Talk:Papua (province)/Archive 2

Facts are Facts
Dear John, I said I have a personal view. I said it was NOT in the article, that the article should ONLY contain facts, NOT promote one agenda over another.Daeron

Jayapura is 1,800Km further away from Java than East Timor and the Indonesian border there. West Papua's only population was Papuan and a handful of Dutchmen; the people of West Papua had never seen a Javanese person before 1961. Like the Japanese invasion of Papua during the Pacific War the Melanesians of West Papua decided within weeks that they wanted these Asian Malay people to take their guns and go back to their home in Java Indonesia.Daeron

I state again, the article SHOULD STATE THE REASONABLY KNOWN FACTS AND nothing more.Daeron

I have no idea what you're arguing with me about anymore. All I'm saying is that the article should say that the province of Papua is part of Indonesia, since there is no dispute under international law that it is part of Indonesia, and that we should avoiding referring to it as "Western Papua", primarily, because that is the name applied to it by a separatistgroup, and to use it would be POV. I have no objection to a frank discussion of the history of the region. john 19:39, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * THat was it? The last time I saw read the article, it did say that. Except I replaced 'province' with 'territory' ; because of the reasons I specified four days before the edit and Nobody commented or objected, so I proceeded with that edit. I think that's about when Wik deleted the article, and he moved it and reverts it and reverts it. and you never know which version he's reverted it to. He reverted again while I was editing. Meanwhile I've got matterial and would like to write the first versions of following parts of the article:

But I havn't been willing to edit it since Tannin kindly came over to give a hand with this Wik silliness. I prefer a rational environment that isn't trying to wind me up. I'm the ASJ that wrote the thing back in 2001. As better information became available I just wanted to return every so often to update the thing. See if anyone else had added to it, to date there hadn't been much. this time I could at last add the Melanesian issue. Driven the Papuans nuts for for years; they say they're Melanesian and get challenged on it. Well at last there's generic tracks on top of the blood work, and at last the people at Stanford have settled that issue. Not only are they Melanesian, but as a race Melanesians definatly came from Papua (the geographic item, the Island, not neither of the two Papua sub-regions) in the first place. So everyone in the Moluccas are correct when they say they are Papuan.Daeron 20:42, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Tribal & other Regions (I've only just found a map of the Indonesian regions inside West Papua, that's what was hold this stuff up)
 * Geography
 * Ecology
 * Economics
 * Demographics
 * Cultures

Alright, Daeron, we seem to mostly not particularly disagree, then. Maybe. I'm still not sure what on earth is going on. Is the current version of the article acceptable to you? It features Wik's preferred version of the introduction, and I've edited the body somewhat, mostly to remove inappropriate references to West Papua and I clarified what was going on in 1961-1962 somewhat (in particular, the fact that the declaration of independence was not recognized, and that 1970 was to be the date that the Dutch gave the region independence). My main concern is that the article say clearly that the region is a province of Indonesia, which is the case. It can then go on and discuss the questionable issues surrounding Indonesia's sovereignty later on, but I don't think that saying something like "it is disputed territory between the Indonesians and its native peoples" can be viewed as POV by any definition. john 20:57, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Explaning Ford Foreign Policy Plans
John said something about "pro-Indonesian (or pro-US, for that matter", did you think West Papuan Independance is anti-American? It's not, they don't care about 1962, or that the Indonesians were using US manufactured guns at that time. That's just an historical trivial item. I don't imagine anyone at the Whitehouse considers West Papua as a threat to US interests. Their support of Indonesia stems from a steady stream of pro-Indonesia rethoric initiated by the Ford Foundation. By time Indonesia invaded West Papua, the CIA had invested ten years of work on creating a pro-US business elite in Indonesia; not an evil plan; and it wasn't the CIA who thought it up, the RAND Corp. was talked into it by the Ford Foundation which had been involved in flying the Indonesian elite families around the US in 1945-49. Soedjatmoko was a product of the Ford Foundation.

I do wonder what the US President was told in 1962; because the three organisations that gave primary advise about the 'Domino effect', where the same three who had over ten years invested in the Indonesian military Generals. (I don't imagine they would have expected a democratic President would approve of the Ford plan if told of it). Added to that, any study of the Indonesian elite who formed government and their behaviour before & after, there was no way in hell they were ever going to invite the Soviets in. Meanwhile the business plan which Soedjatmoko had proposed a decade before was still in the works, Ford Foundation records state that their original plan to use the land owning elite was changed in the 1950's because the Indonesian Military Generals were found to be more eager to offer favourable business arrangements in exchange for political assistance. It paid-off when Gen. Suharto took effective power in 1965, at which point he was able to offer sweat-shop factories, the wealth of Borneo, the wealth of Papua which his men had invaded a few years eariler. Put into those terms, isolated from other issues, perfectly good plan.

Why do you think the contract for Freeport was signed in 1967, two years before the "Act of Free Choice"? Because Henry Kissingers company had an assuraance from the Military that the Vote go go their way. And it did, according to the Indonesians 1022 out of 1022 (this number varies a bit according to source 1022-1025) selected voters all voted for the Military to stay in control of their country. An unanimous vote, how often do you see that?

Why did Kissinger advise Pres. Ford to support the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in 1975; some people think that board member of Freport McMoRan Inc. Mr Kissinger didn't want the Indonesian military to get upset and revoke the Freeport License; other people think it was in the national interest of the US for un-specified reasons. Again, we don't know.

Much of the real truth, we can not know, but there are things we do know and do have reasonable evidence of. The document I quoted, the US State Dept. summary of Foreign Policies for S.E.Asia 1962 where the third paragraph says JFK decided to gve West Papua to Indonesia due to the Soviet threat, is also one of those facts. And it helps Americans to understand why their nation apparantly supported the Indonesian invasion at that time.

I would also hope, that if the US President (John F Kennedy) had known of the Ford plans which came to light ten years later, that he would have doubted the validity of the think-tank's alleged Soviet domino threat, and have told the Indonesians to withdraw from West Papua. Nobody said America evil, please don't read that into it; the US Pres. was lead to believe that there was an imminent danger of being run-over by the Soviets unless the Indonesians were made happy with the US. I think that threat was illusion, and it was unfortunate. THat's all.

FYI: I have NO intention of any of the above Ford stuff to be mentioned in the West Papua article. It goes outside the scope of an encyclopedia coverage IMHO. Also, I only know of one book where the above Ford Foundation records are bibographed and summarized. I don't imagine the Foundation is ever going to give open access to those records again. And I don't think a single book published in 1970 is enough to base an encyclopedia article upon. That the book was never challenged, that the Ford Foundation then spent years disassocuating itself from the Ford family & companies; Mr Henry Fords personal beliefs from 1915-1947. Are all consistant. I mention it for your information only.I believe it is suitable for personal understanding, just not enough to base another publication upon.

BTW I'm not anti-Kennedy either, in fact it's the Robert F Kennedy Memorial Human Rights Center that's been supporting West Papuan independance and human rights reports for the pass ten years. Both it and and US State Department, are independantly funded.Daeron 10:40, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There are essentially three theories about the American involvement in the takeover of West Papua. (Or East Timor, for that matter - these apply equally to that place.)


 * (1) The paranoid. It was all a dastardly capitalist plot to gain increased access to the natural resources of South-east Asia.
 * (2) The realist. West Papua was just a bargaining chip that got thrown into the pot as part of the greater game of global politics. The US has no real friends in SE Asia (no nation there is committed to a close and long-term US relationship in the way that, for example, the UK and Australia are), and yet it has considerable interests in that region that need protection (security interests, financial interests, an interest in promoting democracy, economic growth, free enterprise, and so on). Lacking committed allies, the US must buy its friendships with favours. This was one of them. The State Department paper linked to in the article clearly takes this view.
 * (3) The cynic. The US cares little and knows less about unimportant places like West Papua. These things just happen sometimes.

Me, I lean toward explanation #2. It's what the US State Department itself says, and I'm inclined to believe them. I guess I'm biased toward that view because it is exactly how the Australian relationship with Indonesia has worked over the years, so it's an easy one for me to conceptualise. Tannin 15:02, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Quick dissection of the US Dept. of State Summary
Because even now on this page people have been talking as if the Americans were just ignorant of everything or had no moral sense; but that isn't what the document indicates:

''Elsewhere in the area, the Kennedy administration was attempting to win over Sukarno's Indonesia by facilitating its claim to West Irian, then the Netherlands colony of West New Guinea. Determined not to lose Indonesia to Communist influence, White Houses officials overcame Secretary of State Rusk's skepticism of Sukarno and Rusk's attachment to the Netherlands, a NATO ally. They shifted U.S. policy from neutrality in the dispute toward pressure on the Netherlands to relinquish West New Guinea to Indonesia. The Netherlands had initially insisted on a long-term UN trusteeship and UN- supervised self-determination for the inhabitants. The final agreed plan included only a minimal UN role in the transfer procedures; it was a virtual handover from Netherlands to Indonesian control. President Kennedy and his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, played a major role in this process. During the final stages, the President intervened to insist that Indonesia accept the Netherlands' last best offer and not escalate its guerrilla war against Netherlands forces in West New Guinea.''
 * The obvious is the stated motive.
 * "Secretary of State Rusk's skepticism of Sukarno"
 * So Sec. of State didn't want to


 * "pressure on the Netherlands to relinquish West New Guinea"
 * No legal language or claims, pressure had to be used


 * "Netherlands had initially insisted on a long-term UN trusteeship and UN- supervised self-determination"
 * who didn't trust the Indonesians? The US of course was more worried about the Soviets.


 * "President Kennedy and his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, played a major role"
 * so it's nice that one of the first causes for the RFK Human Rights Center started in 1988 was West Papua in 1993.


 * "During the final stages, the President intervened to insist that Indonesia accept the Netherlands"
 * which would support the Dutch PM's biography about receiving the personal phone call from JFK

All up, O.K. the US did a dubious thing, but it knew it was dubious, we also know it wasn't the Dept. of State that was suggesting this course; and it wouldn't be hard for the Kennedy family to now say that it was something that Robert Kennedy regretted. I'd assume the Pres. and his brother talked with Mr Rusk about his views on the matter. So every reason to believe it was something the US administration of the day didn't want to do either; it just believed it had no option.

To the best of my knowledge, I am unaware of the US ever saying or inferring that the Indonesian claim had any legal status. This is also consistant with some legal challenges to the UN actions which lawyers for the West Papuans have been trying to get the UN to face.Daeron 21:54, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Daeron, I don't think anyone is trying to argue that Indonesia had any pre-existing legal claims to Netherlands New Guines prior to the 1962 treaty. The question is what the legal status is today. And that has nothing to do with the question of Indonesian claims before 1962. Some of this detail about American policy in 1962 could be put into the article, of course. john 23:06, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Indonesian province" is an even worse title than "Papua (Indonesia)". Wik, you are completely out of control. Tannin 23:39, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank Daeron for it, he moved it again to West Papua and prevented me from moving it back to Papua (Indonesia), so I had to choose another NPOV title. --Wik 00:01, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

John. I'm having huge difficulties doing anything sensible with this page at the moment. Wik is reverting stuff faster than I can type, and the Wiki is going so slow at the moment that I can't keep up with the changes. (How does Wik do it? Is his connection faster than mine - unlikely, as other sites are loading just fine, it's only the wiki that is ridiculously slow) or (more likely) does he just revert everything without bothering to read?) I'll return when the connection improves. Tannin 00:03, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm confused. Wik reverted once. As he points out in his edit summary, all he did was change the date of the name change (which I can't vouch for the accuracy of - worldstatesmen.org gives 2000, but which is surely minor), and remove an anachronistic reference to "West Papua" in the 17th century. Are you sure it is not my edit which you were objecting to? john 00:31, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * As a general note, worldstatesmen.org is full of errors and should never be used as a source. See here for example for confirmation of the 2002 name change. I think the autonomy package that came into force on January 1 made it official already, though a special ceremony was held on January 7. --Wik 00:56, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, rulers.org confirms 2002. It's generally more accurate, I find, where the two differ, although usually they have the same lists. I have to say that they're both tremendously useful, even if there's occasional errors. Of course a more reliable, non-internet source trumps them, though. BTW, should the map in the article show the whole of the Indonesian half of the island as part of the province, when Irian Jaya Barat seems to have been split off into it's own province last fall? BTW, Indonesia is (sort of) a democracy now, isn't it? How have Papuan separatist parties done in provincial and national elections? Isn't that worth considering in terms of whether the province can be considered to be part of Indonesia or not? According to, in 1999 10 of Irian Jaya's 13 parliamentary seats went to members representing national Indonesian parties (9 of the 13 either to Megawati's Democratic Party of Indonesia or the Golkar Party, the two main national parties), with only 3 going to "etc.", which presumably would be nationalists. john 03:39, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Referring to your question about election results for West Papuans, the 1999 elections were boycotted by OPM & the Papua Presidium. User:Roisterer


 * Yes, the map should be changed, but I haven't found any map showing the new boundary yet. As to the elections, I suppose the separatists may have boycotted them. --Wik 17:33, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry John, I now realise when I said check the names on the various NGO Reports such as listed at West Papuan Genocide; first problem is you always have to double check that you're not REDIRECTed to a different article of Wiks he calls Attacks in West New Guinea; he's deleted & replaced the West Papuan Genocide with a REDIRECT some ten times so far. Also the link at the bottom to the Yale Uni. documentment seems to have had the "West Papua" part of its title missing, fixed now.Daeron 07:15, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Daeron, Wik, has not deleted pages, as he cannot do that. Moving pages is quite different. Might I suggest, BTW, a title like Human rights violations in western New Guinea? I don't think we should assume genocide, but Attacks in West New Guinea is an absolutely awful title. john 07:19, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Tannin raised this same question on the Talk page. I must admit I couldn't read the whole Yale document in one sitting, for a couple of reasons;-) ; its entire aim to to address whether the term is appropiate and legally correct according to International and US standards; they further explain that the term does not just refer to a few physical attacks, that something like hacking a hundred thousand people to death does not by itself qualify despite what the newspapers think. The paper does a indepth review of various aspects they feel are required to qualify; and thankfully after all their detailing of examples and required issues, they do include a summary. Their answer. Yes it is G..ocide.

I considered trying to use some other term, but then I realized I'd be doing the same thing as if I'd ignored the whole situation in the first place. I'd already decided to write the separate article so that such details could be kept out of the West Papua one here. I realised if I didn't boldly use the G-word then it be the same as ignoring the deaths in the firts place (and not just physical death which seems to be part of what the Yale people actually also cover, their concern seems to include issues of the Papuans having their government, church leaders, and representation removed).Daeron 07:53, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Daeron, this attitude you have about this is very troubling to me. We are not writing an encyclopedia in order to advocate for politics we like. We are trying to describe things in as neutral a way as possible. I don't think one study (by the Allard Lowenstein foundation, no less! That crazy student leader shares a surname with my mom, oddly enough) is enough for us to say definitively, in the article title, that this was genocide. The question of whether or not it qualifies as genocide ought to be brought up in the article, of course. BTW, most of the examples cited are from the 80s and earlier. Is that because repression has lessened of late? john 08:04, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Crazy student leader? You are a doctor as well as a lawyer; or a Republican? Yale University not to be trusted? What about people from Harvard? What about the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Center for Human Rights, another Crazy? The Catholic Church and Franciscans International, more Crazy people? U.S. Department of State in Washington DC, yet another Crazy? Are you sure that it's all of those people who are crazy.


 * I was referring to Allard Lowenstein as a crazy student leader with fondness. He was a radical student leader in the 60s, and has been dead for some time.  I was just bemused that he has a foundation at Yale named for him, especially as my middle name is Lowenstein.  The statement I'm not saying Yale, or whoever, isn't to be trusted.  I'm saying that genocide is a very serious charge, and I don't think it is NPOV to call this "genocide".  john 14:38, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm only interested in publishing facts. Any conclusion you or anyone else draw from these is none of my interest. You appear to have a strong political agenda, would you care to explain why a list of reports upsets you so much?


 * I have no political agenda. I have nothing at stake here.  The list of reports doesn't upset me at all, and I'm perfectly fine with having it in the article.  I don't think I ever said differently. john 14:38, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You seem to wish to insert political statements into the first paragraph of this article; I did not; who has the political agenda seems to be subjective. I think facts are not political, you claim publishing facts is. You wish to delete documents you don't like, I do not.Daeron 12:13, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm sick of this. You're accusing me of all kinds of things that are not true.  I have never said that I want to remove information.  Certainly not that I wish to delete documents.  I have no clue what you think I'm on about, but this is all entirely ridiculous.  Throughout this conversation, you've been completely ridiculous and non-responsive.  You seem to be responding not to things I actually say, but to what you think I say.  As to the first paragraph, it's not a "political statement" to say that it is a province of Indonesia unless you can show me why we should not consider it to be a province of Indonesia.  It functions in every way as a province of Indonesia - it has a governor, representation in the Indonesian parliament, and so forth.  Furthermore, it is recognized by every country in the world and by the UN as being part of Indonesia.  That is to say, whether Papua is part of Indonesia is a question of fact, not a question of judgment.  And it is, in fact, a province of Indonesia.  This is ridiculous. john 14:38, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Daeron is clearly bullshitting. But when you refuse to waste any more time with such a person, some people here will accuse you of being unresponsive. --Wik 17:33, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I think Daeron is sincere, but horribly confused. You may be right, of course. At any rate, not appearing unresponsive is important to me, and I'd rather vent my irritation through long reponses on talk pages than through revert wars...but there we differ, I suppose. john 19:38, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Who was the person throwing around highly belittling POV statements like "a separatist movement" ?

Whuh? How on earth is that belittling? john 23:13, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Reading that in the article, I just gave up on your extreme POV.
 * After Tannin had the infinite patience to write 3Kb of text explaining why that was so offensive; you next belittle the 'clash' of foreign cultures by saying it was most like Western Sahara? Did the Western Shara have its own government when invaded; Have the members of that government killed over the next several years? Did the Western Sahara have one third of its population exterminated in the most horrific fashions?

I have no idea. Western Sahara is no picnic, I'd imagine. There are tons of refugee camps in Algeria, for instance. Do you actually know anything about Western Sahara, or are you maumauing? The situation of Western Sahara was rather similar, at least superficially. In both cases, a neighboring country invaded a receding colonial province, leading the colonial power to give it up to the invading power, in spite of the existence of a native independence movement. john 23:13, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * And yet I said none of this in my version of the article, I simply listed the known and legal facts, offered no opinions (at least tried to), allowing readers to form whatever understanding they wish. I was going to great lengths to keep a NPOV for the article; then Wik and yourself started your editing war; I have not added content for six days waiting for you two to finish your great re-writing of the article.

But when you make statements like "clearly, Western New Guinea has a less valid claim to be considered not part of Indonesia than East Timor did"???? How charming of you to tell us which opinion to have.

The UN never recognized East Timor as part of Indonesia. West New Guinea has been so recognized since 1969. Many other countries never recognized East Timor as part of Indonesia. As far as I know, no countries have refused to recognize West New Guinea as part of Indonesia. john 23:13, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I think you're wrong on both accounts. I think West Papua's case is much more like East Timor than the Western Shara. And I think West Papua has just as much claim to not being part of Indonesia as East Timor.


 * Western Sahara's case is actually stronger than West Papua's. The UN is still demanding an "Act of Free Choice" in Western Sahara.  That already happened and been recognized in West Papua in 1969, whatever its legitimacy.  I notice that you still haven't addressed my earlier point about election results in the parliamentary elections in Irian Jaya in 1999, which saw national parties receiving 10 of the 13 seats for the province.  The Irian Jaya information page that I added a link to seems to have a strongly pro-Papuan perspective, but mostly seems to be advocating for autonomy, rather than independence.  It uses Scotland's home rule since 1999 as a model for Irian Jaya/West Papua. john 23:13, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And this evening when I saw your talks with Wik about how to coordinate your activities against Tannin's possible future edits... I just felt sad for you.Daeron 22:16, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. I wanted to make changes to the article that would result in a version that would, hopefully, remove some of the problems that both Wik and I had with it, while still including the extra information that Tannin was upset that Wik was reverting. So I set out to do that, and asked Wik not to revert, because I was afraid he would do so if there was something he didn't like about it. I have no idea how this was a plot against Tannin, and certainly not against future edits.

This argument is completely insane. I have no idea what you're even on about. john 23:13, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Quick Google Count
Just to clarify the google count issue concerning the names; "Papua New Guinea" 3.81 million "papua" 3.81 million "west papua" 46.8 thousand "irian jaya" 114 thousand "west papua" "irian jaya" 10.6 thousand
 * What this indicates to me is that less than one in one thousand people mis-spells 'New Guinea' ;-)

That less than 10 thousand sites use the term "Papua" for either "West Papua" or the PNG Territory of Papua; while over four times as many call it "West Papua". Also, when you factor in issues like journalism is not allowed, that US and other countries advise their citizens to avoid the area, that the Indonesian consider the name 'West Papua' as offensive and tied to the pro-independance movement; and that the official name for twenty years was "Irian Jaya". It's significant that only 104K sites use that long standing official name to the exclusion of West Papua. I submit yet again, that West Papua is the established common English name, as is also used by the various NGO and Government reports such as listed on the non-redirected / non-reverted version of the West Papuan Genocide page.Daeron 23:21, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * When you fake figures, try to make them at least internally consistent and not as obviously impossible as the ones above.


 * Real figure:
 * "papua" -guinea -"west papua" 378,000
 * --Wik 23:52, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * I can help you Wik, if that's the figure you got then for years you must have been getting Google pages in Korean, Indonesian, and other such languages. You must have been very confused; just go into your Google Preferences and select the English language. Doing your above search I get 388K not 378K, but if I check English language pages then I get 178K; the top three pages of which are:


 * Royal Paua Yacht Club in Port Moresby Papua New Guinea (PNG)
 * www.petra.ac.id which is filled with graphic buttons written in Indonesian which Google doesn't recognise as non-english; and
 * http://www.petra.ac.id/english/kti/irian/ which if you read their 'Overview' you will find says:
 * "Later, during the colonial rule of the Dutch, the Spanish name was changed and became known as 'Ducth New Guinea', which in turn became  'West Papua'  to be subsequently changed to ' West Irian' at the time of intergration with Indonesia, and finally she became known as Irian Jaya, the name by which this province is now known." BTW: it's the Kristen University in JKarakar Indonesia that's repeating that use of West Papua.


 * Hmm...sounds like they're using "West Papua" to refer to it from 1961 to 1963, at best.  john 06:10, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

So your search found 1) PNG; 2) Indonesian site that may be the Gold-kar political party site (judging by it's logo) or a registar (do you speak Indonesian?); and 3) a University that agrees the West Papuan government did vote to change the country name to West Papua in 1961. Thank you for proving my point; I'd never have found that Indonesian University info without your help.:) :) Daeron 05:51, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone disagrees that the Dutch-convened assembly voted to call it West Papua. The point is it's not called West Papua at present. john 06:10, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

By the way, +Papua +Indonesia -"west Papua" gives 2.7 million hits. john 00:01, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * John, IF West Papua is the common english term as I say, then your listing would target towards sites that gave place listings without enough text to explain who or where West Papua is; fair readers? Lets see your top three:


 * 1) Current local time in Jayapura - Papua - Indonesia
 * 2) http://www.alternatives.ca/article136.html - a 2 paragraph item
 * 3) USGS Earthquake Hazards Program: Earthquake Report: PAPUA ...
 * But I did want to see your search's first indepth page would say, it was next; a one page Luke Society Page article http://www.lukesociety.org/news/fall2003papua.html Daeron 06:32, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There are 550,000 hits for +Papua +Indonesia -"Papua New Guinea" -"West Papua". There are only 60,000 hits for "West Papua". john 00:04, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My search gives as top results...


 * , calling it simply Papua, Indonesia
 * , which seems quite sympathetic to the people of the province it refers to as Papua
 * , from the US Geological Survey, calling it simply Papua, Indonesia
 * a missionary group in the region, calling it Papua
 * another missionary group, calling it Papua
 * another missionary group, calling it Papua
 * , the world gazetteer, calling it Papua

And that's the first page of results. All clear references to the area as just "Papua". john 06:10, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

John, Actually I think you are sincere, and passionate in your beliefes. Just horribly unexperienced in what English speakers traditional call West Papua. If you were Australian or spent a few years here, you would not even imagine calling 'West Papua' by the name of the whole island.

Has it not occurred to you that it's the two Australians who've been saying it's called 'West Papua'. Now I know you're from Marylands and Pennsylvania and relay upon upon sources like Encyclopedia Britannica as your initial reference upon subjects you've not known about before; and that's all very good as a start. But you need to understand that locals sometimes know what's going on in their own backyard, even better than some encyclopedia or government report says. I don't know where Wik hails from; but I'm certain he is not familiar with Melanesia nor Australasia which are to two regions New Guinea falls into geographicaly and culturally; it is only natural to expect Australians would be more aware of New Guinea and events there, just as you would be more aware of the geography and events in Mexico or Canada than I would be. Did your local televison service news program have an item about West Papua last night, no?, well mine did. Common sense enough.Daeron 06:57, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If West Papua was not the commonly used English title for West Papua, why would a search at the Australian ABC News site return any results? ABC News search "West Papua". For the benefit of our international audience ;-) ; the Australian ABC stands for Australian Broadcasting Corporation; it use to stand for Australian Broadcasting Commission; it is the original government funded free to air radio and televison service; the 'BBC' of Australia I susppose, and using correct language is a very big deal for them.:)Daeron 08:35, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Daeron, I would imagine that the province is generally known as "Papua, Indonesia", as most of the references from the Google search I made had that, rather than just "Papua", which is, indeed, confusing. Second point - just because Australia calls it something doesn't mean that's the general English term for something. At any rate, considering that the name change to "Papua" occurred only two years ago, I would imagine that, when referring to the Indonesian part of New Guinea, it is probably still more common to say "Irian Jaya" than to say either of the alternatives - note that there are three times more results for "Irian Jaya" than for "West Papua". Also, it would make sense for Australian news media to be more precise than accurate, because the term Papua is ambiguous - it can refer to the Indonesian half of the island, to the southern half of Papua New Guinea, or to the entire island. "West Papua" clearly shows what is being referred to. But that doesn't mean it's the most accurate name. The fact is, that there is a province called Papua. Furthermore, given the new existence of the new province of Papua (or Irian Jaya) Barat, that is to say, "West Papua", which is not the same as the province under discussion, this term is ambiguous. So, Papua (Indonesian province) is both precise and accurate. "West Papua" is neither precise nor accurate, even if it is more commonly used. john 14:57, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * The actual Indonesian name for the region is Propinsi Papua, your title Papua_(Indonesian_province) is, neither precise nor accurate; but that "West Papua" is as you say "more commonly used" is relevant and suitable as the name used in an English language version of Wikipedia; I have no problem with the Wikipedia Indonesian version using the title Propinsi Papua where it would be better understood. But I think this edition of Wikipedia should used the name West Papua in accord with what every western news report and every NGO has called it for forty years, IMHO.Daeron 09:16, 6 May 2004 (UTC)