Talk:Papua (Indonesian province)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Melanesia, which collaborates on articles related to Melanesia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
 |
Papua (Indonesian province) is part of WikiProject Indonesia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. Please do not substitute this template.
|
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
|
|
|
Contents |
[edit] Archived talk
[edit] Etymology
Is there any reason to believe that "Ikut Republik Indonesia, Anti Nederland" is an actual etymology, rather than a "back-formation", a slogan devised to reflect an existing name? [1], refers to "the false assertion that… [Irian] had been an acronym for 'Ikut Republik Indonesia Anti Nederland"; I'm not sure how citable that is, though. [2], also not particularly citable, says "Irian may be an abbreviation for ikut Republik Indonesia Anti Nederland". [3], maybe marginally more citable, says "Irian, a Biak word meaning hot land was co-opted by Indonesian nationalists as an acronym, Ikut Republik Indonesia Anti Nederland"; it doesn't make it clear whether that cooptation led to or followed the adoption of the name. [4], probably the most citable thing I can find online (it's an op-ed piece in Asahi Shimbun says "In annexing West New Guinea, Indonesia avoided the name New Guinea, which the Netherlands used, and called it Irian, which means 'sun' or 'red hot' in the local language. However, the name was also given a political connotation during the operation to recapture West New Guinea during the early 1960s as the acronym for Ikut Republik Indonesia, Anti Nederland (annexation to Indonesia, anti-Netherlands)." This would seem to suggest that the acronym came after the fact. - Jmabel | Talk 22:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- the indonesian word "ikut" has a number of very similar yet depending on the context completely different meanings. The most common meaning is "accompany", "go along" or "follow". As in "ikut" to a birthday party, or "ikut" a car in front, or indeed follow another country over another. Any indonesian can tell you this and these meanings in the context are perfectly innocent. ie, papua follows, goes along with, or joins Indonesia. Yet the translation offered here is "submit". As a very competent Indonesian speaker (albeit non-native) i don't remember coming across this interpretation yet (i could have and just forgot) although i just looked it up in the most reputable of Indonesia-English dictionaries and I did notice "obey" as the LAST meaning after 1/2 page(!!!!) of other more innocent meanings. So it just goes to show how POV an intepretation can be. "join" INdonesian and "submit" to Indonesia are two extremely different interpretations of the phrase "ikut Indonesia". cheers. --Merbabu 08:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the work guys! I always wanted to know the scoop on that one! Dysmorodrepanis 01:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] unexplained major edits by 130.130.37.6
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
I've just made an edit to the Government section that reinstates (with some minor polishing) a section added by the user at 130.130.37.6 - the paragraph about the governor, the legislature, and the "Papuan People's Council". This seems worthy of the article, and is useful encyclopaedic information. Wantok 09:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- 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. [5] --Merbabu 12:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Explanation of My Edits to Page
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: [6]. 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.
- 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)
- 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)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Coatarms papua.gif
Image:Coatarms papua.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- All uses of this image have been replaced by the PD version from commons, so the file may be deleted.--Bwmodular 16:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Religion
The number indicated in the infobox does not tally. It amounts to 104.12%. kawaputratorque 16:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
