Talk:Republic of West Papua

comments
Hey this is a separatist group. According to Indonesia-Dutch agreement in 1949, this province belongs to Indonesia, not a separate republic. . Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 15:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that the western half of New Guinea wasn't included in the agreement, as it remained under Dutch administration as Netherlands New Guinea until the early 1960s. Nyttend (talk) 03:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This page isn't written with neutral language, it is very much state propaganda. - unsigned by 120.136.5.183 (talk) 07:28:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Merger Proposal
Basicly the two entities are the same, the current separatist movement promoted by Free Papua Movement etc. to form soo called Republic of West Papua is an old idea to revived the Netherlands New Guinea, the flag, anthem, etc is exactly the same. It should be placed in same article of Netherlands West Guinea, that the current RWP is just a revival of the proposed state that ceased to exist in 1960s.Gunkarta (talk) 08:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. I don't think these two articles should be merged, because the one about Netherlands New Guinea is about a part of Netherlands under colonial rule, and this one is about a separatist proposed state. Yeah, these "countries" are connected, but the political state is very different. Dorelexy (talk) 05:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This and the the anon account are almost certainly socks of User:Xangguro. All based in Russia. --Merbabu (talk) 08:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, Merbabu, I am the same person with Xangguro. Dorelexy (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI Sock puppetry and multiple accounts is forbidden in wikipedia community. The action is put a huge questionmark on user's good intention and neutrality. Back to topic, the Republic West Papua is just a reappearance of a failed decolonization of Netherlands New Guinea and have no real official recognition, no valid and centralized political organization whatsoever. Many small unsignificant parties are claiming as "the official representative", "president", etc. Suspectedly just opportunist peddling separatism sentiments for personal political gain. It should not be exagerate and put beyond proportion as the RWP is a real entity. Citing the blog-like so-called separatist movement official site is doubtful either. My suggestion is merge this article with NNG and put RWP in a chapter as an effort to reestablish Netherlands New Guinea, nothing more. Gunkarta (talk) 16:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Gunkarta, you say that in RWP there are "Many small unsignificant parties are claiming as "the official representative", "president", etc." It's not right. After the National Congress III (few days ago), some leaders of these parties were jailed by Indonesian government. These organizations were mostly closed after getting their politicians jailed. The only parties left were WPLO (I am representative of it in Russia), KNPB and WPNLA. And all these parties made a coalition at 25th October. So, now West Papuan separatism is much more united and serious than it was before. Dorelexy (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Netherlands New Guinea is a historical article. The Republic of West Papua would presumably never belong to the Netherlands (which is a kingdom to begin with) but instead might become an independent state. Of course one could copy suitable history related material from the NNG article to RWP SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 18:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Not Currently an Unrecognized State
West Papua does not exist as a recognized, partially recognized, or unrecognized state. Those who fignt for its independence currently have no control over West Papua. It is entirely under Indonesian administration. The rebels did at one point have control over some of the island, but they do not anymore. Because of this, it is a former country. Please do not change the infobox again. Fighting for independence is not the same as being de-facto independent. End of Story. Toolen (talk) 01:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

UNPO map
please take a look at the map again. Both current and former members are on the map. Current members are denoted by a flag and former members by an orange dot. Below the map you'll find a list of "Current Members" and "Former Members" and West Papua is listed under the latter. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , Huh. Very odd that it doesn't have an end date but you're right: the text below the map clearly lists them as a former member. My apologies. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The entries for individual members (past or present) are sometimes quite incomplete on the UNPO website. I checked the entire list once and simply couldn't find all dates for each member. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for being patient with me and for improving the encyclopedia. Very strange that their data integrity is so low. They seem pretty haphazard. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

“Our close friends”
In the second paragraph of the introduction it states: "the Parliament of Vanuatu passing the Wantok Blong Yumi Bill (Our Close Friends) in 2010".

From what I have found, an alternate name of bill was the "Our Common Peoples' Bill". I believe this was the intended information but as it currently stands, this sentence is poorly worded. Benmsch (talk) 15:09, 13 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Add a citation and fix that, please. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not a native speaker of the creole but believe it says "Our Wantoks belong with us", its a claim of solidarity. Wantok = a person of your people/tribe/friends, sometimes referring to blood relation but often a friend with whom you share advocacy for something. Blong = Belong, and Yumi = us.Unfortunately if I recall correctly the Act itself (the legislation) is a deception, the title pretends it supports West Papua but the text forbids any future Vanuatu parliament tendering any motion about West Papua to the United Nations unless the MSG agrees first (which gives Indonesia five nations which can block such future Vanuatu actions). It was created just after the OPM wrote a draft UN General Assembly motion in June 2010 that the Vanuatu parliament unanimously endorsed until the PM changed his mind the next day. There were claims a Indonesian sponsored energy company had quickly negotiated a new venture on his home island, but like so much in the region its unlikely to be reasonably proven one way or the other; so just a rumour though it could explain why he overrode the parliament. Although Vanuatu originally had a copy of the Wantok Blong Yumi Bill online, it and other legislation were removed at a later date; so verifying what it says is also problematic.Daeron (talk) 03:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Needs ce
Particularly when it says “the name”. 82.36.70.81 (talk) 20:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)