Jump to content

Talk:Papua (province)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

A

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

Agreed, in fact the rest that paragraph doesn't make sense either since there were no "Asiaic people of South East Asia" 30000 years ago. Be bold in updating pages! Pm67nz 09:43, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
As far as I know Papuans are Melanesian, and have no relation to the entire Asian racial group. The only two age figures I've seen have been 40 & 45 thousand years, however without explanation for those "over 30" seems much safer. Also the comment about language seems redundant due to the hundreds of languages & dialects. user:Daeron

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

untrue as the public US State Dept. records state JFK decided to give West Papua to Indonesia as an appeasement (bribe) for them not to associate with the Soviets.Daeron
I did not include the US State Dept. URL because I did not want West Papua used as a mud throwing exercise at the US, of course pro-Indonesia & Islamic interests also want it hidden, but that's to avoid having their claim on West Papua seen as the sham that it is.

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

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

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

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

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

Page history of article formerly at West Papua

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

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

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

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

18:31, 25 Nov 2001 . . ASJ

Added some links. No change to text

Added the line:

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

No other changes

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

Replaced entire text with:

# REDIRECT Irian_Jaya

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

Changed to:

# REDIRECT Papua

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

Papua is the proper name of the Indonesian province. For disambiguation it should be at Papua (Indonesia). --Wik 11:27, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)
Incorrect. "West Papua" is NOT a Province, until last year it didn't even have the pretense of having its own layer of government, and as the US document states, Indonesian regional 'governments' are token at best.
"West Papua" does qualify as a Colony, do you want to start the article with that? Why should Wiki take the Indonesian side against the West Papuan government just because there is a military force keeping them in exile. I tried to find the most neutral terms possible, write the facts and let them speak for themselves. But removing the sugar coating, Fact is that West Papua is under a hostile military occupation, being colonised against its peoples wishes. The body counts sort of prove it.Daeron 16:18, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Err ... OK. But which week are we talking about? Just so long as you don't go all fanatical and try to move the original Papua to a new location. Tannin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

from the entry

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

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

Your wish is my command. I wouldn't say it was "the" genesis; but it is correct and I felt germane given the local (Papua) subject. Have a look at History_of_Indonesia and verify with external link somebody else had already included http://www.gimonca.com/sejarah/sejarah.shtml
The Indonesian Republic which came into existance, did so only due to the Japanese setting up Sukarno as war-time leader and especially because they setup the independance committee. A different Indonesia would have come into existance about the same time; if not for the Japanese. Would have been a more left wing government and probably less corrupt IMHO. (probably would only have claimed the areas which already had Islamic Malay people; maybe none, or a smaller part of Borneo and none of West Papua).(BTW I'm 'right' wing myself).Daeron 04:32, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC) Daeron
Thakyou Daeron. In between 16 other tasks (only some of them having to do with the Wikipedia) I'm taking that on board. Tannin 13:33, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

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

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

Looks like your reversion deleted all of Tannin's last round of changes too, tsk tsk. Time for another session with the AC I guess. Stan 13:20, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Daeron's POV is something he has taken the trouble to document with a great deal of hard evidence - something you have conspicuously failed to do thus far, Wik. If you disagree with his claims, please provide us with some evidence to discredit his view.
It's time, Wik. Ante up or shut up. Tannin 13:31, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Can't you read? --Wik 13:35, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

another passage from the introduction

Again from the introduction:

The Dutch retained possession of West New Guinea from 1945, but upon reaching Java 4,000 km away in Asia, they were shocked to find that four years of propaganda had turned many Javanese against the Netherlands.

This paragraph suggests that the Indonesian independence was the brainchild of the administration of the Japanese occupation. This is not correct: the movement towards independence was already established as early as the 1920's, with various political and study groups forming, many of which leaders eventually became the leaders of Indonesia upon the declaration of independence in 1945. It is more accurate to write the paragraph as:

The Dutch retained possession of West New Guinea from 1945, but upon reaching Java 4,000 km away in Asia, they were shocked to not find similar levels of support from the population of Java.

If there are no objections, I will make the change. It is true that there are allegations of Sukarno being an accomplice of Japanese rule at the time, but the fact that there was already an independence movement preceding the Japanese rule - and that it was already steadily growing in number and influence since the 1920s independently of the Japanese - means that the above original paragraph is inaccurate. Julius.kusuma 15:23, 24 Jun 2005 (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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Papua_(province)/Archive_1&oldid=1150751897"