Talk:Papua conflict/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Papua conflict. 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. |
| Archive 1 |
Timeline
Either the ,,On" should be removed, or the colons replaced with commas. Sarcelles (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- Why? which variant do you suggest?.Sentinel R (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Template and external links.
I added the template to link an historical event to other articles on indigenous rights issues. That is what templates do. About the POV on the external links sections, please feel free to provide government views, or any others, on the subject. The link to the organization is the kind of source that is relevant to encyclopedias and news articles. It's perfectly in standard with what is used on these issues. Maziotis (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Political Advertising
This article is blatant political propaganda, political advertising and wholly original research. All cited resources are not peer-reviewed, nor do they amount to a fair and balanced article in line with NPOV. It is also factually inaccurate. Melanesians who hold Indonesian citizenship have been able to access any and all public office since 1945- whereas the Dutch imposed strict racial apartheid, which has been well documented elsewhere. I argue it should be deleted immediately.Starstylers (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC).
- You can't fight POV with POV. There were some facts about the situation of the native people in Papua that were out of context and were already deleted by another user. Other than that, the article itself is not a case for propaganda. Do you contest that there is no conflict in papua? How do you justify describing this conflict as "inter-tribal", namely from the point of view of someone who believes there is no conflict at all? Maziotis (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Nobody can deny there is a conflict, even without taking sides whether the Papuans have the right to protest against the inclusion of their land in the Republic of Indonesia or not. There is a long range of reports by Elsham, the Jayapura based human rights organisation, Justice and Peace, the human rights organisation based at the Catholic Diocese of Jayapura, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the International Crisis Group. Several organizations have spoken with regard to the situation in West Papua about genocide, or in any case about serious and systematic human rights violations against the indigenous inhabitants of West Papua.
There, definitely, should come in wikipedia a balanced article about the conflict, since October 1962, mentioning the main players, like the OPM (The Papuan Freedom Organisation), the TNI (formerly ABRI), i.e. the Indonesian Army and Police, the Kopassus (Special Troops), the BIN (the internal security organization) and their leaders. Many of these organisations have been accused of serious human rights violations elsewehere in Indonesia, like in Aceh or East Timor. The BIN has been linked with the murder of the human rights activist Munir in 2004.
A fairly complete and objective story of the Papuan conflict is given by the Dutch journalist Dirk Vlasblom in his book Papoea. Een geschiedenis (Papua. A History), Amsterdam, 2004.
This article does seem poor and clearly biased in parts. It reproduces unreferenced assertions from the Celerier article about "official figures" of Papuans who have been killed in the conflict. If we read the article that is footnoted you see that no reference is given, so we don't know whose official figures we're talking about. It seems improbable that it would be those of the Indonesian government. Then who? The UN? Celerier also makes the claim that 52% of the population of West Papua is "Javanese", and an editor of this article uses this to support the assertion that more than half the population of Papua was born in Java. But again Celerier's article provides no source. Where could these figures have possibly come from? I think both these assertions should be removed or be provided with a proper referencing. Celerier's article, which is poorly referenced and largely seems to consist of partisan assertion, should be removed as a reference. Surely there are better sources available? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slmiller6 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC) (theoikos (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC))
Support from Libya under Gaddafi to Free Papua Movement
Colonel Gaddafi supported the Free Papua Movement.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Libyan+terrorism:+the+case+against+Gaddafi.-a014151801
the time, the Libyan government was reportedly providing military or other support to the East Timor Liberation Movement, the Kanak Socialist National Liberation Front (New Caledonia), and the Free Papua Movement (Irian Jaya) as well as to Muslim guerrillas in the Philippines.
Page 18
COLONEL GADDAFI'S shadowy international revolutionary organisation Mathaba, established in the Libyan capital of ...Hassan di Tiro himself makes the crucial decisions, and runs a personal network of contacts with the liberation movement leaders Libya supports, among them Jacob Prai of the OPM (Free Papua Movement) of West Papua and Yann Ce- tene Uregei of New Caledonia's Kanak radical faction,
Page 120
In the past year Gaddafi's agents have offered arms and cash to rebels in Papua New Guinea, encouraged an aboriginal separatist movement in Australia, shipped weapons to dissidents in New Caledonia and tried to open an office in the
more sources
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Libyan+terrorism:+the+case+against+Gaddafi.-a014151801
the time, the Libyan government was reportedly providing military or other support to the East Timor Liberation Movement, the Kanak Socialist National Liberation Front (New Caledonia), and the Free Papua Movement (Irian Jaya) as well as to Muslim guerrillas in the Philippines.
Title Pacific Islands Monthly, Volume 59 Publisher Pacific Publications., 1988 Original from the University of Michigan Digitized Sep 15, 2008
Page 18
COLONEL GADDAFI'S shadowy international revolutionary organisation Mathaba, established in the Libyan capital of Tripoli and dispensing funds to liberation movements around the world, is run by a most unlikely radical. Tunku Mohammed Hassan di Tiro, a Sumatran prince, fervent Muslim and bitter opponent of Indonesia, is the chairman of Mathaba's political committee.... Hassan di Tiro himself makes the crucial decisions, and runs a personal network of contacts with the liberation movement leaders Libya supports, among them Jacob Prai of the OPM (Free Papua Movement) of West Papua and Yann Ce- tene Uregei of New Caledonia's Kanak radical faction,
In an exclusive interview with Pacific Islands Monthly, at his headquarters in Tripoli, he outlined Mathaba's organisation and aims for the Asia Pacific region. The Mathaba Against Imperialism, Racism, Zionism and Fascism, to give the front its
the various independence movements active across the Indonesian Archipelago, including his own Aceh Sumatra Liberation Front. "We are making advances against Indonesia, both on the ground and diplomatically, with Fretilin (East Timor Liberation Front), the OPM, the Republic of the South Moluccas; we are all one.
Title Pacific Islands Monthly: PIM., Volume 59, Issues 1-10 Publisher Pacific Publications, 1988 Original from the University of Virginia Digitized Apr 8, 2009
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,964515,00.html
Page 120
In the past year Gaddafi's agents have offered arms and cash to rebels in Papua New Guinea, encouraged an aboriginal separatist movement in Australia, shipped weapons to dissidents in New Caledonia and tried to open an office in the
Rajmaan (talk) 20:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Genocide
The article states: "Official estimates are that up to 450,000 Indigenous Papuans have been killed in the conflict. (Such numbers amount to Genocide under UN Constitution)."
This is incorrect on several counts. Firstly, there is no numerical requirement for genocide, rather genocide is based on intention, and in the case of the International Criminal Court, a pattern of similar attacks. Secondly, there is no such document as the "UN Constitution". I assume they are referring here to either the 1948 Genocide Convention or the UN Charter, neither of which mentions any numerical requirement for genocide. There is also an article missing between "under" and "UN Constitution."
I do not necessarily oppose arguing that the crimes in West Papua amount to genocide but the statement that I am highlighting is misleading and factually incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.245.251 (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I think the article needs a scholarly citation source for the casualties figure, rather than the currently cited figure. Gfcan777 — Preceding undated comment added 17:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
United States as Belligerent
Under the list of combatant it lists the United States under the Indonesian side. However, there is only one other reference to the United States in the article, and the US has not provided ground troops or air strikes in support of Indonesia. Thus, it seems like it would be a mistake to have that listing although I am not knowledgable enough about the conflict to say for sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.254.40 (talk) 06:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Papua conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120322204845/http://journal.alternatives.ca/eng/our-organisation/our-publications/analysis-and-articles/article/natural-resources-and-conflict-in to http://journal.alternatives.ca/eng/our-organisation/our-publications/analysis-and-articles/article/natural-resources-and-conflict-in
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130227004600/http://www.freewestpapua.com.au/message_from_melrose.php to http://www.freewestpapua.com.au/message_from_melrose.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Vanuatu connection?
Vanuatu is listed as supporting the rebels, but no source is given and it's not mentioned in the rest of the article at all. Is this military, humanitarian, diplomatic, or political aid?
Suomi13 (talk) 01:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Papua conflict -> Insurgency in Papua
Hey 43.249.140.89, could you try to gain consensus here before making major changes like [1] to an article? Thanks. Dat GuyTalkContribs 10:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Australia
Australia has been supporting the Indonesian government in this conflict for decades with arms and training. Could someone please add them to Indonesia's "supported by" in the infobox? I'm not exactly technologically gifted and only know how to edit body text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.20.160.37 (talk) 09:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- Done. Meticulo (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Noam Chomsky
The article linked only refers to Desmond Tutu (I'm not sure that an UNPO press release is the best source, but his views on the subject are fairly common knowledge), however I don't see anything to indicate the assertion that Noam Chomsky supports holding a referendum the way he did in East Timor. In the Nineties when he was an advocate for a referendum in East Timor, he explicitly denied that it could be a precedent for West Papua, on the grounds that West Papua had been an integral part of the Dutch East Indies. Though I always thought that this was an odd position for him to take, he doesn't seem the the sort of man who changes his mind easily. Googling for "Noam Chomsky West Papua" the closest I can find is in an appeal for donations on a report on the ETAN website, and even that quote only indicates that he opposes the systematic human rights abuses for West Papua, not that he supports a referendum.
I'm going to remove the reference to Chomsky. If someone can provide a source that he supports a referendum you can feel to reinstate it. You can also add a sentence including him among the critics of the Indonesian government's behavior. (I don't think that's nearly as notable, since everybody who knows about the conflict seems to condemn it, though far fewer seem inclined to support a vote of self-determination.) In the mean time shouldn't be putting words into his mouth. —Quintucket (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't know why Noam's opinion is pivotal but his name is at top of a open letter by academics. Daeron (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
"Papua conflict" or "West Papua conflict"
In 2002 Indonesia divided the western half of New Guinea into two provinces - Papua and West Papua. The entire western half of the island was previously known as West Papua, and this name continues to be used by West Papuans and by West Papua solidarity networks.
I notice that this article started out as "West Papua conflict" and the name was recently changed to "Papua conflict". I think it is worth considering the appropriateness of the current name. Strictly speaking, the current name refers to one of the two Indonesian provinces only, excluding the Indonesian province of West Papua. More importantly, the Indonesian nomenclature (Papua) implies support for Indonesia's position that West Papua is a legitimate part of the nation, and denies West Papuans' aspirations for independence.
By making it clear that the name "West Papua" is used in it's pre-2002 context, it will be clear that the article refers to the entire western half of New Guinea, encompassing the two provinces declared by Indonesia ("Papua" and "West Papua"). The name "West Papua" dates back to 1961, so there is a continuity that the more recent Indonesian designation lacks.
I propose that "West Papua" is a better choice as it reflects the common naming used by many West Papuans, academics and activists. I feel more comfortable using the designation used by the traditional inhabitants rather that the designation of the coloniser. I would be very interested to hear whether West Papuan contributors support a proposal to revert the article to "West Papua conflict."
“Western New Guinea is generally referred to as 'West Papua' internationally – especially among networks of international solidarity with the West Papuan independence.” Papua (province) --RussHawk (talk) 10:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- I feel more comfortable using the designation used by the traditional inhabitants rather that the designation of the coloniser. Hmmmm, shouldn't we try and be a little more npov? --Merbabu (talk) 10:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
"I feel more comfortable using the designation used by the traditional inhabitants rather that the designation of the coloniser". I agree with Merbabu that this idea is problematic from a NPOV perspective, but it is also an assertion that is very difficult to verify. As far as I know, Papua/West Papua is ethnically and culturally extremely diverse, with a complex history, including the history of its relationship to the regions to its west. It seems pretty likely that there are a variety of attitudes to the terms. It's also worth noting that the key separatist organisation has been the OPM (Free Papua Organisation), not the OPBM (Free West Papua Organisation). That in itself suggests that there are people on both basic sides of the conflict who use the term. This controversy looks like something that has grown out of the concerns of solidarity activists outside P/WP, rather than with people on the ground. But regardless, a claim like this should be backed up with evidence if there is any chance that it is debatable, which it clearly is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slmiller6 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
"Western New Guinea" is an invention by Wikipedia editors, the territory has never been known by such a name. However in 1962 the | United Nations used the title "West New Guinea (West Irian)"; western nations also mostly used 'West New Guinea' until the Dutch under geo-political pressure signed the 1962 UN trusteeship agreement that asks the United Nations to occupy and administrate the territory.Daeron (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Lead death toll
The lead section mentions a death toll of "over 500,000" - despite the infobox citations giving a range of 150,000-400,000. Nowhere in the source in the lead nor the article has a mention of that number or higher, so I've removed it. Juxlos (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Combatants infobox and sources
Hello @SpinnerLaserz:, your edits seems similar to editor RainbowSilver2ndBackup, are you the same editor?
1. Infobox - the article uses Template:Infobox military conflict with a combatant parameter (appears as Belligerents). This parameter is for "the parties participating in the conflict. This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict;". You have added Ukraine, Poland and Libya. There is no citation that Ukraine took part in the conflict or Poland. There is no reliable source that Libya took part in the conflict with the source stating "was reportedly providing military or other support". In units, you have added "Ukrainian mercenaries" and "Polish volunteers", I discuss this below.
2. States that support self-determination section - your edit "Ukraine allegedly has foreign mercenaries trained by the Armed Forces of Ukraine that fought for the Papuan rebels." The sources stated 1 Australian traveled to Ukraine to receive training from a private security company. This person was prevented from travelling to Papua. You have added "Ukraine" inferring the state facilitated, "mercenaries" plural, "Armed Forces of Ukraine" and "fought for" which none of the sources state. Timeline 2010–present - your edit "One of the mercenaries who is Australian and trained by the Ukrainian ZSU was arrested in Australia after planning to aid and train the OPM". You have added "mercenaries" plural and "Ukrainian ZSU" for the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
3. States that support self-determination section - your edit "Poland allegedly sent Polish Armed Forces volunteers to train the Papuan rebels in firearms training". The sources state 1 Pole. You have added "Poland" inferring the state facilitated, "volunteers", and "Polish Armed Forces" which none of the sources state. Timeline 2010–present - my recent edit you added "planning to buy weapons from (possibly) the SZ RP" (the SZ RP is the Polish Armed Forces). The Indonesian police, who have a history of human rights abuses, initially made many allegations either firearms training, purchasing firearms or ammunition. The Reuters article I cited states that the "Police had earlier accused Skrzypski of discussing an arms deal in a meeting with a separatist leader, though the court found insufficient evidence to pursue that" and the BBC article "Police initially accused Skrzypski of trying to set up an arms deal, but this was not raised at trial." Regards, --Melbguy05 (talk) 09:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
RESPONSE: I am not the same as this editor nor other editors but I do believe that these nations including Libya and the MSG (Melanesian Spearhead Group). Heres why it is here:
1. One of the foreign rebels was trained by a private security company which could be funded by the Ukrainain government.
2. A Pole stated that he wanted to buy weapons from Poland. This is an indication that these weapons were from the military because usually weapon manufacturers made these weapons for military and law enforcement.
3. There could be more mercenaires. When 1 foreign person was captured due to him supporting the rebels, he could either be part of a mercenary group or possibly a foreign fighter. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- @SpinnerLaserz:, when editing you need to have a neutral point of view Wikipedia policy WP:NPOV and cannot include your opinion which is considered "original research" WP:OR and all material has to be verifiable WP:VERIFY. 1. No source reported that the private company was funded by the Ukrainain government nor provided training to the person for the purpose of assisting Papuan independence fighters. It was reported that the trainer was told by the Australian that "he was planning to offer training to military and law enforcement agencies in Vanuatu and Papua New Guinea". 2. It is difficult to understand the charges and the trial of the Pole given the lack of media freedom for foreign journalists in Papua. BenarNews reported that the Pole responded to a mobile phone text from a member of the West Papua National Committee (KNPB) asking about obtaining weapons from Poland with “I’ll see what I can find,” was the basis for the treason charge, and he was also accused of meeting with a member of the West Papuan National Liberation Army.[1] His lawyer said there was no evidence he planned to bring weapons, or had taken it seriously.[2] Reuters reported that the basis of the treason charge was for communicating with the KNPB member on social media about spreading propaganda on independence to Europe and that the court had found insufficient evidence to pursue the supply of weapons.[3] The Indonesian Police originally told the media that they seized ammunition from him which was not mentioned during the trial.[4] No source has reported the Pole stated that he wanted to buy weapons from Poland. He denies any intent to supply weapons. No source states he was intending to buy weapons from the Polish military or illegal arms traffickers or anywhere else. 3. I don't understand your response "he could either be part of a mercenary group or possibly a foreign fighter" to whom you are referring to. I also don't understand your introduction "I do believe that these nations including Libya and the MSG (Melanesian Spearhead Group)".--Melbguy05 (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- The Australian isn't worthy of inclusion as a major event in the timeline of the article. He was a mentally ill person who was intent to go to Papua to fight but was stopped by Australian police at the airport. He had no military background or combat experience hardly a mercenary. His own defence lawyer ridiculed the 5 day law enforcement course he attended in Ukraine and the Judge called him delusional. The only value of inclusion is that he had email contact with the OPM.[5] --Melbguy05 (talk) 12:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ Mambor, Victor (2 May 2019). "Indonesia: Papua Court Convicts, Sentences Polish Man on Treason Charge". BenarNews. Retrieved 22 July 2019.
- ^ GÓRZYŃSKI, OSKAR (16 January 2019). "Kuriozalny proces w Indonezji. Polakowi grozi 20 lat więzienia". WP Wiadomości (in Polish). Retrieved 22 July 2019.
- ^ "Indonesia jails Pole for treason in Papua after meeting activists". Reuters. 2 May 2019. Retrieved 22 July 2019.
- ^ Firdaus, Febriana (15 January 2019). "Indonesia charges Polish man with plotting Papua coup". South China Morning Post. Retrieved 22 July 2019.
- ^ Elks, Sarah (27 September 2013). "Broken-down Walter Mitty mercenary sentenced to time already served". The Australian. Retrieved 24 July 2019.
The death toll
I have removed the 500,000 death toll, due to it being lack in information, and prevent edit war. Both cites only came from News articles.
Paris Globalist said "500,000 West Papuans have been killed" But the link provides no names, sources, cites, links, nothing. So its not a reliable source.
Indenpendent said "They estimate that in the last 50 years, more than 500,000 people have been killed" They referred to Griffith University. Who used the data from Al-Jazeera from 2012. But they provide no names, sources, cites, links, nothing again. The Al-Jazeera site only said this "Around 500,000 West Papuans have been killed" So again, not a reliable source.
500,000 deaths is also an absurd number because according to NGO BPS the Province of West Papua alone only have 192,146 population. Which means there are more deaths than there are population in the Province of West Papua. When the handover happened, it is estimated the total population is 500,000 - 700,000 which makes the 500,000 deaths more Absurd. I keep the 100,000 deaths estimate by Ron Crocombe. But the 500,000 have been removed. Some research has been done like from Yale. But they don't have the numbers either. EvoSwatch (talk) 06:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- I don't support the 500,000 figure due to complete lack of reliable sources but just a couple things: BPS is the government statistical agency and the population of Jayapura alone is well in excess of 200,000 - there are roughly 3 million "native" Papuans in the region and a similarish smaller "non-native". Juxlos (talk) 07:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hello Juxlos, yeah that is my bad, BPS is non-department not non-government. But still if the BPS data is considered inaccurate, according to Osborne, Indonesia's Secret War the population in West Papua is 500,000 to 700,000 during the handover. BPS data during the 1970s on Papua is about 900,000 so somewhat the same with Osborne's data. Which means the population increases, if 500,000 died the population would have dropped significantly. EvoSwatch (talk) 11:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
The figure for 500,000 is contemporary estimate and a mainstream estimate. Yet for some reason this article doesn't allow it ?
According to Wikipedia rules there must not Academic Bias, Nationalist editing and articles must have mainstream sources Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_a_mainstream_encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Nationalist_editing
EvoSwatch keep removing mainstream/contemporary and the put lowest figure of 921 which had 0% credibility and 0% of being accepted, which is exactly perharps what the Indonesian government wants. And every article he edited relates everything related with Indonesian military/politics. The ELSHAM source EvoWatch included is outdated and included only his own indidivually documented deaths from military figures. It doesn't include deaths from famine, diseases, starvation and others as a result of Indonesian invasion. His own article even says many Papuans believe the estimates are far more higher.
And ELSHAM Papua now changed the figure to 500,000 deaht tole https://www.facebook.com/elshampapua/photos/so-let-me-share-the-results-of-that-little-search-beginning-with-a-scene-setter-/1959171490826581/
https://eprint.ncl.ac.uk/file_store/production/245413/63949277-DC6A-483B-B08A-542B95481496.pdf
" Though estimates of casualties since Indonesia assumed control of the province in 1963 vary wildly, figures of between 150,000 and 500,000 West Papuan dead are often circulated in mainstream and social media.5 "
"It is noteworthy that the International Parliamentarians for West Papua cites the figure of 500,000 killed since Indonesia assumed sovereignty.7 "
Source: Researchgate is a extremely credible source https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335036052_9_Forgotten_Genocide_in_Indonesia_Mass_Violence_Resource_Exploitation_and_Struggle_for_Independence_in_West_Papua
Over 500,000 Papuanshave been killed, and thousands more have been raped, tortured and imprisoned by the Indonesian military since 1969.
https://www.pngattitude.com/2019/01/west-papua-when-is-a-close-observer-too-close-for-comfort.html
Let me continue with just 16 references I have found, and there are very many more available, to that widely-quoted 500,000 figure.
- “Since 1963, an estimated 500,000 West Papuans have died at the hands of the brutal Indonesian occupying forces, accounting for more than 25% of the population. These numbers have been ratified by several studies and human rights groups (including The International Association of Genocide Scholars and Yale Law School)” – ‘West Papua: The Forgotten People’ by Adam Perry, The Jerusalem Post (Israel)
- “The people of West Papua have been calling for self-determination for half a century – a struggle for liberation from an Indonesian military occupation that has seen as many as 500,000 Papuans killed” - ‘The Human Tragedy of West Papua’ by Gemima Harvey, The Diplomat, international current-affairs magazine (USA)
- “Since Indonesia began its occupation of West Papua an estimated 500,000 locals have lost their lives under harsh military and police repression” - Sydney Criminal Lawyers, ‘Time to Support West Papua’ by Paul Gregoire (Australia)
- “According to rights activists, more than 500,000 Papuans have been killed, and thousands more have been raped, tortured and imprisoned by the Indonesian military since 1969. Mass killings in Papua’s tribal highlands during the 1970s amounted to genocide, according to the Asia Human Rights Commission” - ‘A Tragic, Forgotten Place.' Poverty and Death in Indonesia's Land of Gold’ by Febriana Firdaus, Time magazine (USA)
- “The Indonesian military occupation has led to the well-documented violent deaths of over 500,000 West Papuan people and their dislocation from ancestral lands” - ‘Affirmation of West Papua’, Baptist Churches of Aotearoa (New Zealand)
- “The Free West Papua Campaign also claims that the government is engaging in genocide against the Papuan population, alleging that 500,000 civilians have been killed since Indonesia occupied the region. While these numbers are difficult to verify, a study by the University of Sydney has revealed that the continuation of current practices in West Papua ‘may pose serious threats to the survival of the indigenous people of the Indonesian province of Papua’” - ‘Situation in West Papua getting worse’, The Asean Post (Malaysia)
- “Up to 500,000 West Papuans have died as a result of Indonesia’s occupation of the territory since 1962” - Dr Camellia Webb-Gannon, Coordinator, West Papua Project, Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Sydney (Australia)
- “Around 500,000 West Papuans are believed to have died in what many commentators have described as a slow genocide” - Peter Tatchell Foundation, independent and non-party political human rights organisation (UK)
- “Peter Arndt, executive officer of the Catholic Justice and Peace Commission of Brisbane, told about 50 local supporters who attended the forum in the Cathedral Hall that more than 500,000 West Papuans have been “slaughtered” by security forces since West Papua was annexed and put under Indonesian control in the 1960s”- ‘West Papua at ‘tipping point’ by Lindy McNamara, The Southern Cross - official news site of the Catholic Archdiocese of Adelaide (Australia)
- “…. three decades of experience in West Papua that is a testament to the resilience and patience of the people in the face of ‘slow genocide’ with an estimated 500,000 Papuans dying over the past half century” - Asia Pacific Report, Pacific Media Centre, Auckland University of Technology (New Zealand)
- “Since the Suharto dictatorship annexed the region in a 1969 UN referendum largely seen as a fixed land grab, an estimated 500,000 West Papuans have been killed in their fight for self-rule” - ‘The $100bn gold mine and the West Papuans who say they are counting the cost’ by Susan Schulman, The Guardian (UK)
- “Some estimates say that as many as 500,000 Papuans have been killed since Indonesia took control in 1969” - GlobalSecurity.org, source of background information on defence, intelligence etc (USA)
- “….in the face of human rights abuses, a lack of media access, and a genocide that some observers estimate has killed as many as 500,000, Papuans have continued to advocate for the right to self-determination” - ‘1.8 million Papuans sign referendum petition’ by Dr Keith Hyams, University of Warwick (UK)
- “[We refuse] to turn a blind eye to the deaths of 500,000 West Papuans over the course of the last fifty years” - Rex Horoi, Solomon Islands special envoy on West Papua to the UN General Assembly (Solomon Islands)
- “The provinces of Papua and West Papua have been plagued by intimidation and violence, with over 500,000 Papuans killed since the 1960s. It is also Indonesia’s poorest province, with 28 percent of its people living below the poverty line” – ‘Indonesian Public and Human Rights Groups Decry West Papuan Arrests’ by Stanley Widianto, Voice of America (US)
How ridiculous it would be. To not allow a contemporary and mainstream figure which is internationally acknowledged yet allow a 921 figure which is basically non existence in the academic circle.Shadohaw (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- I didn't expect the little Ad Hominem over there in Wikipedia of all places but ah well... Let's start from the top.
- the ELSHAM one is basically the same as this Webpage which is also the same as this this Webpage so i don't know why you put three (3) same sources but not just that. "Let me continue with just 16 references I have found, and there are very many more available, to that widely-quoted 500,000 figure." is also on the same three (3) sources. Difference being the ELSHAM one is filled with quotes and the extra link of where its originated so it looks like a repost not an actual report by them.
- Now, the Newcastle one "150,000 and 500,000 West Papuan dead are often circulated in mainstream and social media" its clear they themselves have no research on the death tolls, so why even put them there. They also mentioned IPWP who they cite this: "Over 500,000 civilians have been killed in a genocide against the indigenous population" as sources, but if you actually look to the cite they don't provide any evidence, links, names, proofs, anything to back it up. Its literally just that. Not credible. Also its from IPWP obviously they are biased.
- Now calling Researchgate "is a extremely credible source" would be (citation needed)
Researchgate they use the source from a book called 'Political Terrorism: A New Guide to Actors, Authors, Concepts, Data Bases, Theories, and Literature' unfortunately i don't have this book, but according to Researchgate the source is on page 576, and on Google Books based on what i see and read page 576 talks about the 1965 Coup attempt and 500,000 AI estimates of 500,000 killed in the 1966 PKI Killings. So based in my view, wrong again.
- Now let's start with the "16 references I have found"
First with Jerusalem Post they mentioned no sources again, no links, whatsoever other than to Freewestpapua website which is obviously going to be biased. They also mentioned Yale Law School but provide no links. But Yale Law School sources that i found like 'Lowenstein Clinic Releases Report on Human Rights in West Papua' and the related documents 'Indonesian Human Rights Abuses in West Papua: Application of the Law of Genocide to the History of Indonesian Control' which again provides no estimated death tolls let alone 500,000 estimates. Also sidenote, the article on Jerusalem Post is the 'opinion' tab.
- Now the Diplomat a website that also used Blogspots as citation, they used the 500,000 numbers from Al-Jazeera which i already explained before doesn't provide anything. They mentioned Yale again but as i said before, Yale doesn't use the 500,000 estimates. It also doesn't help that Al-Jazeera put "Source: Al-Jazeera" on their page, making it even less credible.
- Now Sydney Criminal Lawyers cite The Guardian now the Guardian got the number from Benny Wenda, who is a person in exile for almost two decades now. Which is as credible as an Iraqi officials in exile that 'leaked' intelligence to the US about WMDs. Also in a surprise plot twist... Benny Wenda provided no sources to The Guardian.
Next, by TIME and they said this: "According to rights activists, more than 500,000 Papuans have been killed" while also providing no links whatsoever.
- Next New Internationalist said "between 100,000 and 500,000 Papuans have lost their lives in the conflict" With again subverted the expectations, no evidence, cites, links, nothing.
Now Baptist Churches of Aotearoa (New Zealand) used the TIME's Febriana Firdaus which i already said "providing no links whatsoever." Now TheASEANPost again this becoming repetitive, provided nothing other than according to 'The Free West Papua Campaign' The TPNB also said the people that they killed were Soldiers but turns out later on its discovered they are civilian workers, so not a credible source.
- I can't find much on the Dr. Camellia Webb-Gannon no links provided, and no specific title were mentioned (afaik) but those that i found are from Griffith which i already explained before. Same thing could be said about Lindy McNamara, The Southern Cross. Asia Pacific Report, Pacific Media Centre. GlobalSecurity.org. Stanley Widianto, Voice of America (US).
Susan Schulman, The Guardian (UK) uses the same cite from the previous The Guardian article (interview with Benny Wenda)
- by Dr Keith Hyams, University of Warwick (UK) provided no sources as well. Just another article yet again.
- Rex Horoi didn't provide any evidence to back his claim.
At this point its clear, all of it are anything but credible. Its just the same sentences repeated in different websites. It all ended up the same, no links, no evidence, no proofs, no research, nothing. Those that have links ended up to another websites that have the same fate, no links, no evidence, no proofs, no research. If we are going to use every estimates on the internet because it 'exist' then the estimates for the PKI Mass killings in the 1960s would go as high as 20 Million. But of course we don't use that because the mostly accepted figure both domestic, and internationally is 500,000 to 1,000,000 for the PKI deaths. Amnesty International according to UNPO and ABC use the 100,000 estimates. Humans Right Watch doesn't have estimates (afaik) but they reported the ELSHAM reports as well. Again 500,000 is too absurd of a number without proper research, the population during handover is about 700,000. If 500,000 died the population would have decreased significantly to the point of near extinction. But if you look at the statistics you could easily see btw, the populations on both provinces increases significantly. For Papua the population has more than tripled than it was 50 years ago. Meanwhile in West Papua the population has increased by about 5 times than it was 50 years ago. If 500,000 died then this population increase wouldn't have been possible. EvoSwatch (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hi. You seem to have a slight misunderstanding about reliable sources. Ignoring or dismissing sources that don't agree with your (unreferenced) calculations is not helpful. Please read WP:VERIFY. Also please remember that Indonesian-administered West Papua is different from the province of West Papua. Regards Davidelit (Talk) 06:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Funny how he just comes and say no source, no evidence, no link but than he manipulated the source he gave for the 921 figure by deliberately not including the other parts.
This is what the source says from your own link https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/papua0207webwcover.pdf
- "As documented by Human Rights Watch and others, government counterinsurgency operations during the period targeted not only armed groups but also civilian opposition groups, all with almost complete impunity. As a result, the independence movement was driven underground, local groups reported a stream of atrocities, and fear was pervasive. As elsewhere in Indonesia, civilians suffered disproportionately during army operations.17 The number of civilian casualties is not known; no comprehensive independent investigation has ever been attempted. In late 1999, the director of ELSHAM told a newspaper he had documentation of 921 deaths resulting from military operations conducted in various parts of Irian Jaya between 1965 and 1999.
- " Many Papuans believe the actual number is at least several times that figure. Counterinsurgency efforts and associated fear are also believed to have repeatedly led thousands of people to flee their villages and, given the harsh conditions prevailing in much of Papua, have reportedly led to several episodes in which large numbers of people died from disease, malnutrition, or starvation. "
Your source comes from the director of ELSHAM that told a newspaper. It also doesn't include large number of people died from disease, malnutrition, or starvation. On the other hand the 500,000 figure comes from dozens of reputable organizations aswell as many publications and researched in very credible journal studies
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14672715.2018.1445537?scroll=top&needAccess=true&journalCode=rcra20 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335036052_9_Forgotten_Genocide_in_Indonesia_Mass_Violence_Resource_Exploitation_and_Struggle_for_Independence_in_
Shadohaw (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- 500,000 (occasionally with "more than") appear to be the upper bound for academic sources but 921 is absurd - the 1976 Jayapura operation alone probably caused more than that when you include combatants. Juxlos (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- Though i agree with 921 is way too low, i disagree with 'more than 500,000' on "Genocide and Mass Violence in Asia: An Introductory Reader". Seems like a ridiculous number considering again, the population of Papua currently is less than 5 Million. Especially without proper research. 500,000 dead in a low-level insurgency skirmish is absurd. Considering Moro conflict claimed about 120,000 lives and the population in Mindanao is up to 25 Million, 5 times the population but 5 times less the deaths? doesn't seems right. That is why i keep the 100,000 deaths number because it makes more sense. Not too low like 921, but not too high up to 'more than 500,000'. I will not remove the 500,000 deaths for now, but i still believe in the 100,000. 150,000, 200,000 estimates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvoSwatch (talk • contribs) 04:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Part of Terrorism in Indonesia
Why is User:Eustatius Strijder keep removing this part. The article also already mentioned stuffs relating to the Free Papua Movement.
Terrorism in Indonesia refer to acts of terrorism that take place within Indonesia or attacks on Indonesian people or interests abroad. This is clear. These acts of terrorism often target the government of Indonesia or foreigners in Indonesia, through most attacks were on police and military, but also other government workers like health care worker[1], or attack on foreigners see Mapenduma hostage crisis or attack on a German tourist.[2]
This was the situation in 2013 where as noted by Institute for Policy Analysis of Conflict (IPAC) both the 'separatists' and 'jihadists' commited objectively the same actions (which is terrorism) such as owning explosive materials, attack on security forces, etc. The differences were only in the motivation and the treatment under Indonesian law. The state at the time prosecute them differently with Papuan getting more jail time through the use of different law, and Densus 88 only used to target jihadists, leading to criticism of discrimination by islamic groups.[3] But that was in 2013, as noted in 2021, the government and legal experts decided that this group activities was in violation of the anti-terror laws, hence they can be prosecuted as such.[4]
Eustatius Strijder's last reasoning that Indonesia need to be a superpower is just absurd. What China considered terrorists are not what USA considered terrorists, each country has its terrorist groups that operate in that country. Anyhow this is about Terrorism in Indonesia targetting Indonesia, not terrorism in other 'superpower' country. IRA is another example of separatist movement that tried to achieve through terrorism, why should Indonesia classify them as terrorist group if they did not have terrorist activities in Indonesia. It has to be noted as well, Republic of South Maluku's 1975 Indonesian consulate hostage crisis, 1975 Dutch train hostage crisis, 1977 Dutch train hijacking were all considered terrorist acts[5] commited in Netherlands (not a superpower in any classifications I know) and USA also did not classify them as terrorist organizations. Envapid (talk) 08:38, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ Riri; Andi (2021-09-17). "Kisah Nakes Selamat: Lompat ke Jurang Namun Tetap Dikejar KKB". wartaplus.com (in Indonesian). Retrieved 2021-09-17.
- ^ Prasetyo, Budi (2012-06-25). "Gelar Perkara Tersangka Pelaku Penembakan Turis Jerman". Tribunnews.com (in Malay). Retrieved 2021-12-10.
- ^ "Papuan 'separatists' vs Jihadi 'terrorists': Indonesian policy dilemmas". Crisis Group (in Indonesian). 2013-12-05. Retrieved 2021-12-10.
- ^ Indonesia, CNN (2021-04-30). "Pemerintah Tetapkan OPM Sebagai Organisasi Teroris". CNN Indonesia (in Indonesian). Retrieved 2022-12-26.
{{cite news}}:|first=has generic name (help) - ^ Herman, Valentine; van der Laan Bouma, Rob (1980). "Nationalists without a nation: South Moluccan terrorism in the Netherlands". Terrorism. 4 (1–4). Informa UK Limited: 223–257. doi:10.1080/10576108008435491. ISSN 0149-0389.
Support spam
Eustatius Strijder has been adding every random country (including the UK, Australia, and New Zealand) that has a random politician (typically MPs, sometimes former PMs) stating any support for West Papua as an offhand/PR move as “Supporting independence”, despite these countries doing basically nothing even on a diplomatic level. Of course, sources cited are glaringly biased websites like freewestpapua
If we give Indonesian support the same treatment, we might as well link every country not in the other support list. This is the equivalent of putting Belize or Haiti as “Supporting Taiwan” in the Chinese Civil War article, which is absurd. Unless Vanuatu et al actively starts sending weapons to OPM, or training fighters, they should not be included. Using OPM websites should also be very much avoided, as why wouldn’t they say they have support from everyone. Juxlos (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
I am already done and have apologized about using UK, Australia and the New Zealand as a support to the Free Papuan Independence movement. Wikipedia plays a policy of a Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View, so not everything can be interpreted from an Indonesian view alone. That is why you should read the sources and references again, the sources says that Ghana have been opposing the Act of Free Choice leading a number of African Nations since 1969. Which contributes to the “States that support self-determination” as the requirements were denouncing the Act of Free Choice or support Papuan self-determination. I could also state that the U.S and Soviet Union supported Indonesia, but that was former support, not til present. Eustatius Strijder (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- Ghana abstained in UNGA resolution 2504 regarding AoFC, along with most African countries. There were, in fact, no “No” votes. freewestpapua.org is outright falsifying records. One can argue why they did not vote “No”, but that is far outside the realm of WP:RS and deep into WP:SYNTHESIS. Juxlos (talk) 02:01, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Radio New Zealand and ABC News are already reliable sources as of WP:RS, they are the most used media sources in the Oceania region. If you want a reference from Indonesian reliable sources I could give too. Please do not do unexplained content removal again, remember a policy of Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. Eustatius Strijder (talk) 03:40, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- You are citing RS for incorrect assertions and citing biased sources for otherwise. Is RNZ/ABC saying that the Australian government is supporting West Papua, or is it saying that some MPs support them? Do not hide incorrect readings behind WP:RS. And sure, I am being neutral here, otherwise I would have removed Libya as well. Juxlos (talk) 04:21, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Dude, it is obvious by unexplained content removal that you are deleting because of Indonesian Nationalist Agenda. Please adhere to the policy of Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. I am not here to support West Papuan independence, but I am reporting based on reality aspects that happened and the clashes, the diplomatic struggle happened in reality. That is what Indonesia needs to solve for, if they still wants West Papua to be theirs. Another attempt of vandalism will result in a page protection or report. Eustatius Strijder (talk) 04:46, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- You are free to go to WP:NPN and file a report against me if you so wish. Bear in mind however that reporters are not immune and you might very well end up being blocked - I believe you already violated 3RR a couple times over. Juxlos (talk) 06:55, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- Some of these claims of support (meaning acting as combatants in the conflict) are absurd, as seen by the citations
- Ghana: statements by former president only
- Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Tuvalu : "called for an eventual resolution that includes support of the right of West Papuan political self-determination."
- Solomon Islands: The newly-elected Prime Minister of Solomon Islands, Manasseh Sogavare, has indicated a softening of his once-staunch support for self-determination in the Indonesian provinces of West Papua.
- Tonga: "urged the world to take action on the human rights situation in Indonesia's West Papua region."
I think it would be better to remove the support claims from both sides. Davidelit (Talk) 05:14, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- The editor is claiming NPOV to disguise outright falsehoods contradicted directly by sources cited. Fairly typical of new editors just learning policy. Juxlos (talk) 06:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Eustatius Strijder: Stop citing WP:NPOV when you cannot even follow basic rules: that is, WP:V and WP:RS. You have been citing literal wordpress sites obviously affiliated with the OPM, and even then you did not seem to have read the contents as they directly contradict your assertions. You are bordering on spreading hoaxes by this point. Juxlos (talk) 06:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- The link cited in support of the Senegal support appears to be dead anyway, and I can find no other reference mentioning it, so it should stay deleted. Davidelit (Talk) 07:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- Checked it on archive.org. It's fairly run-of-the-mill "president makes statements of support" stuff. Juxlos (talk) 09:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- The link cited in support of the Senegal support appears to be dead anyway, and I can find no other reference mentioning it, so it should stay deleted. Davidelit (Talk) 07:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Eustatius Strijder: Stop citing WP:NPOV when you cannot even follow basic rules: that is, WP:V and WP:RS. You have been citing literal wordpress sites obviously affiliated with the OPM, and even then you did not seem to have read the contents as they directly contradict your assertions. You are bordering on spreading hoaxes by this point. Juxlos (talk) 06:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Aréat: refer to above. Juxlos (talk) 07:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm not going to go through all of the above - but I will make two observations...
- The heading section "Support spam" is a great descriptor of this stupid info box bloat that we get with these sort of articles. It's really useless. Criteria for inclusion seems to be "because it's true (or not)" and it seems to be driven by a desire, that I don't understand, to make these great big bloated lists of trivia. Just because one can, doesn't meant one should.
- To Eustatius Strijder, with references to comments of yours on a few articles, just because someone has a different opinion about editing doesn't mean that someone "obviously" has an "agenda" and that they are editing in a non-NPOV manner. Arguing your case does not mean immediately resorting to such accusations. You should familiarise yourself with the WP:AGF proposition. Stating your case needs to focus on your proposed changes...rather than quickly playing the "NPOV card".
--Merbabu (talk) 11:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- The user appears to be either unwilling or unable to understand engagement in talk pages, just repeating NPOV over and over again while citing wordpress sites. Juxlos (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Please don't edit war
Guys, take a look at WP:3RR, etc. Edit-warring back and forth will not bring anything constructive (trust me). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:58, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Former military support of Indonesia & Free West Papuan movement
Reverted back former military support of Indonesia & Free Papuan Movement as they were already referenced by a valid source. The Netherlands and Libya have supported in the former behalves of West Papuan Army. Whereas the Soviet Union and the United States have formerly supported Indonesia. Eustatius Strijder (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Editting consensus, agreement
@Davidelit @Aréat @Cal1407 Now is to give consensus, from @Davidelit's sources alone, the Marshall islands, Nauru, Palau, Tuvalu and Solomon islands have shown support for West Papua's self determination. I will entertain those who are progressives, but not to those who have a Nationalist Agenda as of WP:NATIONALIST. Eustatius Strijder (talk) 10:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- I have not provided any sources for the support claims. Please don't misrepresent me. Davidelit (Talk) 13:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- In general other editors are here to help improbe the encyclopedia, just as you are. I suggest discussing disagreements, rather than name calling. If you can't find argreement, and you will have to find agreement to reinstate you edits, the you can try Wikipedia's other options for dispute resolution WP:DISPUTE. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- First of all, saying that other users have "nationalist agenda" just because they don't agree with your views is totally wrong. Saying that you only "will entertain those who are progressives" doesn't make things better either. Wikipedia is not a place for political debates. As you mentioned earlier, we need to maintain the neutrality of the article, yet you are contradicting yourself the moment you mentioned "progressives" and "nationalist agenda" in your replies. For your information, no one here expressed their espoused political opinion previously. You are the one who brought and mentioned all this political stuff to this discussion in the first place. Putting that aside, I believe that all countries that previously supported both sides should be removed. On the other hand, Fiji and Papua New Guinea should be re added back to the list since they are openly supporting Indonesia's position. Lastly, countries that are only vaguely supporting either sides or politicians from a particular country who voicing their opinions should be removed as well. Cal1407 (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Nope, I believe that the Countries that formerly support still needs to be put into the Article just like the issue of Indonesian occupation of East Timor there were former Countries supporters to Indonesian Integration but they mostly withdrew after 1991. Papua New Guinea is not sticked to Indonesia’s or West Papua’s side in this conflict, whereas Fiji remains silent on the issue aswell as neither supporting West Papua or Indonesia.[1] Eustatius Strijder (talk) 02:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- User:Eustatius Strijder - you requested a "third" moderator. That is now open for your involvement. --Merbabu (talk) 03:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Sure, we will make sure that everything gets added, including if there is any states supporting Indonesia's position you could provide with references. But it would only be called a support, if there is any diplomatic or military support towards any of the respective countries or rebel militias, otherwise it won't be considered as a support. Eustatius Strijder (talk) 12:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
references for this convertation
- ^ "Fiji remains silent on West Papua issue - Ali". fijivillage.com. 13 July 2022.
So, I solved one problem...
I fiddled around (reversed engineered?) the show/hide function, and put a damn good, but not perfect, version into the Free Papua Movement infobox. See here
This goes a long way to solving one of my long-held concerns of infoboxes bloated with trivial information. it would be nice if the "[show]" button could come left a bit more...anyone know how?
I propose that this gets used on this article. Also, the Indonesian National Revolution is, like often happens on Wikipedia, a great article with a boring long and listy infobox. --Merbabu (talk) 06:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- The biggest problem is maintenance - that is, how to prevent some random passerby editor from showing up and adding 20 more names to the commanders' list every other month. Juxlos (talk) 08:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- If entries are not reliably referenced, they can go (yes, recently we've seen that easier said that done). However, for me, show/hide is a way to get around the massive info-box bloat that we seem to experience. --Merbabu (talk) 09:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
High level overview needed...
I support the cutting of the long list of seperate incidents into a Timeline of the Papua conflict article and hope that it gets further improved. However, the creation of the new article has had the effect of there being no information in this article beyond "Background" info that ends around the 1960s, or at best, the 1970s. Further, this information is already available in the Dutch New Guinea article.
What we need on this article (Papua conflict), is to provide summarised high-level description of the conflict from the sixties to the present day. Importantly, it would be best if we could draw on secondary sources that already have that high level view, rather than trying to paste a description from all the incident-by-incident sources in the timeline article. I have a few books that might help - but I'm pushed for time at the moment. --Merbabu (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
America
http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/03/expected-obama-administration-backing-for-indonesian-state-terror/
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB128/index.htm
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/FG13Ae03.html
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/indonesia/index.html
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Milktaco (talk • contribs) 18:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Sources
http://www.unpo.org/article/6196
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Milktaco (talk • contribs) 04:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
The leading paragraph is heavily biased in favor of the Indonesian and Australian perspective
It leads with mentioning that guerrillas have targeted civilian populations with no mention or context that the government, with vastly superior armament, has also engaged in massacres, terrorism, torture, and bombardment of civilian populations as well at a far larger scale.
the citation is also from a western think tank that has clear business motivations to accept the Indonesian military line. 107.77.213.48 (talk) 08:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- https://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/country-report-west-papua#:~:text=Since%201969%2C%20the%20Indonesian%20military,Papuans%20that%20amount%20to%20genocide.
- for example, if the opening intro mentions the crimes and violence committed by separatists it should be site by site with the fact that numerous credible organizations consider the Indonesian military campaign to be a genocidal one and the sheer scale of the deaths and killings by the military versus the separatists needs to be in proper context. 2001:818:DCA6:A500:B012:8B47:DB66:674 (talk) 09:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Inclusion of Fien Jarangga
@TarnishedPath Honestly, I like the previous version without her inclusion better sure Jakartapost is a reliable source. But why include only one person, especially the way the sentence is: 'women rights activists, like Fien Jarangga', its a generalisation for women right activists.
Also read again at the source anyway, Fien is mentioned once. The preceding sentence is also: 'a women's rights activist' meaning specifically only her. Not only that, she never mention support of Papua independence anyway just that they can pursue legal venue to verify pepera legality. I'd say, it can be a misrepresentation of her views, TIKI also never mentions support of Papuan independence too considering its facilitated by local papuan legislature and Indonesian national commision of human rights. Envapid (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- As you note, it's from a WP:RS. This whole article and especially the lede, in its present state, displays a heavy POV bias in the Indonesian favour and can do with the introduction with a lot of balance especially when there is a lot of WP:RS (in the Australian press and academic sources) out there which favour doing so. TarnishedPathtalk 00:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- WP:RS and WP:DUE are different things. We can also include every single incident in the conflict in the lead section and every single other British MP that supports the movement, but we don’t. Juxlos (talk) 05:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- @TarnishedPath, @Julos I think a failed verification tag will be appropriate here, if that statement isnt removed. Since the source did not explicitly mention that she supported Independence. Not to mention Fien Jarangga is technically part of Indonesian government, she is legal ad hoc team from 2023-2026 to advice on special autonomy laws formulation for DPRP, MRP, and Papua Governor. Working for Indonesian government or supporting special autonomy law for TPNPB makes you a target or traitor. It will need more reference of her saying explicit support, or that sentence is just assumption. Envapid (talk) 08:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- After having a closer look, I've decided to self-revert. However this article needs balance. The language used in this article displays a heavy POV. TarnishedPathtalk 09:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- I'd say that the article is also heavily WP:UNDUE. Not enough WP:WEIGHT given to Papuan perspectives given the WP:RS that exist. TarnishedPathtalk 09:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- Ok sure. Tbf, Papuan perspectives doesn't necessarily means support for independence movement. As is in many conflicts there isn't a strict dichotomy and definitely a spectrum, from Indonesian government supporters (Trikora veterans, BMP) to special autonomy supporters (PDP and the likes) to independence supporters (from moderate UlMWP to radical TPNPB). Envapid (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- @TarnishedPath, @Julos I think a failed verification tag will be appropriate here, if that statement isnt removed. Since the source did not explicitly mention that she supported Independence. Not to mention Fien Jarangga is technically part of Indonesian government, she is legal ad hoc team from 2023-2026 to advice on special autonomy laws formulation for DPRP, MRP, and Papua Governor. Working for Indonesian government or supporting special autonomy law for TPNPB makes you a target or traitor. It will need more reference of her saying explicit support, or that sentence is just assumption. Envapid (talk) 08:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)