Jump to content

Talk:Papua (province)/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

What's this all about?

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

Compromise

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

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

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

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

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

Page move

(from WP:RM)

Papua (Indonesian province) → Papua Province, Indonesia

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

Change from ambiguous title to official title. 1) The whole island of Papua is not a Province of Indonesia; 2) Papua Province is the proper Indonesian title; and 3) the precise title "Papua Province, Indonesia" is already established as the English title outside of Wikipedia. To confirm established world usage outside Wikipedia: Google "Papua Province" provides 740 English all non-Wikipedia pages; Google "Papua (Indonesian province)" provides 237 copies of Wikipedia pages.--Daeron 18:52, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now. I don't think this naming mess can be solved just by moving particular individual articles. This must be taken up in the context of a general discussion of the naming of the many closely related articles. This is a contentious and controversial area. I want to see an overall scheme of naming the multiple related articles; I want to see that discussed comprehensively. Google test is being used misleadingly above: it will not find the cases that simply call this province "Papua". "Papua (Indonesian province)" is not intended as a display name for links: the parenthesized part is a disambiguation. You won't get a lot of hits from outside of Wikipedia and its mirrors on "John Brown (servant)" for Queen Victoria's Scottish servant, but John Brown (servant) is, indeed the appropriate title under our disambiguation conventions. I'm not sure that we don't have a similar case here. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:01, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
That's the percise point of the using brackets for a Google search -- it does not get pages that only say Papua. And you can look at the types of pages & how they use the two titles above; from the front search results for Papua Province, Indonesia other encyclopedia (not copies of Wiki) like Papua, province, Indonesia; but government & ngo's like to use percisely Papua Province, Indonesia because the Indonesian name for it is Papua Province, not Papua which is the entire Island or inside Indonesia could be used as an abbreviation of Papua Province.--Daeron 20:27, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
P.S. You say "I don't think this naming mess can be solved just by" .. But this is only about one miss-named title, not your larger issue.
  • Oppose. This is a disambiguation and obviously parentheses are the standard format for disambiguations. Gzornenplatz 20:10, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
No, the disamibuation page for the articles is called Papua. A comma is in common use to identify the owning or larger state entity. THere is no Wikipedia convention or style requirring brackets be used.-Daeron
  • Oppose. Is there a reason for not using the simpler Papua Province? Is some other "Papua Province"? Unless all of the other Indonesian provinces are also named similarly, i.e., "ProvinceName, Indonesia", then I don't see why this should be. And I agree with Jmabel regarding parenthetical disambiguation. older≠wiser 20:23, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
Sort of, Papua Territory or the like was the south eastern quarter of Papua. I keep getting the German & British claims mixed up; my studies have only focused upon the Dutch and Indonesian claimed region. Otherwise ask John & Wik, they were the ones who insisted Indonesia had to be in the title.--Daeron
  • Strongly, strongly oppose. No other Indonesian province is located at anything like what Daeron is proposing here (or at Name Province, for that matter). There is a place called Papua. We are disambiguating it from several other usages of Papua by noting that it is an Indonesian province. I see no problem with the current location. Unless we move every other article on an indonesian province to Name Province, Indonesia, there is no justification for this move. john k 05:20, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Papua is the proper name and a disambiguation pages is called for at Papua since there are many uses for the name. Trödel|talk 17:02, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose OneGuy 05:32, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Papua (Indonesian province) → Papua Province

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

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

see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Subnational entities/Naming

That's because you moved all of them after you single-handedly wrote that "policy" by yourself. Where was there ever a consensus for that? It makes absolutely no sense. Capitalization implies that it's a proper name, like "Northern Territory" in Australia; that has to be capitalized because it's never just "Northern". But if we just add something for disambiguation, it belongs in parentheses, that's why we have Georgia (U.S. state), not Georgia State or State of Georgia. Likewise, it has to be Papua (Indonesian province), not Papua Province. NoPuzzleStranger 05:59, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
1) I only moved some of them, most from lower to upper case
2) bracket disambig was already rarely used before I moved
3) I did not wrote any policy but intended to reduce from 9 naming schemes to a lower number
4) Capitalization is not used only in cases like "Northern" but also for New York City or Albany County.
5) if transforming from "Propinsi Papua" to english one gets Papua Province like Albany County or New York City. Tobias Conradi 06:34, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"Propinsi Papua" is the full official name in the same way as "State of Georgia", but we use the most common version, which is just Papua. The only reason we don't simply use Papua (just as we use North Sumatra etc. for all other Indonesian provinces, even though in the full official form they all are "Propinsi something") is because of a need to disambiguate, and we use parentheses for that. NoPuzzleStranger 06:44, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
New York City is called City because otherwise it is ambiguous. Like Albany County, Something River or Xy District. Because there is only one Papua Province there is no need to mention in the article title that it is Indonesian. Your Georgia example is obviously misleading, because "Georgia (state)" would still be ambiguous and therefore US has to be added. Tobias Conradi 06:56, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
New York City is a commonly used proper name, evidenced by the fact that the word "City" is almost always capitalized; you don't see "New York city" much. Now if you just want to remove the word "Indonesian", that may be acceptable. But then it's still Papua (province), not Papua Province. NoPuzzleStranger 07:06, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
remove "Indonesian" is one step remove brackets the other. Kansas City, Quebec City, several Something Islands, hundreds of counties, districts and rivers, Something Harbours... Orange Free State, Cape of Good Hope Province ... Tobias Conradi 07:34, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm with NoPuzzleStranger on this. I see no sign of consensus behind what you present to us as "the new facts". -- Jmabel | Talk 06:24, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
    • I would like you to propose a better solution for naming of subnational entities. regards Tobias Conradi 06:37, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I have no problem with the current naming of this article. It is not incumbent upon me to come up with something else. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:52, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
        • I only asked for this because you talked about missing consensus. Now I see we have to find it without you. regards Tobias Conradi 07:01, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- Earl Andrew - talk 06:26, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Merging

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whatever happened to this merging? Personally I think it is pointless to have two articles 80% alike and they need to be brought together. Any left over material can stay where it was orginally. Bear in mind that the official name for the province is now "Papua" so all province related material should go there. Nomadtales 01:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

History

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

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

Incoherence

There are currently two passages in the article, that have problems to the point that I can't copy-edit them.

  • "The central province was declared in illegal by Indonesian courts and in contravention to Papua's (originally all of the area) status of "Special Autonomy". I have italicized the problematic phrases. If someone understands, could you please turn them into something that makes sense?
  • "Biak, Byak is the tribe, not Biak." So which is it? If it's "Byak", let's change it. If it's "Biak", let's get rid of the remark.

Jmabel | Talk 03:11, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

===>That may be my fault The gerrymandering to create the central province was declared unconstitutional, and in contravention of the Special Autonomy agreement. The province which included all of the island of Papua that Indonesia administers cannot legally be broken into further administrative districts. Since they were already split into two by the ruling, though, that districting stood. As for Biak, I don't actually know. It's possible that someone (me?) got the island and the tribe confused. If you know better, by all means, edit it. Justin (koavf) 04:28, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

  • Slightly clearer. Already split in two by what ruling (when, by whom)? -- Jmabel | Talk 21:22, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

===>A full explanation The following paragraph comes from page 91 of Dr. Peter King's excellent book on the topic, West Papua Since Suharto: Independence, Autonomy, or Chaos?:

"Instead, the President herself {Megawati Sukarnoputri} had already dropped a bombshell in the Papuan special autonomy saga with her Inpres (Presidential Instruction) No. 1 of January 2003, which appeared to tear up just abou tall understandings, compromises and supposed certainties surrounding special autonomy altogether. Law No. 45 of 1999 was to be resuscitated in full force and Papua promptly divided into three after all, with new provinces to be called West Irian Jaya (capital Manokwari), and Central Irian Jaya (capital Timika) and the rump province containing the existing capital, Jayapura, to be renamed Irian Jaya. For Papuans this not only flew in the face of the original decision to suspend implementation of Law 45 in the face of Papuan protest, but also comprehensively contradicted the October 2001 special autonomy legislation, which had, among other things, seemingly abandoned the reviled name of Irian Jaya forever, and guaranteed consultation on all future constitutional change in Papua with the Papuan legislature, including the Papuans-only but so far non-existant MRP."

Originally, the entirety of the Indonesian-controlled half of the island was the province Papua. It has since been split by the government of Jakarta into Papua (which makes up the eastern- and mid-two-thirds) and West Irian Jaya. The proposed provincial districts of Central Irian Jaya and Irian Jaya were never actually created, and they remain the single province known as Papua. I take it that the matter is more lucid now. Please let me know if I'm still not communicating clearly. Justin (koavf) 00:55, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • OK, I now understand the sequence of events, but not the rationale. If Indonesia is not allowed the Special Autonomy agreement to divide the territory, how come the first division (into two) was legal? (No hidden agenda here, I promise, I'm just trying to understand this well enough to make it clear in the article). -- Jmabel | Talk 01:18, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

===>I'm glad you asked If you are confused, the odds are others are, too. It was not legal for the region to be split into provinces at all. But, by the time the case went to court, West Irian Jaya had already been established. Since it already existed, the court had no authority to dismantle it, merely to rule that Jakarta could not further split Papua into Central Irian Jaya and Irian Jaya. The rationale the whole time was to dilute the political power of Papuans, after the presidency of Abdurrahman Wahid. Justin (koavf) 05:23, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

After some thought and consideration, I created an Indonesia-related topics notice board, along the same lines as other regional notice boards (such as those for Malaysia and Africa). This was established to coordinate efforts to improve Indonesia-related Wikipedia entries. If you've made contributions to Indonesia-related articles in the past, or would like to, please take some time to visit, introduce yourself, and sign the roster. --Daniel June 30, 2005 18:40 (UTC)

Papua as the whole island

I've never heard of the whole island of New Guinea being referred to as 'Papua', neither by people in PNG, nor by people from the western half of the island: nor have I seen it in print. Perhaps people who are quite unfamiliar with the region might use the name 'Papua' for the whole island, but to my understanding that would simply be an error. I know there's been a lot of heated debate about the nomenclature, but if anyone is certain that 'Papua' can correctly refer to the whole island could you please provide some evidence. Dougg 07:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

  • The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]
Papua \Papua\ prop. n.
A Pacific island north of Australia;
governed by Australia and Indonesia.
  • WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]
Papua
n : a Pacific island north of Australia;
the 2nd largest island in the world;
governed by Australia and Indonesia [syn: New Guinea]

--I believe this is the English edition of Wikipedia, so a English dictionary definition of the word 'Papua' seems suitable. 'New Guinea' is the German name for the island and for the territory they claimed. Most Papuans today use the term 'Papua' to refer to the island. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.95.182 (talk • contribs) 19 Sept 2005

Hmmm, the CIDE draws many of its definitions, including for 'papua', from WordNet, and I'm not sure where WordNet got it from as, unfortunately, they don't cite their sources. I've emailed the WordNet people to ask about this but haven't yet received a reply. It also states, incorrectly, that (part of) the island is governed by Australia (I've just been attending the 30th anniversary of independence celebrations at their embassy!).
'New Guinea' is the English name for the island, a name given long before the Germans arrived. The former German colony was properly known (in English) as 'German New Guinea' and in German as 'Kaiser-Wilhelmsland', while the British portion was known as 'British New Guinea', later re-named 'Papua' when it came under Australian control. The western half was known (in English) as 'Netherlands New Guinea'. It is certainly true however that the Portuguese used to call Halmahera 'Papua' and referred to the islands in that area (probably including the western end of New Guinea) collectively as 'Os Papuas'. The island was named 'Nueva Guinea' by the Spaniard Ynigo Ortiz de Retes and the first known map of the island (1600) shows it as 'Nova Guinea'.
As I've said before, I've never heard (or heard of) any PNG person referring to the island as 'Papua', nor have I heard of anyone else doing this, before seeing it written here. But again, if anyone's got evidence that the island is officially named 'Papua' as well as 'New Guinea', I'd be very interested to see it. -Dougg 06:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Dougg, I have never heard of the whole island refered to as Papua and as far as I am concerned this is completely wrong. A few dictionaries may call them this but that doesn't mean that what in reality they are called. I think these dictionaries need to have an update. The whole island should be correctly called New Guinea. Papua can refer to either the old Territory of Papua (the southern half of Papua New Guinea) or the Indonesian province. Nomadtales 01:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I've received feedback from WordNet on this issue. Regards sources for WordNet, they tell me that they originally used (unspecified) machine-readable dictionaries to get WordNet going, and since then they've mainly relied on user feedback. They agreed that papua is not correct as a synonym for 'New Guinea' so they've removed it. This update will be visible when they make their next release. Hopefully this will also filter through to derivative works such as CIDE. Dougg 03:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Indonesian control

Hello, just quickly one question. All other sources mention dec 1 1962 for proclaiming independence not 1961. just some links: [1] [2] - So what is the right date? cheers --195.33.105.17 16:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Languages

Can I suggest an addition (perhaps to the Demographics section) covering the extent of use of various languages? Don't know the topic well myself, so others may be in a better position to do this. My uninformed presumption is that Bahasa is spoken officially and widely in towns; indigenous languages in villages and unofficial situations. Is there a lingua franca apart from Bahasa? Wantok 00:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

unexplained major edits by 130.130.37.6

The user at IP address 130.130.37.6 has just twice made major changes to this article with no explanation or comment. I reverted the first edit, requesting that the changes be discussed on this page first. The user then simply reverted back to the first edit with no explanation.

I will not engage in an edit war over this. User 130.130.37.6, you need to learn the ground rules of Wikipedia. First things first: the three-revert rule. You cannot just engage in repeated reverts. If you continue to do this without explanation, you will not succeed - an admin will block you and/or the page will be semi-protected against anonymous unexplained edits like this.

Step one: Register so you have a username - that way people can communicate with you.

Step two: Understand that you will not get away with major controversial edits without explanation and discussion.

If I see no comment or explanation from you about your edits within the next 24 hours, I will take action.

Wantok 06:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Wantok, i support completely your efforts to enforce wiki ground rules - such major changes are unacceptable without consultation or at least an effort to explain. But we must keep in mind that this is a controversial topic and POV is unavoidable. But it can be handled better in this article. I do agree for example, with some of this phantom editor's removal of overtly POV anti-Indonesian points. HOWEVER, i do not support their replacement with just as overtly POV pro-Indonesian comments. Perhaps what this editor is reacting to is a sense i get in this article that POV is OK as long as it only supports the anti-Indonesian case and that any pro-Indonesian comments/links etc are "propaganda" that have no place here. It works BOTH ways. But once again, his efforts so far to rectify are not appropriate. When i get chance i will carefully try and express both POV "sides" with more balance. --Merbabu 06:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
UPDATE: Oh gawd, i just skimmed through all the previous discussion over 2 years. This one is a thorny article. --Merbabu 08:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, this is highly controversial ground - which is why I wanted discussion or at least explanation. I'm not saying all of the edits made by the user at 130.130.37.6 (i.e. someone at Wollongong University) were entirely unbalanced - some material about the governor and Papuan People's Council could be useful in the article, for instance - but the nature of the edits made, as a whole, smack of censorship and a pro-Indonesian government slant. Most importantly, discussion with the aim of consensus - or at least compromise - is necessary when the subject is such a hot potato. Wantok 08:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your consideration - something that 130.130.37.6 doesn't really show. But i would like to make the point that there seems to be an automatic reflex in this article (and others that he has been editing) that anything that reflects Indonesian Govt opinion has no place in these articles. I whole-heartedly agree that his censorship should not be tolerated, but it works both ways - in some cases the Indonesian viewpoint (correct or otherwise) has been chopped. In these articles where POV cannot be avoided, then both POV must be clearly stated fairly. Really, is a seperatist's viewpoint any less biased than an Indonesian army generals??? We are writing an encyclopedia, neither an Amnesty International web-site or TNI page. ;-) Anyway, something we shoudl think about. By the way, i am not directing this at you solely and personally Wantok (i am sure you are already aware of what i mean) but to readers in general. cheers --Merbabu 09:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just made an edit to the Government section that reinstates (with some minor polishing) a section added by the user at 130.130.37.6 - the paragraph about the governor, the legislature, and the "Papuan People's Council". This seems worthy of the article, and is useful encyclopaedic information. Wantok 09:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems the anon user got blocked but is back as Ntut ("receive" in Javanese oddly enough). Although i sympathise with any frustrations he may have that on wikipedia anti-Indo POV is OK, yet pro-Indo POV is not, i have reverted already some of his work, and left a message on his user page that hopefully appeals to his better nature. [3] --Merbabu 12:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of My Edits to Page

Some of my recent edits...

  • Within each section I have tried to put the undisputed facts at the start, and then moved the more controversial but unavoidable POV statements to the end of each section. This includes the naming discussion in the first paragraph.
  • Removed quote implying strong central Jakarta rule over Papua because although it may not be incorrect, that quote was referring to ALL of Indonesia. The article: [4]. Furthermore, that article is undated but appears to be written in the late-1990s (for example it doesn’t seem to refer to anything past the mid-1990s – but there was a major program of power decentralisation across all of Indonesia, of which Papua was a major beneficiary – although implementation was not always perfect including Papua). I did however rephrase that section to note the strong centralised control.
  • Shifted promise of referendum – not appropriate in summary discussion on etymology.
  • Tightened up etymology paragraph with the intention of providing some chronological order. Also, for consistency, undisputed put facts at the top, POV towards the end of the section (but in its own paragraph).
  • The reference to the MRP talks about an “arbitraging” role. This seems to be a financial term, so I guessed “arbitration” was the intention. Please advice if this is incorrect.
  • Changed poor (and arguably highly POV) interpretation of “ikut” to more accurate “follow/join”. See my comment on the etymology section of the discussion page for full explanation.

Merbabu

Good edits, well done. A pity that Ntut is still just repeating the same set of attempted edits without discussion. What you've done seems a reasonable and balanced approach. Wantok 13:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks - i didn't get to do everything but that is enough for tonight. ha, ha - I don't hold high hopes for re-education of ntut. But i left a message on his talk page. --Merbabu 13:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Religion

The number indicated in the infobox does not tally. It amounts to 104.12%. kawaputratorque 16:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Possibly reflects syncretism? --86.135.120.224 (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

Is there any reason to believe that "Ikut Republik Indonesia, Anti Nederland" is an actual etymology, rather than a "back-formation", a slogan devised to reflect an existing name? [5], refers to "the false assertion that… [Irian] had been an acronym for 'Ikut Republik Indonesia Anti Nederland"; I'm not sure how citable that is, though. [6], also not particularly citable, says "Irian may be an abbreviation for ikut Republik Indonesia Anti Nederland". [7], maybe marginally more citable, says "Irian, a Biak word meaning hot land was co-opted by Indonesian nationalists as an acronym, Ikut Republik Indonesia Anti Nederland"; it doesn't make it clear whether that cooptation led to or followed the adoption of the name. [8], probably the most citable thing I can find online (it's an op-ed piece in Asahi Shimbun says "In annexing West New Guinea, Indonesia avoided the name New Guinea, which the Netherlands used, and called it Irian, which means 'sun' or 'red hot' in the local language. However, the name was also given a political connotation during the operation to recapture West New Guinea during the early 1960s as the acronym for Ikut Republik Indonesia, Anti Nederland (annexation to Indonesia, anti-Netherlands)." This would seem to suggest that the acronym came after the fact. - Jmabel | Talk 22:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

the indonesian word "ikut" has a number of very similar yet depending on the context completely different meanings. The most common meaning is "accompany", "go along" or "follow". As in "ikut" to a birthday party, or "ikut" a car in front, or indeed follow another country over another. Any indonesian can tell you this and these meanings in the context are perfectly innocent. ie, papua follows, goes along with, or joins Indonesia. Yet the translation offered here is "submit". As a very competent Indonesian speaker (albeit non-native) i don't remember coming across this interpretation yet (i could have and just forgot) although i just looked it up in the most reputable of Indonesia-English dictionaries and I did notice "obey" as the LAST meaning after 1/2 page(!!!!) of other more innocent meanings. So it just goes to show how POV an intepretation can be. "join" INdonesian and "submit" to Indonesia are two extremely different interpretations of the phrase "ikut Indonesia". cheers. --Merbabu 08:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the work guys! I always wanted to know the scoop on that one! Dysmorodrepanis 01:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The sense of ikut described above accords with how I've heard it used too. However, the idea looks like a blatant backronym to me, because the normal Indonesian word for the Netherlands, and all things Dutch, is "id:Belanda" not "Nederland". However, it strikes me as a very Indonesian thing to coin a backronym. It is a hallmark of Indonesian usage that acronyms are considered witty, educated, fun, or all of these, in all registers of the language. I'll poke around sometime to see if I can find reliable sources regarding the etymologies here.
Belanda comes from the name "Holland" not Netherlands, so there is scope for a more precise word, however I've not noticed the distinction being apparent in ordinary Indonesian usage, quite the opposite. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'm finding some information now. Here's a little introduction.
The name "Irian" was suggested at the Malino Conference by Frans Kaisiepo, himself a native of the island. It is a Biak language word, attested in the poetic prose of Kumeseri, one of the nl:Manarmakeri stories. Kumeseri (the Morning Star) gives Manarmakeri (an ordinary villager) the gift of bringing peace. He leaves the island of Irian to gather support for his Messianic return. As originally conceived, the name "Irian" was intended to evoke association with a local legend of peace being brought to the island with the aid of friends from across the sea. Rather a nice thought for a local to put forward at a peace conference.
I'll keep working on gathering more sources. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Some sources:

Cheers Alastair Haines (talk) 11:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a claim that the name "Irian" was used for the whole island by the Portuguese governor, Antonio Galvao in 1536; though this was recinded after nine years, in 1545, by a later governor, de Retes, in favour of "Nuvea Guinea". Alastair Haines (talk) 12:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The definitive source on official documents of the time quotes Kaisiepo's reasoning from the transcript: papua means 'slave' in the Tidore language; so the people want the land to be called "New Guinea" and the citizens "Irian".

"De heer Kasiepo zeide, dat ... De band van het landschap Tidore met Nieuw-Guinea dient te worden verbroken. De naam Papoea moet worden afgeschaft, omdat dit woord in het Tidoreesch 'slaaf' beteekent. Het volk wenscht het land 'Nieuw-Guinea' te noemen en het volk 'Irian'."

— "Kort verslag van de vergadering van de Malino-conferentie op 17 Juli 1946", pages 5–15 in S L van der Wal (ed.), Officiële Becheiden betreffende de Nederlands-Indonesische Betrekkingen 1945–1950, vol. 5.
On the other hand, the derivation of Papua is claimed to be from the North Maluku dialect of Malay papuah meaning 'frizzy-haired' as attested in the context of an 18th century letter from the Sultan of Ternate to the Dutch Governor General dated 11 Sept. 1733—"empat orang budak [budak], tiga orang laki-laki seorang perempuan, tiga orang rambutnya betul seorang pepuah".
More detail is available in Waruno Mahdi's letter to the editors of the Jakarta Post 3 January 2000. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Could someone write a history section?

Kind of odd not to have one. Burressd (talk) 11:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Eligibility of South Papua

During the reading of papua province, it came to my realization about a section composed of a "proposed" province of papua, south papua.

It came to me as there were no citation, no references, no connection to any other page or article, and to the extent of failing in mentioning an individual. I'd like to know the eligibility of this section. Or possibly, i might delete it because of currently of baseless claims. And do please if you have any claims, talk. And add to the Wiki. Thanks. -(Mon, jan 11, 2021) Kaliper1 (talk) 03:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Annex*

As far as I'm aware, it's politicisation to refer to the UN-led, ostensibly democratic transfer of power to Indonesia in 69 as "annexation". Recommend changing to something more neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.75.134.159 (talk) 12:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Theres: Incorporation, (noun; The inclusion of something as part of a whole)

Takeover, (noun; An act of assuming control of something, especially to buying out of one company by another)

expropriation, (noun; the action by the state or an authority of taking property from its owner for public use or benefit)

Though technically papua is an annexation. Kaliper1 (talk) 04:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Papua_(province)/Archive_5&oldid=1150756287"