Talk:Western New Guinea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Melanesia
Oceania Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Melanesia, which collaborates on articles related to Melanesia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Flag Western New Guinea is part of WikiProject Indonesia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. Please do not substitute this template.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Indonesian WikiProject • Indonesian notice board • Indonesian WikiPortal
Good article Western New Guinea was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Contents

[edit] name

isnt this more commonly known as Irian Jaya? 1.15 mil hits compared to 94,000 -- Astrokey44|talk 12:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Not anymore. It was changed because it's an Indonesian name. Most people now refer to it as Papua but this is misleading because it only refers to the province that comprises the larger half of western New Guinea. Papua also can refer to the whole island.
The name "West Papua" is used by separatists, that's why we use "Western New Guinea" on Wikipedia. --Khoikhoi 21:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
"West Papua" is the title which the elected West New Guinea Raad (parliament) chose for the nation in 1961. Most English speakers call the region West Papua mostly because it is the western half of the island and is easier to say that "Western New Guinea". IF you say the use of 'West Papua' is only due to "separatists", then how many separatists are you claiming there to be?

[edit] Transmigration

I'm skeptical of the way this is phrased:

The transmigration's purpose is to tip the West Papuan population from the heavily Melanesian Papuans toward a more Asian "balance," thus further consolidating Indonesian control.

It's without a reference and more importantly while it's probably one of the reasons, Indonesia transmigrations are occuring all of Indonesia including in areas that are not in any risk of breaking away. Many people agree that they are at least partially about rebalancing the distribution (and therefore density) of the Indonesian population which is largely centred on Java... Nil Einne 14:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur, although I'd suggest that any change should be an addition (i.e. making the point you do above) rather than not including the perspective represented by the original sentence (although that sentiment could probably stated more clearly itself). I'd also add that the main element of new Indonesian in-migration to western New Guinea is from so-called "spontaneous migrants" - i.e. those coming of their own volition, mainly for reasons of economic opportunity - rather than "transmigrants", who are officially sponsored and funded by the government. I think the official transmigration program ended several years ago, although to the local Papuan population, the perceived problems associated with either are very similar. Arjuna 01:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Nil Einne, which area of Indonesia is "not in any risk of breaking away"? Aceh, Borneo, Celebes, West Java, Bali, the Moluccas, and Papua have all attempted to break away, have independence movements and most have attempted outright revolt. Seeming the Indonesian Foreign Minister in 1969 stated 5,000 troops were both unnecessary and too heavy a burden on West Papua's economy, what are 50,000 troops doing there now? Are you sure that Indonesia is not a colonial power?211.30.222.139 14:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I think you are either exagerating or have a very limited understanding of Indonesia. Seperatism to some extent exists in Aceh and Papua, but where does it exist in Sulawesi, West Java, Bali, Maluku, and Kalimantan (ie, the Indonesian part of the island of Borneo)? Or at least in any significance - I am sure you could find someone somewhere who wants to secede, but it is not likely that they pose "a risk of breaking away". YEs, there have been seperatist movements in Maluku and Sulawesi but they have no current significance anymore, and the level of their support even at the time was by no means universal. --Merbabu 14:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed Good Article Nomination

This is a well written article, but I cannot pass it because of the lack of referenses. Although there are a couple at the bottom, they cover very little of what the article actually talks about. See WP:CITE and WP:RS.--Konstable 01:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The article makes some fairly serious claims about the Indonesian armed forces that really should be backed up by references or removed. To say that there are claims they are still committing genocide implies that there was a time when they definitely were committing genocide.
I think I'll put up some "citation needed" tags for a while and if nothing comes through, I'll "be bold" in my editing of this piece. Ordinary Person 05:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

See my comments on your talk page. Arjuna 09:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Arjuna. I removed the word "still". The assylum seekers claimed that genocide was taking place. Adding the word "still" implies that genocide has previously taken place. Ordinary Person 01:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Before you remove the word "still" - perhaps you can provide any creditable source claiming genocide has not been conducted in West Papua since 1966? Bombing highland villages with Mitchell bombers might not be a subtle as the more recent importing of inflected prostitutes into the region, but it still did suggest a government desire to eliminate the Papuan race.

[edit] Two articles?

WHat is the logic behind having two pages for Western New Guinea and Papua? Are they not the same place?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Merbabu (talk • contribs)

While there's some legal uncertainty, there are officially 2 provinces in western New Guinea: Papua Province and West Irian Jaya Province. Wantok 05:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be useful to develop a bibliography of the most common and easily available sources, in English, Dutch and Indonesian. This would probably involve a separate section entitled 'bibliography'. I would be prepared to assist. David Neilson (davidjneilson@bigpond.com)

[edit] WNG - proper noun?

Western New Guinea is not a proper noun, is it? So in the middle of a sentence it should be "western New Guinea", without "western" capitalised, right? Currently the article is inconsistent - and the map caption has a 3rd form, "West New Guinea". Nurg 01:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You could be correct on both counts, I don't know for sure. --Merbabu 06:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it s hould be "western New Guinea". john k 19:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree: western New Guinea. Arjuna 19:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Sounds logical, but we should use what is most widely accepted and reliably referenced. We shoudn't create our own standards no matter how sensible they seem. Merbabu 02:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violation

This (already reverted) edit was copied from Fox Country Watch. There were two other edits by the same IP address that might need removing as well: 1, 2. -- Ngio 23:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flags

Does anyone have artwork of any Province flags of West Irian (1963-1973) or Irian Jaya (1973-2000)?58.107.15.245 16:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

Somebody has removed the two References to page 45 and 46 of the 1961 United Nations Report (Chapter 2 "The Economic Situation", Section E "Mining"); as these two pages carry the previously requested reference for "Mining Enterprises" and for Mineral exploration "Work Done" visa ongoing Dutch/Papuan efforts to locate the gold a year after the Wilson expedition reported Ertsberg's rich gold deposits to Freeport's executives in New York; it does not seem valid to remove the references about a mine which is is claimed to be one of the world's largest and to occupy over 26 thousand square kilometres. As Indonesia's largest single tax payer, what is the extent of Freeport's impact on West New Guinea? Does anyone know if Freeport has increased its capacity since having its insurance got cancelled in 1995 for exceeding its maximum 50,000 ton daily capacity? Does anyone know what the company is intending to do with the associated dumping area for their solids, now that the several square kilometres of broken rock is 250m high will they be expanding the area or building it higher, and what is the re-habitation plan they have for West New Guinea?58.107.15.245 18:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong flag

The separatist flag should not be displayed in this page as it is NOT the flag of West Papua. In fact, displaying this flag is illegal in Indonesia, like displaying the Nazi flag is illegal in Germany. For curiosity's sake, this flag should only be put in "OPM" article, not here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.124.121.185 (talk • contribs)

I re-added the flag after 222.124.121.185 deleted it. It's unfortunate if User:222.124.121.185 finds the flag distasteful. Howver, the flag and its image is both historically relevant and referred to in the text. Your point that because it is currently illegal to display it in Indonesia and thus on a par with display of the Nazi flag in Germanyis spurious -- it was legal to fly this flag in Papua during the administration of Gus Dur from 2000-2003 and hardly represents anything like what the Nazi flag means in Germany. Technically, it is indeed correct that the flag is not the flag of West Papua, since that is now the name of the province of West Papua. However, as the article makes clear, West Papua is also used to refer to an aspirational independent state by that name. Finally, before anyone accuses me of being a supporter of West Papuan separatism, note that I am not. It is simply a matter of the flag being historically relevant to the article and thus appropriate. Arjuna 04:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Go to hell with your opinion, so-called 'world police'!

The incorporation of western New Guinea into Indonesia remains controversial with human rights NGOs, including some supporters in the United States Congress and other bodies, as well as many of the territory's indigenous population.

What is the importance of 'United States Congress' with this? Is this because they called themselves 'most important nation in the world'??? Deal with just your own country's business!

What I am trying to explain is, why don't we include the stance of other nations' congresses here, not only US Congress. If we couldn't, just delete the sentence above. An opinion of one nation's congress, a nation which doesn't have any ties and importance in west irian (or DO THEY HAVE?) isn't worthy enough to be displayed.

Proud to be Christian, proud to be Indonesian. Adri K. 15:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Be bold, Adri. K !! Do not let the enemy to accomplish their goals!! Prepare the battle with proper armories !! You should then be proud to be Wikipedian. :-) — Indon (reply) — 15:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
'Always glad to see the US government get the criticism it sorely deserves. The rationale, however, for giving prominence to US views, is that they carry so much bloody weight. When the US state speaks, other countries (have to) listen. This is particularly true for Indonesia which, since 1965, has been a veritable satellite of the USA. We could even debate to what extent Indonesia is an "independent" country, given the US military, financial, and diplomatic supports/controls. More to the point, one reason that Western New Guinea remains a part of Indonesia is because the US state wants it that way. If a Chavez-style socialist was elected in Indonesia who wanted to nationalize Irian's resources, you can bet that the US might be more sympathetic to the independence movement. So long as Indonesia allows Freeport McMoRan and others to exploit the resources, Western New Guinea is entrusted to Indonesia. Smilo Don 17:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Adri and Indon, I suppose you two also support the occupation? LamontCranston 15:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
What? What occupation???? Irian Jaya is definitely part of Indonesia, more than Hawaii and Alaska to the U.S.A.! Indonesia never occupied Irian Jaya. It's an inseparable part of Indonesia. Different culture and ethnicity had nothing to do with it. IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN, GRENADA, that's occupation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adri K. (talk • contribs) 16:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Dear Adri K., you're absolutely right about Hawaii, Iraq, etc. But that doesn't change Indonesia's own colonial role. The people of Irian don't share very much in the way of culture, language, or history with Indonesia's Javanese center. Irian's place in "Indonesia" is a legacy of Western colonialism, one which Jakarta has continued. Jakarta has tried trans-migrants, schools, radio, television and other propaganda to try to Indonesianize the Papuans. It's colonialism pure and simple, which is what has aroused many of the issues in Papua and on this wikipedia entry. From an intellectual point of view, we need to question the idea that nation-states "naturally" exist or that their parts are "inseparable." The sense of an integrated whole is the nation-state's ideology at work, whether that nation be the USA, China, Mozambique, or Indonesia.Smilo Don (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not pure and simple - it may have been in 1969, but it certainly isn't now. This article needs to reflect the fact that Indonesia and the great majority of the international community accept as legitimate WNG/Irian's incorporation into Indonesia, but make clear that a significant proportion of the population of the region feel otherwise (what proportion is not known, in the absence of opinion polling - itself due to RI restrictions). I'm going to start an article on the process of incorporation soon, as there definitely needs to be such an article on such an important historic event. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello there. May I make two points on the above discussion?
Actually, it only really requires hard work and agreement to one or two articles, which can then be transferred and summarised in the rest
kind regards --Merbabu (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thanks Merbabu, you're right about that. I hadn't looked at the New York Agreement or Act of Free Choice for some time, and thought that they were more specifically focused on the documents themselves, rather than the historical events that surrounded them. Given that they cover the events, there isn't need to create an article about 1962-1969. I do think that there might be need to create an article on the History of Western New Guinea at some stage. Although the content may be covered in other articles, there's a case for a single article, and WNG in New Order period is not particularly well covered (unfortunately there aren't many sources from that period itself, and those that exist are usually from the RI or activist groups - which isn't to say a coherent neutral narrative can't be pieced together from these sources). Cheers Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, of course, each of these articles should be have different and specific focuses/purposes. New York Agreement, for example, should focus specifically on-um-the NYA – then we need to strike a balance between, on the one hand, needlessly rehashing reams of info on the broader topic of WNG and, on the other, providing a bit of context in the NYA article. Currently many of these articles overlap excessively in their coverage (and are often inconsistent).
I say rationalise and tighten the coverage in each one specifically tailored to the purpose of the article in question (yes, this will most likely need discussion on each one), and trim the rest by moving it to a more relevant article. Of course, we need to be careful not to trim so much that there is no context. Excellent wiki linking is important to this process (often not as easy it sounds).
But it’s good to see people thinking about this – that’s the problem with wikipedia – it’s too big, with limited number of editor’s with limited time. --Merbabu (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)