Papuan unification was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 18 April 2020 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Papua conflict. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Papua conflict article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 All cited resources are not peer-reviewed, nor do they amount to a fair and balanced article in line with NPOV.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).
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))
Either the ,,On" should be removed, or the colons replaced with commas. Sarcelles (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
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". 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)
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)
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
http://www.unpo.org/article/6196
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
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)
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)
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)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
References
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)
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Susan Schulman, The Guardian (UK) uses the same cite from the previous The Guardian article (interview with Benny Wenda)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
I think it would be better to remove the support claims from both sides. Davidelit (Talk) 05:14, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm not going to go through all of the above - but I will make two observations...
--Merbabu (talk) 11:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
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)
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
((cite news))
: |first=
has generic name (help)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)