Talk:Papua (province)/Archive 3

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

On an entirely different matter

Unrelated to all this irritating argumentation and reverting, is it correct to say that "the Papuans are Melanesian"? Some of the things I've read suggest that Papuans are a different ethnic group from Melanesians, both of whom live in Melanesia (the Papuans being the group formerly known as "Negritos") john 19:01, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Honest question? Yes, I've seen something about the 'Negritos' theory. You could easily find sites that still sprout it, though hopefully only from people who collect such documents and not from anyone who had read the more recent studies. It includes a 'opinion is fact' item by claiming the Melanesia languages belong to the Malay group, and an assumption that Lapita pottery had to be Polynesian; it comes from the days when Europeans where trying to figure out pre-history by the dubious means of identifying language and culture development paths (one of the many problems with it always was that trade also transfers words from one language to another). These days we tend to use genetics to confirm or disprove such theories as reasonable hypothesis or impossible. It's now accepted that Maori and other Polynesians came into the Pacific 'recently' via Taiwan. The Malay were a separate movement of another Asiatic people.

Before them there had been the ancestors of the Australian 'aborigines', of course when they arrived, New Guinea was part of the Australian mainland. After the waters rose they've been split into two groups. As far as I know it is assumed the Australians came via the Malay (Indonesian) archipelago, much of which was possibly a land bridge at the time. but in any event they certainly were here tens of thousands of years before the Malay people came south.Daeron 16:23, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, I don't know enough about this to do anything but take your word for it. That said, on the larger issue, why don't you outline specific things that you don't like about the article, instead of just reverting, so that we could work towards finding some kind of consensus. john 18:00, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Because I would be delighted if people were willing to do so; my problem has been that some people have been inserting their concepts and refusing to allow others to edit or discuss the subject with those people.

For example I raised the issue two weeks ago that 'Province' as defined in the Wikipedia is not a proper description, that it would be therefore mis-leading to use that translation of the Indonesian name, and that 'province' should not be used as an initial description. I did so days before editing it. Later I also raised the issue that when sovereignty is in dispute, that it should not be mentioned until later in the article where a more neutral statement (if any at all) can be made.

After this, a Mr Kenney said I had been denying that West Papua was part of Indonesia, statements which I took exception to in whichever talk pages the issue was raised. I suspect Mr Kenney may have become emotionaly invested in his edits and had accepted at face value some derogatory comments made by a Mr Wik, and have failed to have checked just what I had actually written.

Are you now saying that you are willing to stop reverting, to discourage Wik from his constant reverting, and to discuss issues before putting them in the same article for the second time?Daeron 11:26, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Name of Article

Propose poll of Wikipedians as to which article name should be used; article had been under the name 'West Papua' from Nov 2001 - Apr 2004; it has since been moved to 'Papua_(Indonesian Province)' .

Papua is the name of the island New Guinea
A West Papuan government in 1961 voted to adopt 'West Papua' as the nations name; however, since the 1962 invasion and UN transfer of the country to Indonesia the region has not used this name inside Indonesia; only Papuans, other Melanesians, and English speaking countries call the region 'West Papua'.
the current Indonesian name is Propinsi Papua, Indonesia
the English common name for the region remains 'West Papua' ; see Google CNN, Google ABC (Aust), or above Discussion or Govt. and NGO Report titles such as listed in External Links of this article.
also some concern has been expressed that to use the english translation of the Indonesian term 'propinsi' as 'Province' might infer an operational regional governmentDaeron 08:57, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Flat-out lies by Daeron as usual. The article was named Irian Jaya from November 2001 to November 2003, when pm67nz renamed it Papua (belatedly recognizing the actual name change of the province that already took place in January 2002). Only in April 2004 did Daeron and Tannin try to move this to West Papua. --Wik 12:13, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

oohhhh, 4months out; geeze that's reason say that non-sense, and your efforts to expunge West Papua from the Wikipedia. Some people write about subjects they know about, but you and John seem to search for articles you can drive the authors away from; that you knew nothing about West Papua didn't matter to your desire to leave your smell in it.Daeron 14:28, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

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

John's Statement

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

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

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

No, there is a Indonesian Propinsi called Papua.Daeron

There ought to be an article on it.

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

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

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

But that is not the official name,

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

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

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

cannot be POV.

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

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

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

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

This is another example of John stating his POV as fact, perhaps he believes it. But a look at the history page of the article disproves his assertion; truth is I talked about stuff on discussion page 14/Apr; I edited article 18/Apr; Wik started reverting on 24/Apr and I quicky decide not to play your games, I did not even edit the article from 24/Apr to 1/May except for one effort to get a message to Wik on 27/Apr. I submit, again you state your POV as if it were fact.Daeron

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

Stans Statement

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hoping we can take up issues one by one

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

Whoever you are, thank you.Daeron

It seems to me that, since this area is generally internationally recognized as part of Indonesia, the least POV title is the one it has: Papua (Indonesian province).
At google, or Wikipedia itself; a person looking for some article upon the country in question, which name are they likely to try? Wikipedia only responds to percise word matching doesn't it? Is it reasonable to assume people to guess the multi-part 'Papua (Indonesian province)'? I think it more reasonable that people would quickly try 'West Papua'Daeron
"West Papua" should be a redirect to this page
At the same time, a quick web search indicates literally thousands of web sites referring to this area, in the present tense, as West Papua. This strongly suggests that the article should feature prominently the contention over the name and the politics behind that contention. I would expect the name "West Papua" to appear within the first two paragraphs. I would expect a far larger section dealing with what is barely touched upon in the section "Papuan government in exile."
? Did you have a chance to see the version which they keep reverting over?Daeron 09:09, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

The Name issue for the third time on this page

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

But, that isn't the reason.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"FACTBOX: West Papua (Irian Jaya) Wednesday, February 5, 2003 Posted: 12:17 AM EST (0517 GMT) Separatist leader Theys Eluay was found dead after apparently being kidnapped in November 2001. Story Tools. (CNN) -- The western half of the island of New Guinea -- the world's largest tropical island -- constitutes the Indonesian province of West Papua, formerly known as Irian Jaya."
"June 16, 2000 VOL. 29 NO. 23 | SEARCH ASIAWEEK
Militias Stalk West Papua

The province could be the next East Timor By ALASTAIR MCLEOD Jayapura

Andy Burdam was just sitting down to an evening meal with his family when the police and militiamen arrived. They punched the 45-year-old Papuan elementary school teacher and dragged him away to the local police cells. From outside the station in West Papua's far-western coastal town of Fak Fak, militiamen threatened the independence supporter and threw large stones at him while the Indonesian police watched. "They did nothing to stop them," Burdam says."
"Ninety-nine arrested as West Papua mob kills two police
December 8, 2000 - Web posted at: 6:10 AM HKT (2210 GMT)

JAKARTA, Indonesia (AP) -- A separatist mob attacked a police station in troubled West Papua province and killed two officers with machetes, axes and arrows, police said Thursday. A gang of indigenous Papuans killed the two and wounded four other officers near a university campus on the outskirts of the provincial capital of Jayapura, said Major Zulkifli, who like many Indonesians uses only one name.".
US Department of State (http://www.state.gov)
excerpt of "Background Note: Indonesia"

A subsequent UN General Assembly resolution confirmed the transfer of sovereignty to Indonesia. Opposition to Indonesian administration of Irian Jaya, also known as Papua or West Papua, gave rise to small-scale guerrilla activity in the years following Jakarta's assumption of control.

Note from Daeron, I suspect what they mean by 'small-scale' is that the people taking on the military were armed with a handfull of WW-II vintage rifles and traditional spears and bows; not much of resistance to a handful of people with automatic weapons, never mind any helicopter gunships.:).Daeron

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response to request for peer review

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

In brief, and at the risk of bluntness:

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

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

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

In more detail:

Uses of peer review

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

Preferred version

As the above links may not reflect the contents at the time of this review, and to save others searching the history, my comments here refer instead to Daeron's last edit and the version he was reverting. These appear to be similar to the current versions at the time of writing (note writing, this may even have been saved significantly later so the edit time is no quarantee).

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

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

Article name

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

Recommendation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A recent anonymous edit...=

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

meaning of Irian ==

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

Yes

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

Well, this doesn't actually seem to be the case. See [1] and [2]. While this seems to be a well known myth, it would appear not to be true. And it doesn't even make any sense. We should mention the supposed acronym, but the idea that this is the actual origin of the name Irian should be avoided. john k 22:49, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Also see [3]. The acronym story seems pretty determinedly false. john k 22:53, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

Undoing POV Revert

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

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

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