Talk:Papua (province)/Archive 3

message: Unrelated to all this irritating argumentation and reverting, is it correct to say that "the Papuans are Melanesian"?  Some of the things I've read suggest that Papuans are a different ethnic group from Melanesians, both of whom live in Melanesia (the Papuans being the group formerly known as "Negritos") john 19:01, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: On an entirely different matter

message: You have yet to provide any examples of an encyclopedia using the term "West Papua" as the primary way of referring to the region. There is an Indonesian province called "Papua". There ought to be an article on it. It was called "Irian Jaya" before 2002, and many sources still call it that. It is sometimes informally called West Papua, and is called that by separatists/nationalists. But that is not the official name, and to call it that is to take a POV - calling it by its official name cannot be POV. I have no idea about the Australian media - perhaps they call it West Papua. This would be a convenient designation to distinguish it from Papua New Guinea. But that doesn't mean it's correct. And you've yet provided nothing to support such a stance, except appeals to authority and claims that I'm ignorant. And constantly reverting the article (and reverting it to a very old version which has less, and more inaccurate information) does not help your case. john 16:27, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost every word of this has already been extensivly refuted; I shall again go through each if that helps.Daeron 06:14, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: John's Statement

message: Since several people have asked me to weigh in here, I guess I will.
:Whoever you are, thank you.Daeron
#It seems to me that, since this area is generally internationally recognized as part of Indonesia, the least POV title is the one it has: Papua (Indonesian province).
#:At google, or Wikipedia itself; a person looking for some article upon the country in question, which name are they likely to try? Wikipedia only responds to percise word matching doesn't it? Is it reasonable to assume people to guess the multi-part 'Papua (Indonesian province)'? I think it more reasonable that people would quickly try 'West Papua'Daeron
#"West Papua" should be a redirect to this page
#At the same time, a quick web search indicates literally thousands of web sites referring to this area, in the present tense, as West Papua. This strongly suggests that the article should feature prominently the contention over the name and the politics behind that contention. I would expect the name "West Papua" to appear within the first two paragraphs. I would expect a far larger section dealing with what is barely touched upon in the section "Papuan government in exile."
#:? Did you have a chance to see the version which they keep reverting over?Daeron 09:09, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoping we can take up issues one by one

message: A recent anonymous edit looks to me to be almost certainly good at least on some points, but it's extensive, anonymous, gives no citations, and was not summarized either in edit comments or here in the talk page. I would suggest that those who have been working on this article and consider themselves expert on the topic -- I am not -- have a good look at it. In particular, some material was deleted without explanation, which often suggests a political agenda. -- Jmabel 06:09, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
 meaning of Irian ==
Is there any basis for the acronymical supposed meaning of Irian?  It seems highly dubious to me, and it should not be in the introductory section unless it is true (which the article does not actually assert) john k 14:35, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: A recent anonymous edit...=

message: "reverts" should be avoided where possible; and efforts at reasonable discusion attempted instead of attempting to undo other people's work without attempt to understand it.
For example, the genocide is very well documented at the link West Papuan genocide provided; the person who 'reverted' did not even read the article he was reverting. He also removed the corrected map; links to several UN documents confirming other new information which had bee added to the article.
This POV Revert also removed two new paragraphs of information about the history of West Papua during the 1950's and what was happening at the time of the Indonesian invasion. It also removes important improvement of a third paragraph including the inclusion of US documents verifying the article.
Please reframe from using "revert" or unexplained removal of information unless there has been a concensus reached supporting it.211.30.95.182 07:08, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Undoing POV Revert