Talk:Human rights in Western New Guinea

earlier comments

Titles added to clarify page. Statement: Original article written 17/Apr edited by Daeron, Tannin, Wik (marked as Minor edit he re-wrote the introduction 18/Apr), Daeron, Roisterer, Wik on 24/Apr MOVED article about reported incidents consistant with those the Yale Genocide Document lists as creating such an environment -to- "Attacks in West New Guinea" which would be a different but overlapping subject. Since then Wik has deleted and replaced the contents of the current article some ten times.Daeron 07:04, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Initial thoughts before writing page

I think a separate article is required for listing known accounts of state sponsored homicide of Papuans in West Papua, or which ever name Indonesia wishes to call the country this month.

I have looked at Mass_killings and List_of_massacres but the Papuan list would swamp these in number of incidents; likewise their inclusion in the 'Papua' article would make it totally too large in my opinion. I therefore think a separate listing which the other articles can point to would provide the optimal balance. I've written off-line a revised history section for 'Papua' but at ten paragraphs I'm already concerned about size.

The first set of references would be the reports currently available at http://www.westpapua.net/cases/hr/report1/ and the Yale report on the genocide. It must be respected that due to the jungle nature of the country, that Indonesia has closed borders around it and does not allow free journalism; that any events without survivors can not be reported, and those that are normally take a number of months to get out of West Papua. It is the nature of scenes of genocide that the offending authorities do not admit actions and do not provide photographs nor written accounts of their killings. As such one must weigh the credibility of various witness accounts for oneself. Daeron 20:11, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Would it be an idea to put the listing in a table format? Date, Number, details.Daeron 22:18, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Response to Tannin Name Change

Tannin changed the title from Papuan Genocide to West Papuan Genocide. Daeron agreed it was good idea to clarify that the Yale University Study only refers to issues happening on the Western half of Papua the Island; or as the local population and human rights NGO refer to the area, West Papua.Daeron 07:04, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Response to Wik Renaming Article

The title of "West Papuan Genocide" was decided upon because they are acts against Papuans who live in the western half of New Guinea. no matter what name the occupying military regime wants to use to mis-direct people wanting to lookup the subject. Not all acts of genocide are 'attacks', when they forcably moved ten thousand highland Papuans into a lowland camp which resulted in them all dieing from lowland diseases within three months... that was not an attack. When the Indonesians put theSwiss journalist into prison for unauthorized journalism, that forms part of the human rights violations and is integal to the genocide programs; but is not an attack.Daeron 04:55, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Then call it Alleged human rights violations in West New Guinea. --Wik 12:56, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Wik, at least to a certain extent. I don't think we should be throwing the term "genocide" around too carelessly. I suggest moving this to a less strident title, perhaps Human rights in West Papua. A careful copyedit would not go astray either. Tannin 15:54, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer, I relay upon the professional knowledge and judgement of the Yale University Law School in putting their name upon the report and its head of School who decided to place it into the public arena and promote it. Read the Yale University newspaper about its release. The term genocide has been used VERY carefully, with consideration, and formal legal opinion. Where the term gets used without such care has been the middle east and some European countries where single incidents were taken out of proportion and the newspapers started shouting Genocide and ethnic cleansing. In West Papua, the reports are not isolated, have continued for forty years during 4 Indonesian governments; have likely, though not assurdably until open access is possible, already eliminated every member of some unique cultures. And lastly, a comparison between East Timor and Papua would alone give grounds to expect the TNI of conducting precisely these kinds of operations.Daeron 03:19, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wik, read the covers, perhaps even the contents? of the external documents listed. The country has been called West Papua by everybody excepting Indonesia since 1960.Daeron 03:19, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Everybody eh? Gee, I wonder then why the Britannica doesn't even mention it as an alternative name, let alone as the primary name. --Wik 03:26, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

This is your great source of information about West Papua? What did the 1998 Edition of Britannica say about East Timor? Why would the owners of the Sears Tower wish to upset the US government by pointing out that its beloved trading partner and receipant of US Aid monies was a brutal genocidal militant Islamic bigot government? BTW: I've known several Indonesian people, lovely people, friendly, wouldn't hurt a fly, no bad intentions. But if you bother to learn about who was ruling Indonesia for the pass five hundred years, the Dutch were mostly only administrators, the local social elite of Java itself were the ones forcing the rest of their own population into service for hundreds of years; who jumped at the oppertunity to make profits with the Japanese Empire, who took power after 1945 so they could prevent the democracy movenemts of Java & Sumarta from doing so, who committed the coup of 1965 and kill between 250 and 750 thousand of their own people in a purge. What does your Britannica say about that? My 1971 edition still did not mention the coup or the hundreds of thousands dead. This is WHY you've been deleting the hard research of people like Tannin and myself?Daeron 04:01, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

...a brutal genocidal militant Islamic bigot government? What do you mean with that? All militant islamic in Indonesia organization call their goverment infidel ruler!!! Brutal, uhm, yes. Genocidal, are they? Islamic, none at al!19:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

What a cute conspiracy theory. Shall we try another encyclopaedia then? How about Encarta, with its article titled Papua? Or the enyclopedia.com (Columbia Enyclopedia) article titled Papua? The latter is not bad; it does mention West Papua as an alternative name, describes factually that "Many Papuans objected to the annexation" and speaks of a "military crackdown on independence supporters", though of course not of a "genocide". In any case, all enyclopaedia articles you can find describe the territory in the first place as a province of Indonesia, not as a "disputed territory" or anything like that. Can you find just one encyclopaedia that has its article at "West Papua"? --Wik 04:42, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

Are you saying your intent is that Wikipedia should only consist of copy and pasted content from other encyclopedia? That Wikipedia should not have original content from authors, the which is what Britannica and other encyclopeadia pay authors to submit.Daeron 07:04, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Issue

Wik keeps deleting this article and replacing it with a REDIRECT to his article about some other subject. Daeron 07:04, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Request

This is the Talk page for West Papuan Genocide - a genuine article about a a genuine and extensive situation in a region the report and others call West Papua; which is also the common english name for the region in question (see discussion bottom of Talk:West Papua). Some persons took objection to any mention of the term West Papua, and began an edit over the article and removing any occurrance of the term in Wikipedia.

I have requested the article Human rights violations in western New Guinea be deleted so that Wik will STOP replacing this article with a REDIRECT to that other article.Daeron 11:36, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Ga, they're the same article. The West Papuan Genocide article was moved there, and now you've decided to start pasting it back here and reverting. john 16:18, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Article title

Look, if you want to move the article, put in a request for a page move and see what the consensus is. Quit pulling a cut and paste move. john k 16:57, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Even the "human rights violations..." is POV title. The article should have a neutral title, like "Human rights in ..." OneGuy 01:30, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Title

We should have NPOV title. You can discuss your POV in the article, but don't move the POV to the title OneGuy 09:51, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Assessment

This article has serious issues -so still a stub - please help cleanupSatuSuro 07:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Alleged

"...alleged human rights violations..."?! Alleged? Are you serious, Merbabu? Gob Lofa (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I take editing wikipedia very seriously. See WP:NPOV. --Merbabu (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I have seen it. What's alleged about the torture video? Gob Lofa (talk) 00:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The article is not about the torture video. However, let's look at the two sentences that do mention the video:

In October, a video emerged apparently showing Indonesian soldiers kicking and abusing accused separatists in Papua. The Government admitted responsibility,[1] but said that the soldiers acted contrary to policy, and acted to discipline the soldiers in court.[2]

Where's the problem? --Merbabu (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is the characterisation of human rights violations captured on film as "alleged". Gob Lofa (talk) 16:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

the only use of the word "alleged" with relation to the video is to refer to the "alleged separatists" since the references say they are claimed to not be separatists. On the other hand, the article states that the govt confirmed they were military men. No where does it imply that the video was a hoax or whatever. Please be more careful so as not to waste more time.--Merbabu (talk)

Be assured of my care. As you might remember, that wasn't where you restored the word "alleged". You restored it at the beginning of the article, thereby tarring all of the listed violations with the same brush. Less charitable people might consider your referring to another use of the word in the article as time-wasting, but I shall give you the benefit of the doubt this time. Gob Lofa (talk) 23:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Your charity is much appreciated. Great to see it resolved. --Merbabu (talk) 23:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what resolution you're referring to. Can you defend the characterisation of the events in the video as an alleged human rights violation (as per your edit), or not? Gob Lofa (talk) 00:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That section is arguably the best of a woeful article as I pointed out above. Instead of splitting hairs, maybe you could do some work to clean up the rest. --Merbabu (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: Nevermind, I started the cleanup. I removed unreferenced, non-article style (ie, timeline style info), and irrelevant/tangential material. I also removed the word “alleged”. --Merbabu (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)