Talk:Papua conflict

The leading paragraph is heavily biased in favor of the Indonesian and Australian perspective
It leads with mentioning that guerrillas have targeted civilian populations with no mention or context that the government, with vastly superior armament, has also engaged in massacres, terrorism, torture, and bombardment of civilian populations as well at a far larger scale.

the citation is also from a western think tank that has clear business motivations to accept the Indonesian military line. 107.77.213.48 (talk) 08:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)


 * https://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/country-report-west-papua#:~:text=Since%201969%2C%20the%20Indonesian%20military,Papuans%20that%20amount%20to%20genocide.
 * for example, if the opening intro mentions the crimes and violence committed by separatists it should be site by site with the fact that numerous credible organizations consider the Indonesian military campaign to be a genocidal one and the sheer scale of the deaths and killings by the military versus the separatists needs to be in proper context. 2001:818:DCA6:A500:B012:8B47:DB66:674 (talk) 09:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of Fien Jarangga
@TarnishedPath Honestly, I like the previous version without her inclusion better sure Jakartapost is a reliable source. But why include only one person, especially the way the sentence is: 'women rights activists, like Fien Jarangga', its a generalisation for women right activists.

Also read again at the source anyway, Fien is mentioned once. The preceding sentence is also: 'a women's rights activist' meaning specifically only her. Not only that, she never mention support of Papua independence anyway just that they can pursue legal venue to verify pepera legality. I'd say, it can be a misrepresentation of her views, TIKI also never mentions support of Papuan independence too considering its facilitated by local papuan legislature and Indonesian national commision of human rights. Envapid (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


 * As you note, it's from a WP:RS. This whole article and especially the lede, in its present state, displays a heavy POV bias in the Indonesian favour and can do with the introduction with a lot of balance especially when there is a lot of WP:RS (in the Australian press and academic sources) out there which favour doing so. TarnishedPathtalk 00:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:RS and WP:DUE are different things. We can also include every single incident in the conflict in the lead section and every single other British MP that supports the movement, but we don’t. Juxlos (talk) 05:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @TarnishedPath, @Julos I think a failed verification tag will be appropriate here, if that statement isnt removed. Since the source did not explicitly mention that she supported Independence. Not to mention Fien Jarangga is technically part of Indonesian government, she is legal ad hoc team from 2023-2026 to advice on special autonomy laws formulation for DPRP, MRP, and Papua Governor. Working for Indonesian government or supporting special autonomy law for TPNPB makes you a target or traitor. It will need more reference of her saying explicit support, or that sentence is just assumption. Envapid (talk) 08:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * After having a closer look, I've decided to self-revert. However this article needs balance. The language used in this article displays a heavy POV. TarnishedPathtalk 09:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd say that the article is also heavily WP:UNDUE. Not enough WP:WEIGHT given to Papuan perspectives given the WP:RS that exist. TarnishedPathtalk 09:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok sure. Tbf, Papuan perspectives doesn't necessarily means support for independence movement. As is in many conflicts there isn't a strict dichotomy and definitely a spectrum, from Indonesian government supporters (Trikora veterans, BMP) to special autonomy supporters (PDP and the likes) to independence supporters (from moderate UlMWP to radical TPNPB). Envapid (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Casualties update needed a citation
A "new" editor tried to update the casualties in the infobox from at least 38 killed (2010 – March 2022) to at least 57 killed (2010 – December 2023), but did not provide a citation for the new information. So it has been reverted.

The old citation was to

if you do not know how to do a citation, try completing the following template, but giving the information for your source: It is a method of recording the URL, the title, the title translated into English, the work (name of newspaper or website), the date it was published (not the date you looked at it), and the first and last names of the author of the source. -- Toddy1 (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Infobox
Per Template talk:Infobox military conflict, "Supprted by" is deprecated. Per the final sentence of the closure of that request for comment, "However, these circumstances would be rare, and considering the clear consensus in this discussion the status quo should be removal; inclusion would require an affirmative consensus at the article". So "Supported by" can be removed immediately as reflecting current consensus, and it would be up to those wishing to include to obtain a fresh consensus for inclusion. Kathleen&#39;s bike (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)