Talk:Papua (province)/Archive 5

message: Having spent the last hour or so actually going through and rereading all those fun discussions from 8 months ago, as well as the article in its current state (instead of, uh, writing the next draft of my dissertation proposal), I have come to the opinion that there is no particular need to do anything to the article.  In its current form, the article explains pretty clearly both the past and present status of the area, and explains about the existence of West Irian Jaya (which did, in fact, already exist at the time of our previous discussions, and was brought up in the course of them).  I see no particular reason to go and create six or seven new articles on this subject, when this article is perfectly good as both a general discussion of both the western half of New Guinea and of the specific province, as well.  john k 07:27, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's this all about? 

message: Here is a compromise. Daeron can move his version to West Papua article (instead of having that a redirect here), but leave this article alone as it is OneGuy 10:12, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: At least people coming to this article via a link from Indonesian related article would be spared from this nonsense. The "naming" dispute would be over too. As for his other POVs, we can still deal with that under that title. This doesn't mean he would be allowed to let his POV run wild. I especially don't like the title of his other article "Human rights violations ...." The title should be NPOV, like "Human rights in ..." He is currently banned for 24 hours for violating 3 rv rule, so let's see what he says when he gets back OneGuy 16:18, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise

message: I'm not sure why you think the articles should be merged.  While there is much in common, they are clearly on different subjects - the Western New Guinea article is on a larger area than this one.  More work on each article, rather than a merger, would seem to be in order. Also, I don't like these merge tags - why do readers need to know that somebody thinks the two articles should be merged? john k 22:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The two have a large amount of duplicate content and information.  If one article is supposed to be the political province, then it should stick with political information.  It can still include a summary and link to the regional information on the other page.  There's no reason to have two pages with 80% equivalent text on them. —thames 00:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I've removed the merge request.  After reading through everything, and doing some google-work, it seems as though these pages ought to remain separate.  However, I still believe that the content of the three related pages—Western New Guinea, Papua (Indonesian province), and West Irian Jaya—ought to be significantly differentiated so as to avoid user confusion.  Much like the content of Taiwan and Republic of China has been strictly separated, I think this Papuan trio could benefit from the same.  As far as I can tell, it would be best to put political/administrative information on the province articles, and more general cultural/historical/geographical information on the generic West New Guinea page.  You seem like you have a lot invested in these pages—would you help me out on this small project?  I'm sure we could get it well sorted in a day or two if we work together.  —thames 14:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Great.  I'm going to look through the various related webpages on this topic and see if I can't mock up a sort of content map (as is) and a proposed new content map.  If it looks good we can start cleaning these articles up once and for all.  —thames 16:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging 

message: Hello, just quickly one question. All other sources mention dec 1 1962 for proclaiming independence not 1961.
just some links:   - So what is the right date? cheers --195.33.105.17 16:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indonesian control 

message: Can I suggest an addition (perhaps to the Demographics section) covering the extent of use of various languages?  Don't know the topic well myself, so others may be in a better position to do this.  My uninformed presumption is that Bahasa is spoken officially and widely in towns; indigenous languages in villages and unofficial situations.  Is there a lingua franca apart from Bahasa?
Wantok 00:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Languages 

message: The user at IP address 130.130.37.6 has just twice made major changes to this article with no explanation or comment.  I reverted the first edit, requesting that the changes be discussed on this page first.  The user then simply reverted back to the first edit with no explanation.
I will not engage in an edit war over this.  User 130.130.37.6, you need to learn the ground rules of Wikipedia.  First things first: the three-revert rule.  You cannot just engage in repeated reverts.  If you continue to do this without explanation, you will not succeed - an admin will block you and/or the page will be semi-protected against anonymous unexplained edits like this.
Step one: Register so you have a username - that way people can communicate with you.
Step two: Understand that you will not get away with major controversial edits without explanation and discussion.
If I see no comment or explanation from you about your edits within the next 24 hours, I will take action.
Wantok 06:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wantok, i support completely your efforts to enforce wiki ground rules - such major changes are unacceptable without consultation or at least an effort to explain.  But we must keep in mind that this is a controversial topic and POV is unavoidable. But it can be handled better in this article. I do agree for example, with some of this phantom editor's removal of overtly POV anti-Indonesian points. HOWEVER, i do not support their replacement with just as overtly POV pro-Indonesian comments. Perhaps what this editor is reacting to is a sense i get in this article that POV is OK as long as it only supports the anti-Indonesian case and that any pro-Indonesian comments/links etc are "propaganda" that have no place here. It works BOTH ways. But once again, his efforts so far to rectify are not appropriate. When i get chance i will carefully try and express both POV "sides" with more balance. --Merbabu 06:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: UPDATE: Oh gawd, i just skimmed through all the previous discussion over 2 years. This one is a thorny article. --Merbabu 08:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed, this is highly controversial ground - which is why I wanted discussion or at least explanation.  I'm not saying all of the edits made by the user at 130.130.37.6 (i.e. someone at Wollongong University) were entirely unbalanced - some material about the governor and Papuan People's Council could be useful in the article, for instance - but the nature of the edits made, as a whole, smack of censorship and a pro-Indonesian government slant.  Most importantly, discussion with the aim of consensus - or at least compromise - is necessary when the subject is such a hot potato. Wantok 08:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for your consideration - something that 130.130.37.6 doesn't really show. But i would like to make the point that there seems to be an automatic reflex in this article (and others that he has been editing) that anything that reflects Indonesian Govt opinion has no place in these articles. I whole-heartedly agree that his censorship should not be tolerated, but it works both ways - in some cases the Indonesian viewpoint (correct or otherwise) has been chopped. In these articles where POV cannot be avoided, then both POV must be clearly stated fairly. Really, is a seperatist's viewpoint any less biased than an Indonesian army generals??? We are writing an encyclopedia, neither an Amnesty International web-site or TNI page. ;-) Anyway, something we shoudl think about. By the way, i am not directing this at you solely and personally Wantok (i am sure you are already aware of what i mean) but to readers in general. cheers --Merbabu 09:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems the anon user got blocked but is back as Ntut ("receive" in Javanese oddly enough). Although i sympathise with any frustrations he may have that on wikipedia anti-Indo POV is OK, yet pro-Indo POV is not, i have reverted already some of his work, and left a message on his user page that hopefully appeals to his better nature.  --Merbabu 12:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  unexplained major edits by 130.130.37.6 

message: Some of my recent edits...
* Within each section I have tried to put the undisputed facts at the start, and then moved the more controversial but unavoidable POV statements to the end of each section. This includes the naming discussion in the first paragraph.
* Removed quote implying strong central Jakarta rule over Papua because although it may not be incorrect, that quote was referring to ALL of Indonesia.  The article: . Furthermore, that article is undated but appears to be written in the late-1990s (for example it doesn’t seem to refer to anything past the mid-1990s – but there was a major program of power decentralisation across all of Indonesia, of which Papua was a major beneficiary – although implementation was not always perfect including Papua).  I did however rephrase that section to note the strong centralised control.
* Shifted promise of referendum – not appropriate in summary discussion on etymology.
* Tightened up etymology paragraph with the intention of providing some chronological order. Also, for consistency, undisputed put facts at the top, POV towards the end of the section (but in its own paragraph).
* The reference to the MRP talks about an “arbitraging” role. This seems to be a financial term, so I guessed “arbitration” was the intention. Please advice if this is incorrect.
* Changed poor (and arguably highly POV) interpretation of “ikut” to more accurate “follow/join”. See my comment on the etymology section of the discussion page for full explanation.
Merbabu
:Good edits, well done.  A pity that Ntut is still just repeating the same set of attempted edits without discussion. What you've done seems a reasonable and balanced approach. Wantok 13:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks - i didn't get to do everything but that is enough for tonight. ha, ha - I don't hold high hopes for re-education of ntut. But i left a message on his talk page. --Merbabu 13:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation of My Edits to Page 

message: The number indicated in the infobox does not tally. It amounts to 104.12%. kawaputratorque 16:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly reflects syncretism? --86.135.120.224 (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Religion

message: Kind of odd not to have one.
Burressd (talk) 11:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could someone write a history section? 

message: During the reading of papua province, it came to my realization about a section composed of a "proposed" province of papua, south papua.
It came to me as there were no citation, no references, no connection to any other page or article, and to the extent of failing in mentioning an individual. I'd like to know the eligibility of this section. Or possibly, i might delete it because of currently of baseless claims. And do please if you have any claims, talk. And add to the Wiki. Thanks. -(Mon, jan 11, 2021) Kaliper1 (talk) 03:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eligibility of South Papua 

message: As far as I'm aware, it's politicisation to refer to the UN-led, ostensibly democratic transfer of power to Indonesia in 69 as "annexation". Recommend changing to something more neutral.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.75.134.159 (talk) 12:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Annex*