the whole of Papua, but time-wise is unlimited -- for example I confirmed which parts of Papua certain animals lived in; and the monkey invasion is unique to West Papua because they've been introduced by the Indonesian settlers & no monkey colonies have not yet reached PNG. Also the mountian ranges, I took some hours to study reports & compared them against maps to confirm it was correct for West Papua - it is not generic and the eastern mountain range is on average lower without the high peaks and I think mostly without snowlines.Daeron 06:50, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Daeron, the "region of West Papua" is, in fact, almost coterminous with the Indonesian province of Papua, and was coterminous with it at the time the article was written, so I'm not sure what you are getting at with the "wacky title" business. However, if the ecology and geography information is specific to the western half of the island, it should not be moved to the general New Guinea article, I would agree. john k 07:08, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Because as I pointed out at the time; the article would probably out-live the then-current political name &/or boundaries. And goodness me, it has ! --Daeron 07:22, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Huh? What's your point? At any rate, only a small part of Papua has been split off into West Irian Jaya. This is not a reason for your desire for a move, it is a pretext (a moderately decent reason to start discussion, I'll agree, but you are concealing your motives). And I'm still not sure why the Papua article can't discuss the whole half-island up to the split, and then discuss what remains of the province since it got split up. Only if they go all the way and split the current Papua in two would I think it necessary to really rethink. john k 15:51, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What ? "only a small part of Papua" ? It's the Bird's Head. Yes, it is kinda hugely important part of West Papua, and no, its post 18th century history can not be separated from the rest of Papua.; and yes it is subjected to the same logging & many other factors affecting the rest of West Papua which are not factors in PNG.,--Daeron 16:58, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. I will freely admit that I don't know nearly as much about New Guinea as you do, and am not aware of the specific importance of the Bird's Head Peninsula. It is a relatively small part of the total area of the Indonesian half of the island, however. At any rate, an article on Western New Guinea could deal with the general material on the western half of the island, while the stuff on the specific provinces can be dealt with in Papua (Indonesian province) and West Irian Jaya. Brief articles on Irian Barat and Irian Jaya could deal with those administrative unites and their histories. I continue to object to West Papua as a name for the general article, because I think it's actually considerably more confusing than Western New Guinea. Are we to explain that West Papua equals the province of Papua plus the province of West Irian Jaya? That seems weird. One would imagine that West Papua would be the western part of Papua, or to the west of Papua. Now, I know that in this case West Papua means the western part of Papua in the sense of Papua=New Guinea. But this is not particularly clear. West Papua also has specifical political connotations which might make its use POV. However, I can understand that Western New Guinea is not ideal - it is a somewhat artificial name, which is not in specific use. I'd note that Indonesian New Guinea would actually make more sense, but this seems to have just as many POV problem as West Papua - I'm sure you would object, and is probably even worse in that it is not frequently used either, so it has many of the disadvantages of both West Papua and Western New Guinea.

Again, I will ask why the current arrangement is so problematic. Treat the area generally in the Papua (Indonesian province) article, since until quite recently Papua was the whole of the island. Be careful to discuss the recent split, and add any material that is also applicable to West Irian Jaya to that article as well. No need to worry about creating new articles - just make sure the ones we have make sense. john k 21:33, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Naming, redux

As promised, I'm checking back in.

Daeron: above John gave an indication of what combination of titles -- and breakout of articles -- he would use for this and related articles. It would be very helpful if you would do the same. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:22, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

If people like I will add and amend my above listing of three titles.

In accordance with other Wikipedia titles I believe the names should be:

Papua Province, Indonesia -- a New title not yet written

West Irian Jaya Province, Indonesia -- moving of current sub.

West Papua -- current Papua (Indonesian province) returned to its original name with history & discussion pages intact.

Papua -- current disambiguation page

West Papuan Genocide -- page that separates that subject from the main West Papuan page

In addition, I have LOTS more information I have been waiting ten months to expand the West Papua page with -- in all likely hood I will be splitting it into another new page or two.. But I can not name or make those until the root document is back into its easiest geographical name West Papua. I would greatly appreciate some cooperation on this. Thank you.--Daeron 02:09, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please be aware that the article as Tannin and myself were working on when Wik began this whole edit/revert/re-naming war; was prominently listing the related geographical article Papua, and political state articles Indonesia and Provinces , as no-one had yet started one about the individual provinces. Which is when a war broke out between those trying to write this article; and those wanting to change its subject to the political state/province.

Daeron - could you explain briefly to me what you feel the purpose of your proposed West Papua page that would consist largely of the material on this page would be? Would it be an article about a geographical region? Or what? john k 03:09, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Certainly, it is an article about the region of West Papua; its location, extent, geography, ecology, history, and any information which may be important for anyone wishing to visit or understand about the region.

It's history, which I hope to break up into a couple (but unfortunately may require several) covers three main periods, each of which is a contradiction between its title and what was & is happening, even within each. For example the Dutch era can be called a 'Colonial' period because that was what they officially termed the relationship as; but they never implemented a proper colonisation by either settlers or exploitation -- yet, in a period when most westerners would there to have been a de-colonising effort, was also the only time when there was a Dutch colonisation effort (even if it was not fully backed by the Dutch government & was a complete failure). The pre-Dutch period was also a contradiction as is the post-Dutch. Also the Dutch did help West Papua towards independence just because the Dutch are so wonderfull, but mostly because they were honestly horrified by what happened in Java.

Reason the history can not be separated into neat era's is partly because they have complex transitions and strong legacies, also because they directly tie into the ecology & biology & geography of the region -- some because the geography, but also because the Indonesian claim was in part based upon the claim that Papuans were Asian, as was the ecology and biology of Papua which was itself part of the Malaysian peninsula.
BTW: your statement the other day about the apparent conflict between so many groups, and the ability for them all to want one national identity. - Yes I agree it is ..odd.. in comparason to say.. the United Nations which in fifty years has failed to achieve what the West Papuans did in thirty IMO. my hat's off to them on that one; they haven't got much further, but they sure are united from the cities to penis gourd wearing mountain folk.--Daeron 07:36, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm finding myself confused because there seem to be a lot of issues in the air. I'm going to make some suggestions and ask some questions based on the above, but I'm not sure I'm tracking well enough that this will be comprehensive. At worst, I may be doing nothing but illustrating my own confusion. Because this is so complicated, I'd appreciate if people do not intersperse their remarks in my bullet list. Instead, Daeron and John, could you respond to the questions I've asked below the bullet list?

What I think is uncontroversial, though I may be confused:
- Papua - current disambiguation page
- Netherlands New Guinea - former Dutch colony: mostly history
- Irian Barat - former Indonesian province; I'm not sure if this really needs to be a separate article of just a redirect to Irian Jaya, and have the first paragraph there mention the renaming. Mostly history
  My understanding is that Irian Barat was not actually a province, but had some sort of special status, and became part of Indonesia at the same time it became Irian Jaya. But I can't recall if that's exactly right. john k 18:39, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Irian Jaya - former Indonesian province: mostly history.
- Papua Province, Indonesia (or keep this present title Papua (Indonesian province); I have no opinion between the two) - current province; I gather this would be partly a new article; presumably it is the correct place to move some basic geographic information and to discuss the splitting of the province. Probably needs to discuss both the pre-split and post-split geography.
  Greatly prefer the current location. john k 18:39, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- West Irian Jaya Province, Indonesia (or West Irian Jaya (Indonesian province); I have no opinion between the two) - Daeron says "moving of current sub". I'm not sure what "current sub" means, but in any event at least some basic geographic information belongs here.
  We already have an article at West Irian Jaya. That seems a perfectly appropriate title. john k 18:39, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Controversy 1
The article currently called West Papuan Genocide - I'm not sure whether this is an appropriate title, given that as far as I know nothing more official than a few NGOs calls it genocide. That is not a word to be thrown around lightly. I'm not knowledgable enough to say for sure, but I suspect that a more NPOV title would be Human rights abuses in West Papua.
I'm not sure this is the best place to discuss this - this is really a different issue from the question of how to have articles on this stuff. However, I'd strongly oppose having the article at the genocide title. The current stuff going on in Darfur isn't at Darfur genocide, for instance, and that's been called genocide a lot more widely. john k 18:39, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Controversy 2
- West Papua - Clearly an article with this title should exist. The question is whether it should just discuss the contentious use of this name, or whether this should be the "main article" that ties the rest of these together. I personally favor this being the "main article": it is certainly what I have usually heard used to refer to the place generically, but I have to admit to a complete lack of expertise.
  I am not sure on this, as I've said. My sense is that there is no good term to refer to the area generically, since, up to the end of last year, it always had a specific name. As far as I can gather, Irian Jaya was by far the most common name to refer to it by until it became defunct. Papua was then the main name by which it was known. It is only now that there is some need for a generic name, since it's been divided into two provinces. West Papua only remains as a potential name because it was never used officially - it is the name used by nationalists. john k 18:39, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- If the article West Papua is just a discussion of the name, then the "main article" would presumably be at Western New Guinea (though just possibly at yet some other title).
- Either way, (1) the "main article" should correspond roughly to the present article and (2) there should be a corresponding template (either Template:West Papua or Template:Western New Guinea), matching the name of the top-level article and included in all of these articles as a means to navigate among them.

SO... Now some questions. It would be greatly appreciated if you can each reply briefly to these, and not reopen lengthy debate here.

Have I characterized this basically correctly?

Yes, I think this is basically correct. john k 18:39, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In particular, am I correct about what I characterize as uncontroversial?

I don't find any of it particularly controversial. john k 18:39, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Can we lay aside Controversy 1 as a separate issue that we can postpone, or take up elsewhere?

Yes, I don't think it should be taken up here. john k 18:39, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That said, it seems clear to me that for Daeron the use of the name West Papua for the "main article" is a matter of principle (but in the unlikely event that I'm wrong on this, Daeron, correct me). John, do I understand correctly that it is also a matter of principle with you that that not be the title, and that this is where the real disagreement lies? I thin I know where I want to go next with this, but I'd like to see these answers before I proceed further. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:46, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

-As explained below - it is so non-controversial that Indonesia itself changed the regions province from 'Irian Java' to 'Papua' in deference of the Papuans preferred name for Papua (instead of Irian or New Guinea (Guinea being some African country ;-) )).

- for over two years we had no complaints about the name, not even from Indonesians let alone English readers. Not one Indonesian tried to edit or rename, yet many probably read it.

- most items which Newspapers report as "genocide" are not; and they make no effort to get a legal opinion about whether they should have been calling the mass-murders in Rwanda or the Sundan by a name that should be reserved for those who are victims of 'genocide' which requires both attempts to injury the community (e.g. mass murder is one method), and prevent the community from seeking justice &/or relief from said damages. These also have to be intentional, not just bad management.--Daeron 10:05, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On your last question, Jmabel, it is not necessarily a matter of principle for me. As I have admitted in the past, I don't feel that my knowledge of the region is at such a high level that I can say with any level of certainty that West Papua is a controversial name which we must avoid. However, I think the burden is on Daeron to show that it is noncontroversial, and I haven't yet been convinced. I remain fairly open-minded about it, though. Putting that aside, I also have a practical objection to using West Papua. Currently, the area that Daeron describes as "West Papua" consists of two Indonesian provinces - Papua and West Irian Jaya. Which means that "Papua" is part of "West Papua". This seems to me to be inherently confusing, and should probably be avoided out of practical considerations. john k 18:39, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How about this, would the US Dept. of State deliberately insult one of its longest standing allies?
Regarding 'Papua Province' being smaller than Papua; a Province has to be smaller than the thing it is a Province of; and I don't imagine many people would have too much trouble understanding that a Province could be less than half the area. Look at the Australian Capital Territory, less than 1% of Australia.--Daeron 21:51, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Could we maybe agree to let the article sit at West Papua for now, aware that the issue is not finalized, and maybe (1) archive some of this 175K (!) of discussion and (2) start a section on this talk page for specifically laying out the case on each side of the argument about that name (I won't be surprised if that discussion eventually forms the basis for an article or section in main article space about a controversy over what to call this region that goes well beyond a Wikipedia decision) (3) plan to look in 30 days at which case is stronger? Meanwhile, we can proceed on the actual work of the articles. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:36, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy to archive most of the discussion - certainly the material before the last few days should be archived. As to having it at West Papua, I'm still dubious, but I'll abstain for the moment. Daeron: if the name "West Papua" is uncontroversial, why would it be an insult to Indonesia for the state dept. to use the term? john k 23:21, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Political Resonances

John, I think you have gotten the wrong impression some where. I've seen both John Ondawame and Australian reporters talking to the Indonesian Ambassador to Australia about "West Papua"; and he's neither offended or up set by that name/description. He seems to accept that when talking to westerners that words like 'Irian Jaya' are less meaningful than 'West Papua'; and as for talking with John? As a OPM leader, irrespective of which language they were going to speak the Ambassador knew he would call it 'West Papua' and John knew the Ambassador would call it 'Irian Jaya' as it was at the time. They had no trouble talking on that basis.--Daeron 08:01, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

BTW: can you remember where you got the impression that the words 'West Papua' had such meaning? For both the Papuans & non-Papuan Indonesians, its a trivial matter which is why the government renamed 'Irian Jaya' to 'Papua'. 'West Papua' has no strong 'political' meaning.

That's interesting, Daeron - could you provide any citations on that? As to the issue of my view that it is controversial, I'd say that it largely came, well, from you insisting so strongly that we call it West Papua, and then from looking into it a bit and noting that West Papua is the name used by nationalists. Now, I have no problem with nationalists using that name, and it certainly makes a lot more sense than just "Papua". But it is a name which seems to have connotations that might be POV, and I think it's a bit problematic to use it as the principal name of the article, since that is like stating that the name of the region is West Papua, which I'm not sure is accepted. As a question, Daeron, why did the Indonesians rename the province to "Papua" rather than to "Papua Barat"? john k 18:45, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

- Without the Indonesian government explaining it's thoughts; I can only hazard a guess. That either it's simply because it was the Indonesian Province of Papua so they called it 'Papua Province'; otherwise because they wanted to cause confusion. Example: News reporter says there were another ten towns destroyed in Papua -- some people might think he means PNG; which is why reports normally clarify it by saying West Papua.

If any proof is needed that any talk with Daeron is entirely futile, note how he repeats a flat-out lie he tried before on this very page, and was called on before: "for over two years we had no complaints about the name". If you look at the article history, it started in 2001 as Irian Jaya, was renamed Papua in 2003, and only in April 2004 Daeron himself, in conjunction with Tannin, tried to move it to West Papua, but thanks to Wik and John Kenney had to back off. If you think that may be an honest mistake on his part, look above on this page, where he also claimed the article was under "West Papua" all the time from 2001, and Wik contradicted him, and he then came up with a nonsense reply "oohhhh, 4months out" (no Daeron, over two years out!). I for one will simply revert any POV; anyone else is of course free to waste their time going in circles with Daeron. Gzornenplatz 17:58, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

How constructive. We seem to be getting toward consensus on the substantive matters, and you'd rather make ad hominem attacks. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:52, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

We seem to? Where? Everything Daeron says is complete bullshit as you would see if you knew the first thing about the matter; but go ahead, waste your time. Let me just state for the record that all relevant arguments backing my reverts are already on this talk page, and I have just demonstrated how Daeron is lying and going in circles, so I do not need to play along with that. I will simply revert any POV introduced either by Daeron, or you, since you're obviously fooled by him ("Could we maybe agree to let the article sit at West Papua for now" - no we can't, for the reasons you can read up for yourself), or anyone else. Gzornenplatz 23:10, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Actually the West Papua article was created on 17 Nov 2001. Where it remained up until last year.

Fromm what I can gather, the current article was created on 13 Nov 2001 as Irian Jaya, and was moved to Papua two years later. Some months after that, Tannin moved it to West Papua, beginning the strife. john k 00:27, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Closer, I think this is the Irian Jaya article that became Papua that then got mistakenly moved to West Papua after West Papua got moved elsewhere. Current location unknown, though I'm sure either Wik or yourself moved it. I have no idea which discussion page this one was originaly.--Daeron 01:12, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you claim that West Papua existed for a long time, you'll have to find where it is. john k 03:00, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think it is irrelevant; unless you are now saying you will accept the 'West Papua' creation date as final arbitration instead of all your text issues above? which we've been through one at a time.--Daeron 06:59, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Again, Gzornenplatz, I just don't see what good it does to say you are going to fight over the location of the article rather than assemble a dossier of evidence. And, frankly, people have been banned for a period for saying things like "Everything User X says is complete bullshit", and if you continue in that tone, I'd encourage Daeron to consider an RFQ.

I see now that there already is an RFQ for a bunch of stuff like this. I have added this to the evidence list there. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:44, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

The article has to sit somewhere for the time that both sides spend making their case (by assembling citations) on who calls it what. And that is needed: I suspect that a lot of it is scattered over this page, but damned if I (or any other neutral party) is going to peruse through 175K trying to find it.

Daeron, John: since Gzornenplatz apparently intends to fight over this, can we just leave the material here at this current name for the 30 days or so we'll allow for assembling citations on who has used what name when for this region?

I believe that Daeron is correct that an article stood for some time at West Papua and that in the series of moves it is almost impossible to trace back where that particular article was moved to, or what present article(s) may derive from it. I also believe it is irrelevant. The issue is what we should do now. I think a disproportionate amount of time is being devoted to vituperation, rather than gathering and presenting evidence, for an article-naming issue that, assuming we have decent links and redirects, is of concern to very few actual readers, and that it is consuming time that could actually be spent on useful research and writing. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:34, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead and encourage him. I can prove he's willfully lying and talking bullshit to push his POV, and I can call him on that. The evidence on the matter is right here on this talk page already, if you can be bothered to read it; if not, just stay out of this, I don't have to spoonfeed you. The whole discussion has been had and I'm not entertaining Daeron when he periodically tries to pull the same nonsense all over again. A parallel article titled West Papua existed for three months (November 2001 to February 2002) before it was merged into the existing Irian Jaya article and turned into a redirect, and as such it remained until Daeron's and Tannin's abortive attempt in April 2004 to move the Papua article to West Papua (for which they had to delete the existing redirect) - the history of this is RIGHT ON THIS PAGE. Daeron has now three times lied about this. Gzornenplatz 05:52, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the history of West Papua, Gzornenplatz. Is there anywhere where one can view the history of all this? Deleting an article with a history for a move should be a no-no, shouldn't it? Jmabel - I am, of course, completely happy to leave the article as it is while we try to decide how to do it, what with not thinking it should go to West Papua at all, particularly. john k 06:30, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ah, never mind - see it up top now. Is there any way to look at the actual history, though? Is it gone forever, even to sysops? At any rate, given that history up there, I would ask Daeron what the basis of his claim that the article was at West Papua for years is. john k 06:35, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tannin himself posted that history, there's no reason to think it's falsified. It proves positively that West Papua has been a redirect since February 2002. An article of that title existed only for three months before that (and only as a duplicate, tagged for merging from the beginning), not the "over two years" Daeron claims. As a sysop, you should be able to restore the old revisions somehow, but it's hardly necessary. Gzornenplatz 06:43, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that it's probably not falsified, I'd just like to actually look at it. If, as a sysop I can look at the old version, I can't figure out how. West Papua doesn't show any deleted edits for me, and I even tried deleting it to see if that brought up the old deleted edits when I looked at them. But it didn't. john k 07:42, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There are currently no deleted revisions; They get purged every once in a while however, I believe the last time was somewhere last summer. --fvw * 07:44, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

Thanks for info, by 'summer' do I guess right you mean end May - ealry August or there abouts? Unfortunatly the massive page movings were probably around end Apr - early May I think.--Daeron 08:57, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What's this all about?

Having spent the last hour or so actually going through and rereading all those fun discussions from 8 months ago, as well as the article in its current state (instead of, uh, writing the next draft of my dissertation proposal), I have come to the opinion that there is no particular need to do anything to the article. In its current form, the article explains pretty clearly both the past and present status of the area, and explains about the existence of West Irian Jaya (which did, in fact, already exist at the time of our previous discussions, and was brought up in the course of them). I see no particular reason to go and create six or seven new articles on this subject, when this article is perfectly good as both a general discussion of both the western half of New Guinea and of the specific province, as well. john k 07:27, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Compromise

Here is a compromise. Daeron can move his version to West Papua article (instead of having that a redirect here), but leave this article alone as it is OneGuy 10:12, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

While this is tempting in some ways, we shouldn't give Daeron a platform to let his POV run wild. And as soon as anyone comes in to NPOV the new West Papua article, we'll just have the same fight all over again. john k 16:08, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

At least people coming to this article via a link from Indonesian related article would be spared from this nonsense. The "naming" dispute would be over too. As for his other POVs, we can still deal with that under that title. This doesn't mean he would be allowed to let his POV run wild. I especially don't like the title of his other article "Human rights violations ...." The title should be NPOV, like "Human rights in ..." He is currently banned for 24 hours for violating 3 rv rule, so let's see what he says when he gets back OneGuy 16:18, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The human rights violation title was, I believe, my idea, to get us away from "West Papuan Genocide". I agree that it is problematic. But, actually, thinking about it, I'd suggest that you are right - we should just let him branch off West Papua as his own article. Hopefully, POV problems there could be worked on, well, there, and we could actually make this article decent. Daeron, would something along these lines be acceptable to you? john k 20:52, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Daeron, what on earth is wrong with Papua (Indonesian province) and West Irian Jaya as article titles? john k 01:35, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Page move

(from WP:RM)

Papua (Indonesian province) → Papua Province, Indonesia

Papua is not an Indonesian province, but is the larger Island.

Change from ambiguous title to official title. 1) The whole island of Papua is not a Province of Indonesia; 2) Papua Province is the proper Indonesian title; and 3) the precise title "Papua Province, Indonesia" is already established as the English title outside of Wikipedia. To confirm established world usage outside Wikipedia: Google "Papua Province" (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Papua+Province,+Indonesia%22) provides 740 English all non-Wikipedia pages; Google "Papua (Indonesian province)" (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=lang_en&q=%22Papua+%28Indonesian+province%29%22) provides 237 copies of Wikipedia pages.--Daeron 18:52, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oppose for now. I don't think this naming mess can be solved just by moving particular individual articles. This must be taken up in the context of a general discussion of the naming of the many closely related articles. This is a contentious and controversial area. I want to see an overall scheme of naming the multiple related articles; I want to see that discussed comprehensively. Google test is being used misleadingly above: it will not find the cases that simply call this province "Papua". "Papua (Indonesian province)" is not intended as a display name for links: the parenthesized part is a disambiguation. You won't get a lot of hits from outside of Wikipedia and its mirrors on "John Brown (servant)" for Queen Victoria's Scottish servant, but John Brown (servant) is, indeed the appropriate title under our disambiguation conventions. I'm not sure that we don't have a similar case here. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:01, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

That's the percise point of the using brackets for a Google search -- it does not get pages that only say Papua. And you can look at the types of pages & how they use the two titles above; from the front search results for Papua Province, Indonesia other encyclopedia (not copies of Wiki) like Papua, province, Indonesia; but government & ngo's like to use percisely Papua Province, Indonesia because the Indonesian name for it is Papua Province, not Papua which is the entire Island or inside Indonesia could be used as an abbreviation of Papua Province.--Daeron 20:27, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

P.S. You say "I don't think this naming mess can be solved just by" .. But this is only about one miss-named title, not your larger issue.

Oppose. This is a disambiguation and obviously parentheses are the standard format for disambiguations. Gzornenplatz 20:10, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

No, the disamibuation page for the articles is called Papua. A comma is in common use to identify the owning or larger state entity. THere is no Wikipedia convention or style requirring brackets be used.-Daeron

Oppose. Is there a reason for not using the simpler Papua Province? Is some other "Papua Province"? Unless all of the other Indonesian provinces are also named similarly, i.e., "ProvinceName, Indonesia", then I don't see why this should be. And I agree with Jmabel regarding parenthetical disambiguation. older≠wiser 20:23, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Sort of, Papua Territory or the like was the south eastern quarter of Papua. I keep getting the German & British claims mixed up; my studies have only focused upon the Dutch and Indonesian claimed region. Otherwise ask John & Wik, they were the ones who insisted Indonesia had to be in the title.--Daeron

Strongly, strongly oppose. No other Indonesian province is located at anything like what Daeron is proposing here (or at Name Province, for that matter). There is a place called Papua. We are disambiguating it from several other usages of Papua by noting that it is an Indonesian province. I see no problem with the current location. Unless we move every other article on an indonesian province to Name Province, Indonesia, there is no justification for this move. john k 05:20, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Note other articles at West Irian Jaya, Banten, Central Java, East Java, Maluku, West Kalimantan, and so forth. john k 05:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Papua is the proper name and a disambiguation pages is called for at Papua since there are many uses for the name. User:Trödel/sig 17:02, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Oppose OneGuy 05:32, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Papua (Indonesian province) → Papua Province

sorry I did not knew that this was so much debated before. There are new facts out: the majority of other entity articles worldwide uses the syntax

Name (if not ambiguous)
Name Term (if ambiguous)
Name Term, Country (if several "Name Term" exists)

see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Subnational entities/Naming

support Tobias Conradi 05:32, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's because you moved all of them after you single-handedly wrote that "policy" by yourself. Where was there ever a consensus for that? It makes absolutely no sense. Capitalization implies that it's a proper name, like "Northern Territory" in Australia; that has to be capitalized because it's never just "Northern". But if we just add something for disambiguation, it belongs in parentheses, that's why we have Georgia (U.S. state), not Georgia State or State of Georgia. Likewise, it has to be Papua (Indonesian province), not Papua Province. NoPuzzleStranger 05:59, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1) I only moved some of them, most from lower to upper case

2) bracket disambig was already rarely used before I moved

3) I did not wrote any policy but intended to reduce from 9 naming schemes to a lower number

4) Capitalization is not used only in cases like "Northern" but also for New York City or Albany County.

5) if transforming from "Propinsi Papua" to english one gets Papua Province like Albany County or New York City. Tobias Conradi 06:34, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Propinsi Papua" is the full official name in the same way as "State of Georgia", but we use the most common version, which is just Papua. The only reason we don't simply use Papua (just as we use North Sumatra etc. for all other Indonesian provinces, even though in the full official form they all are "Propinsi something") is because of a need to disambiguate, and we use parentheses for that. NoPuzzleStranger 06:44, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

New York City is called City because otherwise it is ambiguous. Like Albany County, Something River or Xy District. Because there is only one Papua Province there is no need to mention in the article title that it is Indonesian. Your Georgia example is obviously misleading, because "Georgia (state)" would still be ambiguous and therefore US has to be added. Tobias Conradi 06:56, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

New York City is a commonly used proper name, evidenced by the fact that the word "City" is almost always capitalized; you don't see "New York city" much. Now if you just want to remove the word "Indonesian", that may be acceptable. But then it's still Papua (province), not Papua Province. NoPuzzleStranger 07:06, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

remove "Indonesian" is one step remove brackets the other. Kansas City, Quebec City, several Something Islands, hundreds of counties, districts and rivers, Something Harbours... Orange Free State, Cape of Good Hope Province ... Tobias Conradi 07:34, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. I'm with NoPuzzleStranger on this. I see no sign of consensus behind what you present to us as "the new facts". -- Jmabel | Talk 06:24, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
- I would like you to propose a better solution for naming of subnational entities. regards Tobias Conradi 06:37, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - I have no problem with the current naming of this article. It is not incumbent upon me to come up with something else. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:52, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
    - I only asked for this because you talked about missing consensus. Now I see we have to find it without you. regards Tobias Conradi 07:01, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Earl Andrew - talk 06:26, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Merging

I'm not sure why you think the articles should be merged. While there is much in common, they are clearly on different subjects - the Western New Guinea article is on a larger area than this one. More work on each article, rather than a merger, would seem to be in order. Also, I don't like these merge tags - why do readers need to know that somebody thinks the two articles should be merged? john k 22:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The two have a large amount of duplicate content and information. If one article is supposed to be the political province, then it should stick with political information. It can still include a summary and link to the regional information on the other page. There's no reason to have two pages with 80% equivalent text on them. —thames 00:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I concur. Much work needs to be done. If you would read the talk page to this article, you would see why the articles are in poor shape at the moment, I suspect. Why don't you do that, and then come back? john k 05:02, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the merge request. After reading through everything, and doing some google-work, it seems as though these pages ought to remain separate. However, I still believe that the content of the three related pages—Western New Guinea, Papua (Indonesian province), and West Irian Jaya—ought to be significantly differentiated so as to avoid user confusion. Much like the content of Taiwan and Republic of China has been strictly separated, I think this Papuan trio could benefit from the same. As far as I can tell, it would be best to put political/administrative information on the province articles, and more general cultural/historical/geographical information on the generic West New Guinea page. You seem like you have a lot invested in these pages—would you help me out on this small project? I'm sure we could get it well sorted in a day or two if we work together. —thames 14:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Not sure how much time I have, but I'll do what I can. john k 15:05, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Great. I'm going to look through the various related webpages on this topic and see if I can't mock up a sort of content map (as is) and a proposed new content map. If it looks good we can start cleaning these articles up once and for all. —thames 16:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

History

Should the "History" section be its own sub-page, with a shorter summary in this article?

===>Depends: If someone is knowledgeable enough to write an entire article (I'm not). If so, then by all means! Justin (koavf) 15:02, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Papua_%28Indonesian_province%29"