Talk:Benny Wenda

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Removal of reliably sourced information[edit]

I notice that someone is trying to remove the fact that Benny Wenda was on trial for the killing of a police officer. This is reported in the Jakarta Post, one of Indonesia's leading newspapers, and what Wikipedia defines as a reliable source. Wikipedia operates on verifiablity. This, along with Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View is a core policy of Wikipedia, and cannot be ignored. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The editor continues to remove text from the Jakarta post. This rant explanation provided at my talk page:
Regarding the Benny Wenda article, the story in the Jakarta Post was not reported anywhere else. It was widely suspected that the incident was carried out by Indonesian backed militias acting as Agent Provocateurs to help crackdown on members of the independence movement. As there is no evidence that a policeman or taxi driver were killed in this attack, it is only correct that it should not be included in Wikipedia, which as you state is only concerned with the facts.
Also, why did you delete my entry stating that the trial of Benny Wenda did not meet international standards in that charges were levied before proper and just legal proceedings had taken place. This information may have been linked from a petition site that you point out is not neutral, but there can be no denying that from whatever viewpoint you look at it, the trial did not meet international standards.
This is not about taking sides or 'causes'. It is about ensuring the correct facts are published without the stain of Indonesian propaganda hanging over them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zevion (talk • contribs) 11:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]
and do you really think the British Government would give political asylum to Benny Wenda if they thought for a minute that he was a murderer wanted on charges of killing a policeman and attacking a police station? If they did then they would have put him on the first plane back to Indonesia.
They know as well as the rest of us do that the whole incident was set up by Indonesian authorities to provide them with the perfect opportunity to put on trial a leading member of the independence movement.
The reality is that Indonesia is as far removed from democracy as can be. It has a pitiful reputation for human rights, is riddled with corruption, racketting, prostitution. And lets not get onto the genocides of the people of East Timor and Aceh while we're at it, or the ongoing one that is being committed on your country's doorstep in West Papua now. The human rights of each of us are denied, if the human rights of others are denied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zevion (talk • contribs) 11:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]
No evidence that the Jakarta Post is not reliable source except that it the editor states Indonesia is "riddled with corruption" and The Jakarta Post is propaganda. --Merbabu (talk) 11:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


You tell us about reliable sources and that The Jakarta Post is not one, yet you cite one opinion on a commercial blog/petition cite to verify the claim "widely argued". So, in your opinion, the most respected Indonesian newspaper is biased, but the website of Papuan secessionists is neutral? Do you understand the terms bias and point of view? --Merbabu (talk) 11:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second that. Zevion, please read the links I've given to Wikipedia's core content policies above.

"Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Because the policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus

I'm watching this page, and any attempts to remove reliably sourced information will be reverted. Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policy - this place has rules which have evolved for good reason. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I tried in vain to explain to Merbabu, the facts behind the trial of Benny Wenda have always been widely disputed. Benny Wenda maintains that he was actually arrested following a peaceful flagraising ceremony, and that the other charges against him were fabricated and added when he stood trial. I have included primary sources from a British national newspaper (The Guardian), which supports the claim that Wenda was imprisoned for his support of the independence movement. No mention is made of any alleged attack in any of the international press. Read into this what you will. I can find no other 'primary source' that supports the Jakarta Posts claim, and would ask that these allegations are therefore removed or due reference is made to this fact. I appreciate it is important that Wikipedia takes a NPV, and would apppreciate it if the editors would not allow potentially factually incorrect information to appear on wikipedia which could be deemed to discredit individuals in political positions. Such attempts could be deemed as defammatory or libellous. Zevion (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Can I add that I too am concerned about people trying to use this page for propaganda purposes. Why are persons trying to hide the fact that Benny Wenda was put on trial for organising a violent attack, this verifyable fact. You can check both Indonesian and non-Indonesian sources for this. (Eg for Indonesian sources the Jakarta Post and Antara.... for other sources King, Peter West Papua and Indonesia after Suharto pg 64 2004 or Amnesty international website. The guardian article rather disingeniously used as a source in this article is written in 2009 and is a music review and thus hardly a reputable news source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seumas86 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I have removed the information regarding Benny Wenda's trial is that only one news source is quoted as evidence for this. It also contains other factually incorrect information as it states that Benny Wenda is the brother of OPM leader Matthias Wenda. Quite impossible considering they are from opposite ends of the highlands!!
This news sources version of events is also in contravention with the version of events reported by the British Guardian newspaper who stated that Benny Wenda was placed on trial for his support of the independence movement. This may be a music review, but how does that make it any less worthy of use as a source? One can be sure it is wholly NPV whereas an Indonesian newspaper reporting on an independence leader from West Papua may not be seen to be so. Seumas86, please can you provide links to any other reliable primary sources that support your belief that Benny Wenda was placed on trial for leading a violent attack?
I to am concerned that members of the pro-Indonesian lobby are seeking to use this page as a means of discrediting Benny Wenda, by attempting to use information to discredit the individual. It should be noted that Benny Wenda was also granted political asylum by the British Government. If one is attempting to suggest that the British Government is therefore creating a safe haven for those wanted for violent crime in Indonesia (and according to the jakarta Post a crime that left 2 dead), then this is something that I think should be brought to the attention of higher authorities in Wikipedia as is clearly defammatory.Zevion (talk —Preceding undated comment added 18:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
WHo is the pro-Indonesia lobby? If you are assuming editors here with whom you don't agree, then you need to read WP:AGF. Indeed, I am quite sympathetic to the Papuan "struggle". But I am here to write a neutral encyclopedia. That means referenced to WP:RS. If there are two sides to the story, then they need to be reported as two sides to the story. A editors we are not here to determine what is "correct". An, if one "side" is according to you the "pro-Indonesia lobby" then you would be the "pro-Papua lobby". It's not helpful.
I don't know how it's defamatory. We have said "alleged", it is reported in a reputable newspaper, and the other "side to the story" is clearly stated. If you don't like my opinion, then please read that of the others.
PS, while I think the JP is a reliable source that can stand on its own, perhaps Zevion would be happier to see the other sources Seamus suggests. Seumas, can you provide these? Thanks --Merbabu (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided two extra sources that neither could be construed as Pro-Indonesian. On another matter I have removed the term political asylum and replaced it with asylum. Political asylum is a technical term and is hardly ever actually practised in refugee law. Until someone can cite a source for political asylum I suggest asylum be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seumas86 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Seumas86, the Radio New Zealand source that you have added is actually directly copied from the Jakarta Post article and makes reference to this in the 2nd paragraph. The Peter King ref is a dead link. Please provide a valid weblink. You mention in an earlier posting that you have sources from Amnesty International website. Please provide these and they would be deemed NPV. The reason why I am making issue, is that the only source you seem able to provide so far is the Jakarta Post and a Radio New Zealand web story that is copied directly from the Jakarta Post! The reliability of this source is highly questionable as it contains other factually incorrect information stating that Benny Wenda is the brother of OPM leader Matthias Wenda. Also, your reason for removing 'political asylum' is wholly invalid. It is a widely used term in immigration and asylum cases (of which you obviously have no experience), and was the very reason that he was granted asylum. Please see this source from the United States http://immigration.lawyers.com/Political-Asylum.html Wikipedia also has an article pertaining to it use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_asylum (talk Zevion

Zevion, if you are interested in making a neutral encyclopedia based that is well sourced, the you would have no problem in the article stating that the Jakarta Post reported Benny was arrested for xxxx. That's all it's saying - it is fact that the Jak post reported this. The text in no way says it is true or that it is anything more than an allegation. On the other hand, if you were here to "protect" Benny or to whitewash his article (and I notice you only edit article concerned with Benny Wenda), then I understand why you are so keen to remove this - but this would mean you have no place on wikipedia. I note that you say the jakarta post has *other* errors - how do you know they are wrong? Because Benny said that it is wrong??? Your rants against Indonesia suggest that you are having difficulty in separating your personal opinion and how you edit on wikipedia. Also, while you say that the Jak Post is not a reliable source, you have inserted a music review as a reliable source - and yet it doesn't even mention what you are using it for. Do you understand why a number of editors are concerned? Can you address these concerns? --Merbabu (talk) 13:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merbabu, if you look at my editing history you will see that my edits are not just about Benny Wenda. However, if you look at the editing history of Seumas86 you will see his edits are wholly about Benny Wenda and the West Papua independence movement. This is obviously a matter of concern as to the motives of Seumas86. The terminology and editing that Seumas86 has used (eg. changing 'political asylum' to 'asylum' and the intitial wording of the alleged offence and Wenda's denial , is in my view a clear attempt to discredit Benny Wenda.
All I am asking with the Benny Wenda article is that it is made clear that there is only one news source (Jakarta Post) relating to this allegation. I am not looking to protect Benny Wenda or anybody else. My concern is that Wikipedia is not allowed to be used to discredit the name of people without reputable evidence. As I have said to Seumas86 in my above post, if they can provide other sources which support the inclusion (eg. the Amnesty International article which they mention), then i am more than happy to leave it in, but using a source (and backing it up with another source which quotes entirely from the first source) does not make for NPV or strenghten grounds for inclusion. At the very least some mention should be made of this.
I have undertaken extensive studies specifically related to human rights and the independence struggles in West Papua and East Timor and know that Matthias Wenda is of no relation to Benny Wenda. If you read the article about the OPM in Wikipedia and then cross reference with Benny Wenda's biography, you will see there is no links in geographical location, and in Papua movement is very limited. The only link is the surname. It is this very error in the Jakarta Post that makes me weary of its plausibility in being a NPV. Zevion (talk


I have added two more sources in regards to the arrest, the first an independant media source from Melbourne six days after the arrest and second the US State Department Report on Human Rights for 2002 published in 2003. Nobody is claiming that Benny is guilty of the alleged crimes but it is a verifiable fact that he was arrested and charged for them. The changes I made to the reference to asylum was that Zevion was implying that the British Government accepted the falsity of the charges and that Benny Wenda was technically a political prisoner but no evidence of this is supplied in the footnotes. It is just as conceivable that Benny was given asylum due to Indonesia's attrocious record of prisoner abuse especially for Papuans, I am not saying that either is true but without evidence it would be incorrect to assert the asylum decision of the British Government. Btw Zevion I too am a pro-papuan researcher and lobbyist and I have been studying Papua since the beginning of the century. I came across this article about two months ago and was astounded at its lack of neutrality. If you or Benny Wenda want to hide the nature of Benny Wenda's arrest do it outside of wikipedia. Whether Benny is related to Mathais is immaterial because there is no reference to it in the wikipedia article (however I too am close to many Papuans inside and outside of West Papua, some of them close supporters of Benny Wenda and I have multiple attestations of Benny being related to Mathais Wenda; NB the term Brother in Papua does not necessary relate to nuclear family). I have provided a reputable newspaper report, a book reference from an extremely pro-papuan academic, a Radio New Zealand Report, a indymedia report, and The US State Department's Human Rights Report for 2002. I think we can all stop this silliness and the silly accusations and safely say that the arrest occured for the reasons stated in the article (not to mention the other charges of holding a PNG Passport and allegedly organising further attacks).--Seumas86 (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)--Seumas86 (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to add if anyone wants to know the difference between political asylum and territorial asylum you may want to read this http://www.sisr.net/publications/05neumann.pdf --Seumas86

Sorry, but it doesnt matter what articles you care to produce as they are entirely irrelevant to Benny Wenda's asylum claim which are entirely based on seeking protection for fear of persecution on political grounds. This was therefore recognised as political asylum. I have added a number of sources confirming Benny Wenda's status as 'political asylum'. Feel free to search on google and you will find many many more.Zevion

Have changed region name to West Papua. Here is a link to a Jakarta Post article referring to the region as West Papua. It is never referred to as 'Western New Guinea'. http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/01/04/yudhoyono-sends-ministers-west-papua.html Here are three other independent sources which confirm that the region should be referred to as West Papua: http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/people/features/ihavearightto/four_b/casestudy_art27.shtml http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/bows-arrows-and-a-dream-of-liberation-1771884.html http://www.etan.org/news/2009/04papua.htm It should also be noted that the international political lobby group is called 'International Parliamentarians for West Papua', not 'International Parliamentarians for Western New Guinea' Zevion —Preceding undated comment added 00:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Unsourced information[edit]

As per Wikipedia: Biographies of Living Persons, I've removed some unsourced information. If a reliable source can be found for it, it can be put back in, but until then should stay out. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries...[edit]

Please use them. thanks. --Merbabu (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benny Wenda trial escape and Interpol warrant[edit]

Since 2009 an unresolved dispute has existed on the page Benny Wenda. Wenda is a leader of the West Papuan independence movement, and as such is a controversial figure. He was arrested for his alleged involvement in a fatal attack on a police station, and subsequently has been issued with an Interpol warrant for his arrest.

This RFC is to ensure that relevant information that is presented factually and neutrally and is clearly verified in reliable sources is not removed from the article.

I have not talked to other editors in this case (plenty of discussion has occured before this RFC), because the article is subject to revert wars. Rather than have those occur again, I've launched this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mostlyharmless (talk • contribs) 10:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want people to comment on; which information in particular do you want included? Please provide this information in the RfC so commenters don't have to drudge through the article history and talk page discussions. Quigley (talk) 21:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


It should be noted that in August 2012, Interpol removed the 'red notice' issued against Benny Wenda by the Indonesian Government (for alleged involvement in a fatal attack). This came about after Interpol conducted an investigation and concluded that the case against Mr Wenda was politically motivated.

Here are a couple of news articles confirming this: BBC News - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19149678 Daily Telegraph - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatnews/9458223/Benny-Wenda-removed-from-Interpol-wanted-list.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zevion (talk • contribs) 00:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Benny Wenda. 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 to let others know.

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).

  • 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 04:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Benny Wenda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Public Claims[edit]

Is there a listing of various claims Mr Wenda has made, that he'd presented a petition of millions of signatures to a UN committee, that the [Scottish Parliament had passed a motion [[1]] supporting his independence movement, that he has been repeatedly nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, and the like? 114.78.14.21 (talk) 13:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Benny_Wenda&oldid=1195079543"