Talk:Papua (province)/Archive 4

message: This article which has always been about Western Papua irrespective of which name you wish to call it; was about ten months ago against Wikipedia policy of using common English names, moved from 'West Papua' to 'Papua (Indonesian province)' in accordance with the Indonesian name.
As other people have pointed out; the region is no longer called 'Papua (Indonesian province)' by the Indonesians, but is a combination of the two Indonesian Provinces called 'West Irian Jaya' and 'Papua (Indonesian province)'.
As this article is about the combine region, commonly known as 'West Papua' and has extensive discusion & edit history ; I suggest this article should be returned to the name 'West Papua' to allow a different article about the current Indonesian Province to be written under the title 'Papua (Indonesian province)'. Does anyone disagree that this article is about western Papua, it's location, history, ecology, and other issues relating to it.; and not the Indonesian Province which a few months old.
Daeron 12:10, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Propose returning name to West Papua

message: I'm not going to revert again just yet, since the main concern I previously listed has been sort of addressed in the latest edit.  I will ask why Daeron is sometimes editing as Daeron and (from what I can tell) sometimes editing as an IP address.  Is this purposeful, due to negligence, or is the 211.IP guy not actually Daeron?  I will say now that I am pretty dubious about the other changes being made.  Firstly, I don't think we should say that it is believed that genocide is occurring there.  Who believes this?  Amnesty International (, ,) seems to report that the human rights situation in Papua is not very good, but nothing there suggests anything near genocide.  Looking up "Papua" and "genocide" in Google brings up a large number of results (~45,000), but I'm not sure this is a very good measure.  Surely the assessment of a well-known human rights organization like Amnesty should be worth more than the assessment of random websites of uncertain provenance.  The Allard Lowenstein Institute of Yale Law School  seems to have done a study that there is evidence of genocide.  This is more useful, but one report does not seem to me to be enough to carry the kind of narrative that is trying to be introduced here.  The report itself seems to rely on a holistic view of Indonesian actions over several decades to make its case of genocide.  This makes me tend towards thinking that the definition of genocide used here is a rather expansive one - the study itself states that no single act of the Indonesian government could really be seen as an act of genocide, but only looking at the whole pattern of Indonesian actions makes this work.  We should be very careful about the way we introduce the idea of genocide.  Certainly, the kind of low-level, long-term actions that the Indonesian government has been engaging in is quite different from the kind of genocide one saw in, say, Rwanda, or even in Darfur.  As to the material in the history section, I am quite dubious of the relevance of Papuan contributions to the allied war effort, and so forth.  The only purpose to these paragraphs seems to be to create a narrative of how the West Papuan people were betrayed.  john k 22:03, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If the article is to take the form of articles on other Indonesian regions (which seems best for this particular article), then perhaps the Ecology section can be moved to the New Guinea article.Apart from that, a good structure might be to start with information about the formal position of the province, and have a subsection on the independence/nationalist movement that would also discuss the varying views on the name, etc. There is precedence for this in the article on Aceh. I also agree with John K that the history section seems a bit long-winded and parts of it are of little relevance or are too-POV for this article. I would have thought that this article should have a relatively brief overview of the history of the area, which could be fleshed out in a separate History of Papua article if it was thought necessary. Also, while there are numerous External Links, the article is not well referenced, i.e. there are no references given within the article for the material presented, nor is there a good references section at the end of the article. Mistertim 04:30, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Current Form of the Article

message: As promised, I'm checking back in.
Daeron: above John gave an indication of what combination of titles -- and breakout of articles -- he would use for this and related articles. It would be very helpful if you would do the same. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:22, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
If people like I will add and amend my above listing of three titles.
*In accordance with other Wikipedia titles I believe the names should be:
:Papua Province, Indonesia -- a New title not yet written
:West Irian Jaya Province, Indonesia -- moving of current sub.
:West Papua -- current Papua (Indonesian province) returned to its original name with history & discussion pages intact.
:Papua -- current disambiguation page
:West Papuan Genocide -- page that separates that subject from the main West Papuan page
*In addition, I have LOTS more information I have been waiting ten months to expand the West Papua page with -- in all likely hood I will be splitting it into another new page or two.. But I can not name or make those until the root document is back into its easiest geographical name West Papua. I would greatly appreciate some cooperation on this. Thank you.--Daeron 02:09, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Daeron - could you explain briefly to me what you feel the purpose of your proposed West Papua page that would consist largely of the material on this page would be?  Would it be an article about a geographical region?  Or what? john k 03:09, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, I think this is basically correct. john k 18:39, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't find any of it particularly controversial. john k 18:39, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, I don't think it should be taken up here. john k 18:39, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming, redux