Talk:New York Agreement

message: The text of this treaty (not the whole article itself) needs to move to Wikisource.  I'd do it myself, but guidelines are confusing and outdated due to language subdomains just added.  Telso 12:40, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Text of treaty to [[Wikisource]]

message: Article is much improved. Very nice job. Krgds, --KARL RAN (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nice Job 

message: The article now promotes the political aims of the NYA authors instead of dispassionately reporting the known facts.
The NYA was signed by three parties, RI KN and UN; there is nothing to support the article's claim that the "Third World" countries supported Indonesian claims, nor to support another claim by this article that the Netherlands & other UN members were claiming "sovereignty" over the disputed territory. The historical fact is that the Netherlands since 1948 via UN General Assembly resolution 448 had stated that the territory was a "colony", i.e. that the Netherlands did not have sovereignty but was administrating it until the people of the colony stated what their sovereign intention was.
The article fabricates a fantasy of a "historically poor relationship" when in fact the US had been supporting Sukarno since 1949, the first approach by Indonesia to the Soviets was by a General not Sukarno in 1957 who got a $250m loan from Moscow after Washington rejected the application for $650m that year; but the US then resumed aid to Indonesia the next year. Indeed during the 1960s apart from a few Soviet arms obtained from the 1957 incident most of the Indonesian armament was donated by the US. Likewise the Ford Foundation had been keen supporters since 1946 after starting their Jakarta scholarship program in 1945.
Next the article alleges "the New York Agreement was implemented" from 1962 to 1969 which contradicts all of the reports including the most recent which have looked into this subject. And then the article fabricates a fantasy UN resolution complete with citing a 84-0 vote, which indicates whoever wrote had access to the records but has decided to introduce his own fantasies in place of the facts. I assume the UN resolution the article is trying to con people into believing was an endorsement of the implementation of the NYA is UN GA resolution 2504 which certainly does NOT say whether the terms of the NYA had been complied with since 1962, see a copy of the text http://wpik.org/Src/unga2504.html
It looks like the article is in need of being re-written.
Daeron (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sad political job 

message: The current article is shockingly misleading by claiming & only claiming the motive for the NYA was US fear about Soviet influence. There are two conflicting published motives, the NYA document itself publicly alleges it is for benefit of the West Papua people, but the US record released in 1995 states the NYA was written for benefit of the United States. But the NYA was promoted by the NSC when McGeorge Bundy was appointed as the US National Security Adviser purportedly at request of Bundy's friend Robert Lovett who also had a directorship on the board of Freeport Sulphur which wanted to mine West Papua's gold & copper, a license it got from General Suharto in 1967 two years before the 'Act of Free Choice' designed by the officers of General Sarwo Edhi Wibowo.Daeron (talk) 09:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motives 

message: The reason for the revert appeals to have been a personality dispute, I dispute the content.
The New York Agreement was about the administration of a territory, it was an agreement with the United Nations approved in General Assembly 1752 (XVII) after the Dutch had been asking for the UN to administrate the territory since 1961. Those are facts, those are supported by the US State Dept records, by the UN records, and by the newspapers.
The reversion puts the article back into the hands of opinion alleged in the 'reference' books about the motives; my edit was based on the facts asserted in accessible undisputed published sources such as Associated Press (Sept 1961), and 124-128 of the 1962 UN Yearbook available at UN.Org
* The theory that the UN was "polarized" between "Third World countries, which supported Indonesia" and "Western countries, which supported the Netherlands" are not supported with citations; and the theory conflicts with the facts.
* According to the UN Yearbook the country opposing Indonesian administration was Senegal, and those abstaining from agreeing were Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Dahomey, France, Gabon, Haiti, etc. 
* The agreement was about the "political future" and did not end the Indonesian claim of sovereignty which was still in dispute. The 'New York Agreement' was a compromise between Indonesia saying it held sovereignty and the Netherlands saying since the 1950s the Papuans had a right of self-determination; under the settlement the colony would become a UN territory to then be administrated by Indonesia pending the results of an act of self-determination (by 1969). -- The UN General Assembly does not have power to declare sovereignty or settle other disputes between members. Sovereignty of any territory can only be decided by the people (in this case the "Indonesian Administration and Self-Determination" section of the agreement).Daeron (talk) 05:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: About your Third Opinion request. The Third Opinion project page says, "3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill. If no agreement can be reached on the talk page and only two editors are involved, follow the directions below to list the dispute." (Emphasis added.) Your request for a Third Opinion has been removed for that reason. All forms of dispute resolution at Wikipedia require thorough talk page discussion before seeking dispute resolution. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content dispute 

message: The explanation "Reverting POV edits from user with history of bias in editing." is inflammatory, a personal attack, and likely to incite a edit war.Daeron (talk) 01:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that why you reverted it without waiting for Davidelit to respond? --Merbabu (talk) 03:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting good-faith edit 

message: Much of the body of the article seems off-topic. The current "Background" and "Implementation" sections would be better in a different article. The current "Negotiations" section appears to be the 'background' to the agreement. Daeron (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Off topic 

message: I came here looking for the Bitcoin New York Agreement. Benjamin (talk) 00:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bitcoin