Talk:Western New Guinea/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Name[edit]

Besides the various Indonesian designations are given fully in the second sentence, followed by all the previously used terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.82.90.227 (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you posting in bold? Are you shouting to get your way? The Hard Fact is that you may call it West Papua, but everyone in Indonesia including the Papuans, just call it Papua, even when we are speaking in English. You are right, no one calls it Western New Guinea. But if you want a neutral term for the region, maybe you should amalgamate this page into an article on the island of Papua as a whole. That would be more realistic than the political agenda you are trying to push with this page.You should call the page "Indonesian Papua" because that's the political reality and that's the name of the island114.79.55.135 (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) Agreed, nobody calls it WNG.

2) Because the separatists make a great deal of noise online, it obscures that fact to those that spend a lot of time online that West Papua IS a neutral term, in addition to being their favoured term. The latest missionary memoirs (sabine Kueglar), anthropology texts (Ruper Stasch) and guide books use the term and push no political agenda. I've read them. The International world of English Speaking journalism uses the term. The BBC uses the term. It is now also the favoured by the Indonesian administration for half of the region.

3) Important. Yes, within Indonesia it is generally known as Papua but this is NOT the Indonesian wikipedia page. This is *primarily* the page for people who speak English as a first language, residents of the USA, Australia, the UK and so on. In our English-speaking external-to-Indonesia world the region is known as West Papua. Period. See books mentioned above. Other countries have their own wikipedias and terms and should use them.

4) In English the island is known as New Guinea, not Papua. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.226.95 (talk) 12:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re: "Indonesian Papua" Most important of all. The region is commonly known as West Papua in the (native) English speaking world. Hilary Clinton calls it West Papua. The British Museum recently had a confereence called the Arts Of West Papua. It is not the job of part-time amateur encyclopedia writers to invent new terms for parts of the world (as happened with WNG which was widely ignored for half a decade by anyone - knowledgable - writing about Indonesia.) That means when somebody hears the term in a .. eg Birds Of Paradise TV documentary and comes to wikipedia that is what they'll type into the search engine. Not Indonesian Papua. West Papua is the commonly used name for the region. And until hundreds of thousands of English speakers (the majority of whom have no political agenda and may simply be bird watchers, geologists or mountaineers) stop using the term you are stuck with it.

When you realise it is not simply a separatist term your problem dissolves. To repeat. Because the separatists make a big noise online with their campaigns, it confuses people who get all their info from the internet, or read Indonesian newspapers, into thinking it's a separatist-Owned term. It isn't. It's mine too, and it's everybody elses on the english speaking international stage who has actual dealings with the territory whether in forestry, mining, missions, politics, gas... And yes, when inside Indonesia and talking to Indonesians I simply call it Papua, their common name for the region, but outside of Indonesia if you want to make yourself immediately understood you call it West Papua - "Hard Fact". Here is the Indonesian wiki www.id.wikipedia.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.226.95 (talk) 13:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've amended the intro to reflect the commonly used internal Indonesian designation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.226.95 (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


It is Hard Fact that 'western new guinea' is known near-universally in the english-speaking world as West Papua. That is by people who actually know the place. This is both by groups that oppose the Indonesian annexation of the territory, by those who approve of it (missionary and mining groups), by those who simply don't care, and those who have a cast iron mandate for neutrality on such political matters (eg the BBC whose filming visas - birds of paradise / tribes - would be withdrawn if they criticised the government). There are innumerable examples of all three in the highest levels of politics, culture and journalism. In many years of working in and around the territory I have never heard anyone talk about this Western New Guinea. Has anyone? - it is a wikipedia fiction that has spread around the web, used by people without first hand knowledge of the territory, plucked from an old book.


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

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)[reply]

In fact West Papua is used by all or almost all of the English speaking world, most of whom are politically neutral on the independence question. The title of this page is unhelpful.=== —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.226.95 (talk) 12:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"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?

All of them which is why Indonesia refuses to give the people a referendom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.103.168.21 (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's known as Papua in Indonesia, and most Papuans are happy to be part of Indonesia. The separatists are mostly criminals or from Papua New Guinea, which is a crazy place compared to Papua. Western New Guinea is only used because West Papua is the name of an Indonesian Province which is only part of the region. People in the West have no idea of the reality of Indonesia, nor how much it has changed since 1998. Papuans are full citizens of Indonesia and vote in National Elections. Indonesia is South East Asia's only true democracy. You only have to look at the mess that East Timor is in there are two factions continually fighting each other. East Timor would have, in the long run been better to remain in Indonesia cos its messed up worse now and the Australians take 2/3 of the oil, which is the only reason they intervened. Indonesia is a very different place now than it was under Suharto and things are a lot different in Papua now. There are very few problems in Papua, many Papuans live in Jakarta of their own free will, there are Papuans in the provincial and national assemblies. Let me see, the US was stolen from the natives, Europe invaded the world, Australia left PNG in a mess and is not helping very much in East Timor. BTW I'm not Indonesian. There are only a few hundred separists left. Take a look at Aceh, another "separatist" province and in a worse confrontation with Indonesia. Guess what? The war is over. The same can be said of Papua. There are many more problems for the government in neighbouring Ambon, but do you ever hear anything about that in the Western Media? NO! Grow up. Indonesia and Papua did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.120.81.163 (talk) 15:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to help - the STUPID name of "Western New Guinea" was a Wikipedia fiction created six years ago due to a edit-war, a group of three writers took great offense to the concept that 'black' people could possibly have wanted independence or had free thought by the 1930s. As more wiki writers seem to have been drawn to the subject now, I purpose a name change to West Papua (region).Daeron (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transmigration[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Yes people in the West know very little about Indonesia and pretend to know a lot. Most Indonesians are proud of the fact that they can travel all over Indonesia among myriads of cultures without needing a passport. The world could learn a few lessons in brotherhood from Indonesia. It wasn't so long ago that Europeans were killing each other. There hasn't been a military government in Indonesia for 11 years now, it is SE Asia's only true democracy. Transmigration is no longer used as a political tool, there is no transmigration policy anymore. What happens now is that people move where the work is, at the moment the hotspots are the Riau Islands and Jakarta (which is in JAVA!!) now the largest metro area in the Southern Hemisphere. So much for people moving out of Java, everybody is moving in, there are people from all over the world here, but especially from all over Indonesia, including Papua. When you see a Papuan riding in the back of a limousine you will understand how far the situation has progressed. So stop exaggerating, the Army doesn't behave the same way it used to, you don't see guns in the streets anymore, its a different world, the rest of those who criticise Indonesia's past mistakes should look more closely at their own. The best thing I like about Indonesia is that is has faced up to its past, which can't be said for the US or Australia or the UK, they are still bullies because they still deny they ever were. BTW I'm not Indonesian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.120.81.163 (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Failed Good Article Nomination[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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.

The Indonesians were never supported by the Soviets, but always by the Americans. Know your history. Suharto was allowed to be by the Americans, the Freeport Mining Company was backed by the Americans. I wonder how many of you know this? America insisted on Indonesia's independence and supported its takeover of Papua. No one in the West ever mentions NUSANTARA, a country which existed when Europeans were still living in a dark age. "Indonesians" were visiting Australia and New Guinea thousands of years ago an d had cities on the Birds Head Peninsula,New Guinea have always been part of NUSANTARA but then again so was Singapore, Malaysia and parts of the Phillipines and Thailand, before the foreign superpowers invaded and messed the whole region up. But we never hear about that because the invading barbarians still control the writing of History. Not a very well written article at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.120.81.163 (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the Indonesians were "never supported by the Soviets", how do you explain the Soviet military hardware such as Tu-16 long range bombers, MiG-21 fighters and the Sverdlov class cruiser? Did the Indonesian military steal them? And there is a good reason why "No one in the West ever mentions NUSANTARA, a country which existed when Europeans were still living in a dark age." Can you guess? And as for the phrase "America insisted on Indonesia's independence", what's your point? Is that a bad thing? Surely Indonesia deserves independence. Davidelit (talk) 03:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point is, all the rubbish that gets spouted by well meaning liberals counts for nothing as their own countries are often responsible for most of the mess in third world countries. Indonesia has changed completely in the last 11 years, everything you all complain about happened under under the military regime of Suharto. When you are stopped in the streets of Jakarta by a Papuan Police Officer or at the Airport by a Papuan Officer, you will know how integrated Papuans are within Indonesia. You know what the rebels are only a very small number of violent criminals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.121.117.139 (talk) 01:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for the "soviet" hardware, you might not be aware that Russia and former Soviet countries such as Poland sold off their hardware to countries like Indonesia AFTER they became capitalist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.121.117.139 (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just spotted this reply. The Soviet hardware was supplied in the 1960s. Other Soviet support for Indonesia at the time included the funding of the Bung Karno Stadium. Davidelit (Talk) 11:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, the Soviet equipment was courtesy of General Nasution who in 1957 asked Washington for another $650m, was rejected, asked Moscow, was given $250m by the Soviets, and the next year Washington bent over and said please please take our money again - so to speak. Indonesia also had some german patrol boats in 1960, but that didn't make Indonesia part of the german fleet. The Generals would NEVER have allowed a Soviet style regime to strip them of their commercial interests; the story about Soviet invasion of Papua was a NSC fiction to scare Kennedy into endorsing the Freeport plan for the New York Agreement.Daeron (talk) 22:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares who Sukarno bought his toys from. Your line of thinking is typical of Western Liberals with no concept of the reality of Indonesia. There were communists in government with Sukarno sharing power in those days, compromises were made. Who ended up getting killed in 1965? Communists and ethnic Chinese. Do you ever bleat about that? NO! So grow the f*** up and get real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.79.55.135 (talk) 21:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide is a legal term, I would defer to the opinion given by the Yale Law School which has studied the issue and concluded in 2004 that genocide was being committed; either by the government or by TNI interests. Just like the US gov't actions against their indigenous population in the 19th and early 20th centuries and the church and then some gov't policy in Australia, one day Indonesia may be mature enough to admit it's mistakes.Daeron (talk) 22:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two articles?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)

The two provinces are West Papua and Papua —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.120.81.163 (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WNG - proper noun?[edit]

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)[reply]

You could be correct on both counts, I don't know for sure. --Merbabu 06:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it s hould be "western New Guinea". john k 19:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: western New Guinea. Arjuna 19:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Copyright violation[edit]

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)[reply]

Flags[edit]

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)[reply]

Citations[edit]

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)[reply]

Wrong flag[edit]

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)[reply]

Have you ever been to Indonesia? What gives you the right to put the flag of a bunch of violent criminals over the flag of the majority inhabitants of the province. You are soooooo last century. The flag should be removed and put elsewhere in the article as a flag of interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.120.81.163 (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The flag was designed by the New Guinea Council in October 1961 and was the territory's flag from December 1 1961 until new colonial authorities objected in May 1963.Daeron (talk) 05:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go to hell with your opinion, so-called 'World Police'![edit]

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)[reply]

That very statement "..an opinion of one nation's congress... isn't worthy enough to be displayed" summarizes what's wrong with the openness of Wikipedia: people like you. Remember what the "N" represents in NPOV? If you aren't willing to move the discussion towards the goal of being more "N", then maybe you should just leave well enough alone and go start a Christian Indonesian blog where you can vent your anger all day long. Proud to be an atheist, proud to be American, proud to be half Dutch. None of that means anything w.r.t. Wikipedia -- I leave that all behind and strive to be neutral or at least balanced. 76.254.60.91 (talk) 10:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]
'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)[reply]
Adri and Indon, I suppose you two also support the occupation? LamontCranston 15:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]
Lamont Cranston have you ever been to Indonesia? It functions more effectively as a democracy than the US does. The fact remains that both of Western New Guinea's provinces have elected regional parliaments where a majority of the members are Papuan and that most Papuans are happy with the status quo. At least part of West Papua was part of a nation called Nusantara long before the word Europe was even invented. Given that Europeans have occupied and eliminated the populations of other European countries (Ireland, Scotland,Poland, European Jews &c), an entire continent (the Americas, especially North America), New Zealand, Australia, and wiped out 90% of the population in the Pacific and still denies all of this under the guise of diseases, and false histories, and official denials, what right have any of you got to speak out about Indonesia, when it has faced up to its past completely and is actively working to establish a united Indonesia based on equal opportunity. West Papua is not under occupation, it has become an integral part of Indonesia, the war is over the seperatists lost. It's like saying New Zealand the US or Australia should be returned to the natives and all the settlers should leave. Yeah right, like that's ever gonna happen. Get with the program. Indonesia has no Javanese Centre, that comment could only come from someone who has never been here. Indonesia is a multiethnic, multicultural nation. The cultural centre is Jakarta which is a melting pot and surrounded by theSundanese people, and the national language comes from a Sumateran dialect of Malay. Javanese is nowhere on TV or radio except in Surabaya, Holland and Suriname. Everything on TV is in Indonesian, English or Mandarin. Papua's place in Indonesia predates European interference in the region. In reality nationalism at any level is a limited vision of the world, but Indonesia at its core is far more international than any of those who criticise. Its widely recognised here that each island (13000-20000) is a separate country, but it exists as a world within a world where travel is free (in the sense that no passport is needed)and that all are united by the ability to speak Indonesian at some level. What the critics do not know is that local languages are not threatened, they continue as always as family and tribal languages, naturally and are not suppressed. Most people in Indonesia are multilingual. Others could learn this lesson. It's not about Indonesianing anybody, its about opening up the world to everybody. What has intellectualism got to do with anything? What matters is whether the Papuans want to become like their neighbours in PNG, with rampant crime, huge drug problems, an AIDS epedemic, too many guns and ongoing tribal and drug wars, or do they want to retain the progress they have made, especially since 1998 and advance as the rest of Indonesia is advancing now? Perhaps you should visit before you comment. The Free Papua Movement has killed a lot of Papuans too, so no one is innocent. Papua is actually a very peaceful place. I would recommend the Movie "Denias" if you can find it. It shows Papua as it is now. The rest of the world has no idea. And while the rest of you are in recession Indonesia is still going ahead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.120.81.163 (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Dear Smilo Don. Please let me clear up some myths about the relationship between Papua and the rest of Indonesia. You don’t have to read/listen to Indonesian point of view if you don’t want to, feel free to listen to only Western opinions on the matter. And I think that this discussion is very critical so that it could remove some of the biasness from this article and hence improving it, so I believe it’s important that these arguments stay.


Papuans don’t share culture, language and history with the Javanese, but do all the other non-Javanese ethnic groups even share these with the Javanese??
I'm Makassarese and I can tell that other non-Javanese Indonesians have nothing in common with the Javanese and with each other. How can you say that Javanese and Makassarese (for example) share the same culture when for example the Javanese say that Makassarese people are rude and temperamental and when the Makassarese say that Javanese are slow, not straight to the point and servant-like?? (And let me tell you that most Makassarese do not like the Javanese but they like the Papuans better because we are also Easterners like they are. And I personally don’t hate the Javanese, but I hate the Javanese culture, not because it’s ugly, inferior or whatever, but because it’s just so dominating that I feel like I need some breathing space) How can you say that we share the same culture if there are so many cultural clashes in ordinary Indonesian lives between non Papuans? How can you say we share the same language when I don't understand a single thing when people speak in Javanese, Buginese, Asmat or any language other than Indonesian and Makassarese? How can you say we share the same history if I know much of the history of Makassarese kingdoms and don't know much about the events in Javanese history other than that they converted to Islam in at around the 15th century. I don't know the Javanese history as much as I don't know the Karonese history or the history of any other people. All I know is that we were all colonized by the Dutch, except for East Timor. Is there anything really that all Indonesians shared other than this? Is there?? In fact, Indonesia is not based on similarities of language, history, ethnicity or whatever, Indonesia is based on Dutch colonialism of which West Papua was a part of.


The Papuans are different from other Indonesians and so they deserve their own country, because each group of people that is different deserves to have its own country.
It’s very strange that Westerners are keen on using the criterion ‘difference’ to determine the borderlines of countries. This is something an Indonesian wouldn’t understand. If I just go a few hours south of Jakarta, I can already see a different ethnic group speaking in a different language that I don’t understand. Similarly, if I go slightly north from my homeland Makassar (Makassar is at the southern tip of Sulawesi), I can hear the Buginese language, which is very different from the Makassarese language. The culture between the two ethnic groups are similar, but the Buginese have ‘bissu’ (transvestite priests who are the tradition holders and leaders in traditional ceremonies), women who pray in the mosques on Friday and they have Caqdoleng-doleng (young women singing naked and performing erotic movements in front the whole village with an audience ranging from little kids to grandparents). These things among other things are UNHEARD of in the Makassarese Land. Forget the Buginese, the Makassarese themselves have huge differences between themselves. They have slightly different customs and speak three mutually unintelligible languages. Look at the three different ways of saying “I can’t see it” in different parts of the Makassarese Land:
In Gowa – ‘tena kuciniki’
In Konjo – ‘anre kuittei’
In Selayar – ‘gele kujanjang'
And in Buginese (Soppeng dialect I think) – ‘degaga uitai’
And I’m still only talking about the same Makassarese ethnic group. Spanish, Italian and Portuguese even has less differences IMO:
Italian – 'non lo vedo'
Spanish – 'no lo veo'
Portuguese – 'nao o vejo'
If we Indonesians follow the Western idea that ‘difference’ is a reasonable criterion to form a separate country, then Indonesia would collapse into hundreds of tiny kingdoms, chiefdoms and tribes, even more divided than Europe. West Papua would too. W Papua has around 10 unrelated language families including the Austronesian language family spoken in some parts in the north which is of ASIAN origin, not Papuan. And it has in total over 260 mutually unintelligible languages. Go check out Wikipedia ‘Austronesian’ if you don’t believe me and ethnologue.com. The Melanesians in the northern coast of Papua are genetically not Papuans, they have practically Asian genes with some Papuan base (even if they superficially appear black). Papuans also have skin colors ranging from brown to very dark brown to black. In addition, Jared Diamonds in GGS who also worked and lived in Papua for a very long time reported that highlanders and lowlanders are physically very distinguishable from one another, they make fun of each other and do not get along with each other. I even see Papuans in the news having tribal wars with the neighboring tribes (not that ethnic conflicts don’t happen in other parts of Indonesia). I mean even Papua could be divided until it becomes tiny villages if we use 'difference' as a criterion to set up countries. To summarize everything, ‘difference’ doesn't mean 'must form a different country'. But if you see ‘difference’ as a problem, then it will be a problem. So stop trying to influence us saying that it’s a problem!


The rest of Indonesians are racist towards black Papuans?
I’ve never actually seen/heard anyone claiming this, but I just would like to stress that this is not the case. This is a claim that is really hard for me to prove because there are probably no data to support this, but I feel this way very strongly because I’ve never seen any type of discrimination against them in Indonesia. I read a Filipino who wrote a comment (I think it was in an Indonesia forum, can’t remember) that he was surprised to see how much integrated the blacks in Indonesia are compared to the black population in the Philippines (although I don’t know if he was talking about black Mollucans or Papuans). He said that the blacks in the Philippines are not at all integrated with the mainstream population. I know that this is just one person’s word, but for me at least its one proof. In my opinion, any racism directed towards Papuans in Indonesia is just same as the racism between non-Papuan ethnic groups, religious groups or between genders. In fact, in my opinion, there exists more racism towards the Javanese and Chinese than towards Papuans. However, it’s important to say that most Indonesians (as far as I know) consider dark skin very ugly and try to avoid staying too long under the sun. Some women are like vampires who run and hide when the sun comes out of the clouds. And it’s ridiculous how many skin-whitening products are advertised on TV. But I repeat, Indonesians (as far as I know) are not racist towards blacks like many Europeans do, this is probably because non-Papuan Indonesians can easily turn black themselves if they stay for a long time under the sun, but I’m not sure.


Papua is going through “Indonesianization” with Indonesian schools, TV stations, radio, transmigration from Java/Jakarta!
Indonesianization doesn't only happen in Papua, but Jakarta tries to Indonesianize Makassar Land as well (my homeland called ‘Butta Mangkasaraq’ in Makassarese) with its schools, television, radio, transmigration. This happens in every country, it's called 'NATION-BUILDING' not propoganda.(not that I like the transmigration part) This is NOT like Sinicization in China and Russification in Russia, where both the ethnic Chinese and ethnic Russians try (with or without force) try to turn other minorities into Chinese and Russians ethnically and linguistically, because in Indonesia the Indonesianization process is not done by the ethnic ‘Indonesians’, because there is no ethnic ‘Indonesian’. ‘Indonesia’ is a word that was created quite recently by Europeans to describe the region. There is no one word or definition that can describe all the peoples who lived under the Dutch rule in the East Indies, and so the ‘Indonesians’ later adopted this term to describe their new political identity as the people who lived through the Dutch rule. ‘Indonesianization’ therefore means turning people to identify themselves as ‘Indonesians’ politically (not ethnically).
And I'm sick of hearing "Papuans and East Timorese are forced to learn Indonesian and adopt Indonesian culture", because ALL Indonesians must learn the Indonesian language as a second language to their local languages, not only Papuans. And all Indonesians must endure the Javanese/Sundanese/Betawi dominant culture, not only Papuans. If you don’t understand what I’m talking about let’s take the Indonesian dramas for example that are constantly on the Indonesian TV channels.
In today’s Indonesian dramas, we have the main characters who are insulted by the parents-in-law, mistreated by their bosses or have their lives ruined by their step sisters and mothers, but the main character reminds herself to be patient, prays to God to protect her and is thankful towards God for the precious things she has. She still remains very polite and humble and speaks softly to the bad guys despite the fact that they are evil towards her. In the end, karma kicks in and their evil acts return to bad guys like a boomerang or God punished them until they either die or repent and ask for forgiveness. The main character shows the typical Javanese attitude called ‘nrimo’ in Indonesia and this is very well represented in the Indonesian dramas (these are the attributes of most Indonesian dramas we see in TV).
I tell you if the Makassarese made up 40% of Indonesia (just like the Javanese do today), the main character would be completely different. She would stand up for what is right, have revenge on the boss, beat the living crap out of her step sisters and the parents-in-law would suddenly realize that they have an amazing daughter-in-law. The plot of the movie wouldn’t be spent on how she is still patient and polite despite being oppressed, but it would be spent on how she managed cunningly and successfully to turn the tide despite many disappointing failures and how from time to time she would pray to God to make her establish justice. And even when she manages to be the boss on top, she is still respectful to those under her. This is based on the Makassarese philosophy called ‘siriq na pacce’ (shame and pain) which are the emotions that push an individual to strive for honor/respect and justice. In general, the Javanese value most: humility, patience, politeness, gratefulness, diligence, etc, on the other hands the Makassarese value most: justice, respectfulness, excellence, great achievements, braveness, honor, determination, etc.
What I’m telling you is consistent with Makassarese literary works, traditional stories, traditional songs, proverbs, poetry, before all these slowly died out after joining Indonesia of which very few remain alive today. All main characters in Makassarese literature resemble the main character of the hypothetical Makassarese drama I invented above. Take a look at other examples of the difference between Javanese and Makassarese in these proverbs:
Makassarese proverbs:
“Leqba kusoronna biseangku, kucampaqna sombalakku, tamassaile punna teai labuang. Kualleangi tallanga na towalia.” (If I’ve pushed my boat, spread the sail, I will not turn away if it’s not a port. I take drowning over returning.)
“Teai Mangkasaraq punna bokona lokoq” (Not Makassarese is he whose back is wounded)
Javanese proverbs:
“girilusi jalmo tan keno ing ngino” (Above the sky there is still sky.)
“wani ngalah duwur wekasane” (Courageous to yield/give up/give in for a better purpose/position, (this is one is a popular one))
I’ll let you interpret these proverbs yourselves. Now, can you see why the Javanese would consider Makassarese rude and harsh while the Makassarese consider the Javanese servant-like? With the population of the Javanese 20 times bigger than the Makassarese, whose mentality and values do you think is dominating? And can you see why almost all non-Javanese (including Papuans) who are aware of this Javanization process are afraid of it? These are just some examples.
Speaking of Indonesianization, I don’t know if you know, but ALL INDONESIANS who at least graduated from 6th grade elementary school know Papuan traditional songs like “Apuse Kokon Dao”, “Yamko Rambe Yamko” and some other songs because these songs are mandatory in schools. In addition, we are taught about the Papuan people, Papuan geography, flora & fauna, etc. So even Indonesianization includes bits of Papuanization of Indonesia, just as there are bits of Balinization, Sundanization, Torajanization, etc, but obviously the dominating force in the Indonesianization process is Javanization because they make up a huge chunk of Indonesia (40%).


Javanization must be stopped and for diversity to be upheld West Papua must be a separate country! If necessary, Indonesia should be divided into many smaller countries!
First of all, forming a separate country doesn’t guarantee that your culture, language, values and customs will be preserved especially in this globalized world where the Gringo culture is dominating. I mean it’s not like our neighbor Papuan New Guineans don’t wear shirts and shorts, are oblivious about Christianity and never watch American films and only watch Papuan films.
In addition, the key for upholding diversity or preserving culture is not by isolating oneself. It’s true that a Papuan will lose less of his culture if he receives no influence from other Indonesians, but if he wants to protect his culture and language badly, then the person can stay inside his village all his life and avoid contact with the rest of the world including other Papuans from other villages and lands. This will definitely protect him from other cultures and languages. But do you think this is what Papuans want? Protecting culture over progress? Of course not!
Besides, the Javanization of Indonesia is not comparable to Russification of Russia nor Sinicization of China, because in the former case the process is unintentionally; it just so happens that the larger/more powerful Javanese influences the others. This is different from the latter cases (Russia and China), where the governments have been actively trying to assimilate ethnic minorities. Indonesia is not about oppressing any culture at all (be it Papuan or non-Papuan). If you don't know that Indonesia is essentially about diversity, then you must not know about Indonesia at all, because that's the essence of Indonesia. Indonesia = Bhineka Tunggal Ika = Unity in Diversity. That is what Indonesia means. And we understand that this is one of our important assets, not like how many other countries believe that minorities pose a threat to the security of the rest of the country because they are the least likely to be loyal to the state. And Indonesia is not Europe where borderlines are based on religion, language, culture and history. Is it not possible that people with different skin colors share the same country? Being different as a reason to form a separate country is laughable in Indonesia, because EVERYONE is different. How can you not be diverse with over 17.000 islands, over 300 ethnic groups, over 700 languages (ethnologue.com), 6 official religions (on top of the ethnic religions in various regions not included). However, people in the West buy this, because this fits their culture and norms and mentality. And what is acceptable or unacceptable for Westerners should be the same for others right??(speaking of Western Imperialism....)
Besides, the Indonesian government already organizes or subsidizes events that promote local culture, support local museums and has applied Local Content (‘Mulok’) as part of the school curriculum. Mulok includes the teachings of local language, local folksongs, local indigenous script, local folklores, local history and other cultural elements (mostly language though). However, this is still very problematic and can’t be compared to West. Let’s take Makassar City as an example. In addition to the Makassarese children in schools, there are also local Torajan, Buginese, Mandarese children and there are also Javanese, Batak, Mollucan, Papuan and other immigrants from other regions who send their children to school there. Obviously the Makassarese children are at an advantage in learning these things because they are more familiar with their own culture and language. The method of teaching is also not effective for Makassarese children because teachers must go at a slow pace so that other students can follow. Now compare this to West Papua which is way more diverse than Sulawesi. Mulok was created to support the local culture, but it is really difficult, ineffective and expensive, especially in the very diverse Papua. This is different from Mulok in Central Java, Eastern Java and Yogjakarta provinces, where about 95% of the people are Javanese (except for the Island of Madura and some other areas).
Despite all these efforts, it is not the government’s responsibility to preserve culture and language. It’s our own responsibility if we want the culture and language of our ancestors to die or to stay alive. Preserving them is done by practicing and speaking them. There’s a big ethnic group in South East Sulawesi called ‘Tolaki’. I heard that their language is almost extinct. But if they don’t consider the language of their ancestors as important, then why should the government waste so much money to protect it?


Papua, a colony of Indonesia??
Sorry, you are offending me if you call this colonialism, because it was the rest of the world that was colonized, enslaved and their natural resources robbed by the West for hundreds of years. Our grandparents and great grandparents had to suffer that. For the Indonesians this is probably the worst insult ever. When Papua was colonized by the Netherlands, just like any other cases of colonialism, the Dutch did it to make themselves richer and not out of concern of the well-being of West Papuans or to build a wonderful relationship with them. Those Papuans were not Dutch citizens and didn't have the rights of Dutch citizens. Now, that's colonialism.
But West Papuans in Indonesia are Indonesian citizens and have rights just like any other Indonesian citizen. They are represented in the local and regional government by Papuan representatives (obviously not a lot, because they only make up 1% of Indonesia, the Makassarese too only 1%). Even the current Indonesian minister of Ocean and Fisheries is Papuan, Freddy Numberi. And in every cabinet formed by the government (after Suharto’s rule), there has always been at least a Papuan within the cabinet. This is a very prominent position that's only a degree under the vice president. There's also a famous Indonesian singer from Papua named Edo Kondologit. There's also the legendary Papuan soccer team, PERSIPURA. In Indonesia, Papuans can be whatever they want. They can vote to determine the fate of the whole Indonesia and are even eligible to be the Indonesian president. Now, can the Papuans do this under the Dutch? I don’t think so, they weren’t even considered Dutch. In addition, Papua was made as a PART of Indonesia and not a territory thereof like the way the Dutch did. Now, do you still think that West Papua is under colonialism??


Why is West Papua in Indonesia? (The hypocrisy and deceitfulness of the Dutch government).
What?? Aren't the borderlines of the whole of Indonesia a legacy of Dutch colonialism?? If the Dutch hadn’t colonized West Papua, then WPapua wouldn’t have been part of Indonesia. The only thing that all Indonesians had in common was that we were all colonized by the Dutch (Malaysia by the British and Philippines by the Spaniards). Go look at the borderlines of Africa today, why aren't they based on ethnic and language backgrounds?? Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Papua New Guinea and all those African countries wouldn't have existed without the colonizers. They would have been composed of hundreds of tiny kingdoms, chiefdoms and tribes. But with the Dutch, we don’t want to be disunited like this. If north Australia had been colonized by the Dutch then it would have been part of Indonesia. I know that West Papuans never agreed or wanted to join the Indonesian forces, but neither did some other ethnic groups especially the forest peoples and mountain peoples never agreed to join forces with Indonesia either. But here are some reasons (IMO) why our forefathers wanted the WHOLE Dutch East Indies to unite during the Dutch rule against the Dutch and up to independence:
1. It was more convenient for the whole ex-Dutch colony of Dutch East Indies to unite and repel the Dutch and not every single kingdom and chiefdom fighting the Dutch on their own. A very popular Indonesian proverb taught in schools is “Bersatu kita teguh, bercerai kita runtuh” (Together we are robust, scattered we fall into ruins)
2. It was also much more convenient if the whole ex-colony had one voice so that the rest of the world would hear our voice (or declaration) and not different kingdoms and chiefdoms having different voices.
3. The people in this region are more community-oriented unlike Europe where the people are more individual-oriented (from our point of view). Therefore, we have less problem uniting despite differences. However, I’m just so surprised that the SE Asian mainlanders (Cambodians, Vietnamese, Thais, Laotians, etc) are so vicious towards each other, so I kind of see why they can’t unite.
4. We don’t want to kick away the Dutch invaders, but then still have them in our neighboring lands or islands. Example: Java didn’t want to kick out the Dutch, but then still have loads of Dutch soldiers in Bali and Borneo. We don’t want to keep on fearing another colonialization with the Dutch living as our neighbors. We wanted to kick them out completely from the region so that they have no more reason to be there.
For these reasons and probably several other reasons, our forefathers declared the WHOLE Dutch East Indies as independent and not Dutch East Indies minus West Papua. ‘Indonesia’ = ‘Dutch East Indies without the Dutch’. If West Papua along with the rest of Indonesia had been included as part of the Dutch East Indies, then why would the Dutch oppose West Papua to be part of the Dutch East Indies after it had declared independence? This is because the Dutch just wanted to keep another territory here in South East Asia. I can’t believe that the Dutch side argued that they opposed West Papua becoming united with the rest of their ex-colonies saying that it has no ethnic ties with them. Well, West Papua probably had more ethnic ties to the rest of the archipelago than to the Netherlands that is on the other side of the globe in the first place. Yet, knowing that they had no ethnic ties with us, they came here and invaded us. And then later argue that we have no ethnic ties with the Papuans???? Isn’t this hypocritical??? And it’s very interesting that the people who colonized us for hundreds of years are WORRIED about the Papuans getting colonized. Is there any other adjective to better describe Western governments other than hypocritical? Anyway, back to the topic, I wouldn’t want to debate with Western governments with their hypocritical arguments. And it wouldn’t surprise me if the Dutch government created a West Papuan identity in such a way that it affirms that Papuans have nothing to do with the rest of the archipelago and that they deserve their own country. I mean isn’t that what colonizers best do?? Dividing people so that local people become weaker, so that they have the opportunity to do more things? Examples: The Dutch made the Chinese and Arabs as second class citizens and native Indonesians as third class citizens, which cause the latter to hate the former up to today. They made the difference between the castes in Bali even more striking that makes the Balinese people more divided. They forced the Bone kingdom to attack the Gowa kingdom in order to make the Makassarese and Buginese relationship worse. They used Mollucans and Minahasans as soldiers to extinguish rebellions from other Indonesians so that all of these people wouldn’t get along. I don’t know about the Dutch legacy of ‘divide and rule’ from other regions, but I think there are plenty of those and that all these are enough to show me the government’s deceitfulness.


The atrocities done by Indonesians in Papua, (and East Timorese and Aceh as well)
With the US support of Suharto, Suharto reigned for 32 years in Indonesia. When he first began to take power in Indonesia, the country saw a killing rampage with 80.000 dead Balinese, around 200.000 deaths in Sumatra bringing the total death toll across Indonesia up to around 500.000 which is twice worse than the Tsunami in Aceh. That was especially a lot considering that the population of Indonesia then was less than half of the population today. Now, this is just the beginning of his rule when he toppled the previous regime. Other casualties came soon after.
Suharto was a dictator that was not afraid to imprison or kill those who opposed him. During his rule no one if any tried to oppose him. He was a military man, ruled that way and had intelligence all over Indonesia (so I heard). No one dared to oppose him and criticize him publically. Even mosques could be burned down if they opposed or criticized the government.
Isn't this how dictatorship works?? I mean isn't that exactly what happened in Myanmar with all those monks slaughtered? Dictators have to show no mercy to those who oppose their ruling, otherwise everyone would have the courage to question their authority. And if anyone is to blame for the slaughter of the people who opposed Soeharto including the slaughter of movements/supporters of Independence (in Aceh, Mollucas, East Timor and WPapua), then it is the US who brought him into power in Indonesia (regardless of whether they supported or condemn those killings). Do you think Indonesia wants him?? He was one of the most corrupt people in the whole planet!!! So thank you US for having done such a great job and so this is another Western legacy. It was also Suharto who invaded East Timor with the support of the US, so the East Timorese should be thankful to the gringos for this.
Another thing that I should mention is that almost all Indonesians were not aware of the killings in Aceh, Mollucas, East Timor and WPapua. I thought that Aceh was as peaceful as the province south of it, North Sumatra. All the secrets were only unveiled after the fall of Suharto.
In conclusion, West Papua is part of Indonesia. If you don't like it, blame the Dutch for colonizing in the first place. West Papua is an integral part of Indonesia! Merdeka!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.121.55.41 (talk) 08:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(To whoever wrote the above. THANK YOU. Very educational. Your knowledge belongs in the article, properly referenced! As the son of a colonizer and an Ugly American, I found it fascinating to read. 76.254.60.91 (talk) 10:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Actuallly Merabu, I think that this discussion is crucial to improving this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.120.81.163 (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Racist lies[edit]

I'm trying to remove or truncate the lies and poor layout. I have added some Haplogroup results- Y-chromosome haplogroup S. --86.29.141.217 (talk) 20:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC) --86.29.141.217 (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Operasi Trikora[edit]

The Indonesian Wikipedia has recently had the above article on its front page. It's well referenced and has a nuetral POV. However I note in earlier discussions that it was decided not to have a separate article covering the events of 1960 to 1962. I was going to translate the Id article, but don't want to get dragged into a political quagmire! Let me know if anyone has any thoughts on the matter. --Sepa (talk) 13:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly object (in most cases) to translating from ID wikipedia into EN wikipedia as the standard of referencing ranges from appalling to non-existant - including the ID article you are suggesting. --Merbabu (talk) 07:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite in favour of it, actually. The Indonesian version is well referenced and NPOV as Sepa notes, and although there are a few statements that could do with further referencing. I think that perhaps the background and end of conflict sections could be reduced where they duplicate existing En articles. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merabu, Merabu, Merabu - how is the rest of the world gonna know the Indonesian point of view unless it gets translated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.120.81.163 (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with translating the Indonesian article was not so much POV, but a lack of references. The biggest problem with Indonesia-related articles here is that so many have been just translated from Indonesian wikipedia which rarely has references. However, if it is the case that this particular article has good referencing, then translation might be OK. --Merbabu (talk) 07:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. 114.120.81.163 doesn't really understand. Wikipedia is not to promote points of view - about the occupation of West Papua or anything else. The websites for points of view are called blogs. If you wanna [sic] make a blog, there are plenty of free sites. Davidelit (talk) 02:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't agree. IMO, points of view are very important for Wikipedia. Imagine you two kids are fighting in the school's backyard. Do you only listen to the story of one of the kid or listen to both their stories or listen to both their stories and the stories of other witnesses at the school's backyard? Imagine you're encountering an unknown object that looks very foreign to you. Do you just sit and stare at it continuously or do you go round and round to see the object from different angles? Of course points of views are important to get a better idea of a subject. Imagine writing the an article on the US history in wikipedia using the American school textbook, that would be completely bias. For me it would be insane if Wikipedia doesn't promote points of view. I haven't looked at all the different subjects within Wikipedia, but the ones I usually see Religion and Science always have many different points of views. Just read the article on Jesus, you'll see the points of views from Christians, Jews, Mandaeans and Muslims and even Hindus and Buddhists who do not have him in their holy books. Some worship him, some only praise him, some accuse him as a false prophet, but they all have different stories. And in science, you cannot escape writing an article by writing the point of view of just one scientist, because theories contradict each other and scientific studies do not 100% harmoniously support each other. For example, most scientist would agree that autism is a mental disorder, the universe started with the 'big bang' and that Papuans are only very distantly related to the blacks in Africa, but there are voices that go against the that. Even if 90% of all scientist agree on a matter, if there is a strong 10% that oppose, why not include that in the article to improve it. Note that Religion and Science have nothing in common with each other. The same should also go for History, because history is so far away from being the truth, because it is written by powerful people with agendas. Don't you think so? That is of course unless you think that point of view that is not yours is not important and is probably wrong.... Let me ask you, which race in this world do you think, feel that they are the best race? Racism is hardly ever directed towards them, but directed towards others. Which race do you think, feel that their points of view matter more than the points of view of others? Which race would think always strive to propogate their points of view, but would laugh for example at the Indonesian point of view? I'm not saying that all Westerners are ethnocentric, but if you disregard the point of view of Indonesians, then you are being racist!! So, I strongly agree with 114.120.81.163 that the Indonesian side/point of view also deserves to be included, so that the article could be less bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Senantiasa (talk • contribs) 17:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My problem is not about different points of view. My comment is that it must be verified by published sources. see WP:V and WP:RS. --Merbabu (talk) 07:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess you're right; the Indonesian version is not so well referenced, but I was just saying that all points of view deserve to be considered in Wikipedia and not just the point of view of the colonizers. I'm sorry if I'm new and don't know much of the rules, but this article is just very insulting that I really feel like I need to defend the Indonesian side. But as is written in WP:RS (I just looked it up), it says "Wikipedia articles should cover all major and significant-minority views that have been published by reliable sources." So all significant views deserve a space in the articles just like the Indonesian view.
I'm very sorry to Davidelit that I used very strong words, but sometimes I feel like I need to use strong words to counter the Western attitude 'I know it all'. I've read a lot of criticism on Islam and Indonesia in the internet made by Westerners that usually claim that both are oppressive due to their ignorance and arrogance. Now, I'm not against ignorance at all, because it might just so happen that some people are not so blessed to know much about the other side of the story of things. In fact, many people in the world are ignorant about many things. But I'm completely against arrogance, especially when it's mixed with ignorance. Ignorant non-Westerners show humbleness by making comments (as far as I've read) that begin with "Isn't it true that...", "Isn't is contradictory that...", etc. Ignorant Westerners on the other hand show arrogance by making comments that begin with, "Indonesia has been colonizing West Papua since..." or "Islam is a very oppresive religion because..." I always try to tell them the other side of the story, some of them do not reply, others say to me "thanks for explaining that to me", but they all have to insult other people before they even listen to their other side of the story. And I know why this is prevalent among Westerners, because most of them think they are better than the rest. At least this shows to me that they primitive.
Just look at what Smilo Don said for example "Jakarta has tried trans-migrants, schools, radio, television and other propaganda to try to Indonesianize the Papuans." This is obviously a comment made by someone who doesn't know the Indonesian side of the story at all. (Aren't all Indonesians being Indonesianized??) Anyway, despite the fact that he has never heard the Indonesian side of the story, he says "It's colonialism pure and simple." How can he be so sure about to conclude that it's colonialism when his silly statements clearly shows that he doesn't understand Indonesia. If he didn't watch his mouth because of his arrogance, then I don't know what. Would it hurt him to say "Jakarta has tried trans-migrants, schools, radio, television and other propaganda to try to Indonesianize the Papuans. Isn't that colonialism?" Davidelit also made an arrogant comment that began with "Oh dear. 114.120.81.163 doesn't really understand..." Is that really necessary?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Senantiasa (talk • contribs) 10:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Act of Free Choice[edit]

The "Act of Free Choice" referendum was conducted under similar conditions, and using similar methods, to elections held in the rest of Indonesia at the time, including the elections in Java.

At the time, nothing bad was generally publicly said about those elections, at least not in Australia or Indonesia. Those elections repeatedly confirmed Suharto's presidency.

However, it is now publicly accepted, both in Indonesia and in Australia, that those elections where at best unrepresentative. Even on this page I see comments like: "Indonesia is a very different place now than it was under Suharto" and "Suharto was a dictator".

There should to be a similar recognition that the "Act of Free Choice" was not an act of free choice: it was a sham, designed to support Suharto's Indonesia and give the outcome he wanted. A fair way to do that would be to point to a little bit of information about how voting was arranged in Suharto's Indonesia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.214.18.240 (talk) 12:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "elections held in the rest of Indonesia at the time, including the elections in Java." There weren't any elections between the 1957 local elections and the 1971 legislative election. The "Act of Free Choice" (or "Act Free of Choice" as it was sometimes referred to) was organized very differently to Suharto's New Order elections - see Elections in Indonesia. Davidelit (Talk) 13:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Western_New_Guinea/Archive_1&oldid=1137315262"