Talk:Free Papua Movement
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Moving this page
editI'm going to move this from Organisasi Papua Merdeka to Free Papua Movement, in keeping with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). Further, that's what it's called in english-language media, based on the number of hits in the past year in LexisNexis:
- "papua freedom movement" - 1 article
- "papuan freedom movement" - no articles
- "organisasi papua merdeka" - no articles
- "papuan independence organization" - no articles
- "free papua movement" - 110 articles
- "free papua organization" - 47 articles (so I'll make a redir for this one)
- Cdc 19:45, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Correcting Errors
edit1. I relay upon Dr John Otto Ondawame that the creation date for the OPM should be 1965.
2. the article has stated OPM has "both armed military and more diplomatic branches"; this is misrepresentative IMHO.
- First of all OPM has only endorsed diplomatic & non-violant efforts for over twenty years.
- Second, the groups who had maintained the use of traditional weapons for defence only purpose; had also agreed to non-militant efforts as was re-affirmed at the OPM 2004 national summit- and they repeated it in English for the English language observers.
- Third, Dr Ondawame as the appointed OPM Internation Representative, has never in 25 years gone running through any street with a gun or other weapon; he has instead spent 25 years asking the US & other governments to repay their moral debt to West Papua by supporting its fight for independence and freedom.
3. You remove all mention that it is NOT just the Papuan people who state that a) Indonesia is a colonial power, b) the "Act of Free Choice" was a stage event by the Indonesian & US governments to deny West Papua's independence, c) that genocide and other gross human rights abuses have been and are being conducted by the Indonesian military and government, and d) that the irrelevant claim by Jakarta that Papuans somehow shared some kind of 'link' with Jakarta was both total fiction and insulting.
- We have NGO & government documents, eye witness accounts, recordings, and extensive research studies confirming each of these; if you wish to dispute any part of #3, specify which item.211.30.95.182 04:04, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
P.S. Please appreciate I have spent five years checking the facts. Your slapping a 'POV' label which is meant to infer "unreasonned POV" ; is what it is.
I welcome reasoned discussion of any point; however as the tactics of the Indonesian & Corporate interests to discredit the Papuan People is to label them as simple "primitives" and ignorant . . . it is a very emotive and upsetting thing for you to just likewise - even if unintentional.
As I say, I believe I can back up any point you wish to question; happy to certify only the facts are stated. And I will state again what was probably the most bold statement; West Papuans do not share race, religion, ecology, history, language, or culture with Jakarta (before the invasion) (not that any of that would have justified the invasion in any event- it was just insulting to the Papuan people that anyone was allowed to get away with claiming it in the western world).211.30.95.182 04:51, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I am sorry if you felt my revert was offensive in any way -- I did not so intend it. I have no desire to perpetuate any negative stereotypes about the Papuan People (and harbor no such stereotypes myself). When I called the edit POV, I did not intend to indicate that I see your opinion of the plight of the Papuan people as "unreasoned". It is probably a very legitimate perspective, and one which, were I better informed, I might share with you.
- The issue is Wikipedia:NPOV. The edit you made replaced language that was neutral with language that clearly indicated a belief that the Papuans are "right" and the Indonesian government is "wrong". We avoid such characterizations as a policy on this site. I have no doubt that you have superior facts to what is currently presented in this article -- you certainly know the topic better than I do. What needs to be done, then, is for you to add information to the article while carefully citing where it comes from. For example, if you want to make it clear that many non-Papuans believe Indonesia perpetrated genocide, cite an example -- tell us that the UN passed a resolution stating so, or that the New York Times called it genocide, or any similar example. In that way, Wikipedia does not take a position "Indonesia committed genocide" but merely reflects a neutral, factual position: "these three sources call Indonesia's work 'genocide'". It is difficult to write this way, but it is necessary to learn it to contribute here.
- I also want to apologize. Normally when I revert an edit, I leave an explanatory note on a talk page -- I was interrupted after reverting your edit, just as I was coming here to explain myself, and I haven't been able to check back until now. I assure you I will do what I can to keep that from happening again. I encourage you to read the article on NPOV and make your edit again with modifications such as those I have suggested. I promise not to revert it, but rather to make some alterations to it so that we can work together reach a result that tells the truth while remaining neutral. I hope you will agree to try compromising with me to reach this goal -- I am very interested in the facts you have to offer this article. Thank you for contributing, and for being so open and polite in your comments here. Jwrosenzweig 06:19, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[No Title]
editFirst sentence "(...)which is currently under Indonesian control as the provinces of Papua and West Irian Jaya"
should be corrected to "(...)which is currently under Indonesian control as the province of Papua (former Irian Jaya)"
- That's not accurate, because former Irian Jaya province comprised of today's Papua province AND West Irian Jaya province. There was a split. --Khoikhoi 19:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
OPM Disarm
editI dont have time to integrate the following information into the article, but it's here for anyone who's interested. Papua fighters promise non-violent future http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1699050.htm 130.195.86.37 05:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks I hadn't read this. I appreciate the heads-up. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 12:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Quote
edit"The Free Papua Movement (OPM) is not the all-pervasive revolutionary organization some believe it to be. ... anti-government dissidents have virtually no liaison with each other, receive no outside assistance or direction, and are generally incapable of mounting an insurrection in the face of the relatively large Indonesian military establishment in West Irian. Grievances and anti-government of Indonesia (GOI) sentiment are quite real, however, and there is little question that a great majority of the non-Stone Age Irianese favor a termination of Indonesian rule. Opposition to the GOI stems from economic deprivation over the years, military repression and capriciousness, and maladministration. Limited efforts of the GOI to rectify these problems to date are generally "too little and too late," and it is uncertain whether the Indonesians will actually try to ameliorate the sources of local discontent in coming years. ... The Free Papua Movement (OPM) is widely believed to be the core of opposition to the Indonesian Government in West Irian. But it is difficult to track down the OPM as an organization, although not because its security is tight or people unwilling to talk. On the contrary, everyone talks about the OPM; it has few, if any, secrets, and many Irianese proudly proclaim they are "members" of the OPM. A foreigner travelling in West Irian has no difficulty in contacting anti-government activists. They stop you on the street and groups of them gather around when you visit a native village; in short, no one is reluctant to discuss the OPM and their reasons for disliking Indonesians. One American missionary explains this by saying that "the Papuans simply are unable to keep a secret." Of course, information known to foreigners is also available to the Indonesian authorities, the Army, and even to the most casual observer. ... Regarding the magnitude of the opposition to Indonesian rule, probably a decided majority of the Irianese people, and possibly 85 to 90 percent, are in sympathy with the Free Papua cause or at least intensely dislike Indonesians." - U.S. Ambassador Francis Joseph Galbraith (1913-1986) June 1969
I don't mind having quotes, but this is simply too long, and is being used instead of writing an article. See WP:Quotation on proper usage. Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
POV attack
edit
Some of the information deleted on the article during the last edits borderlines vandalism. I understand the article may have some issues of original research, but that is not solved with more original research.
For example,it is a known fact that some entities question the validity of the referendum regarding the integration of Papua. A source is provided for the United Nations views on some irregularities. As long as the challenge is presented as a claim, there is no POV violation. It is in fact a matter of bad faith to justify with a lack of source when one is fairly familiar with the case. This fact was presented with the expression "...many Papuans and representatives of foreign governments, claim the result was rigged by the Indonesian Government."
Other edits are plain wrong in their justification. We are free to point in the external links section to videos on youtube regarding the topic of this case. This is not a documentary. There was no copyvio. The youtube is able to detect such problems by itself. The object in question is some clips taken from the news for the purpose of public discussion.
Also, the question of raising the morning star flag as the sufficient condition to be persecuted by law is well supported by the sources. It is in fact the description of the act as "agitation" that renders the subject POV.
Other edits are more of a question of the editor's style. Describing the organization for Papua as an indigenous rights organization that is fighting for self-determination is perfectly legit. I reverted the edit, given the overall goals of the editor.
I believe these edits were simple done in ill faith, and we need to discuss this further. Maziotis (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- Please do not accusse good faith editors of vandalism or of "ill faith". Do you need a link to the policy on assuming good faith? If you cannot assume good faith, then there's no point in a "discussion". --Merbabu (talk) 23:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- Your hard and indiscriminate revert has removed well referenced and cited info. Please restore the removed referenced info as a minimum. --Merbabu (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- The edits that you reverted did not "solve original research with more original research"; it solved original research with sourcing. The characterization of OPM as a separatist group, an anti-globalization group, and a terrorist group (I intentionally left the last one out because I know such designations can be controversial) were attributed to sources like the Global Terrorism Database and the Federation of American Scientists. Your preferred characterization of OPM as an "indigenous rights organization", by contrast, is definitely not the phrasing of reliable sources. The YouTube uploader of the BBC clip is simply not the BBC, so it does look to be a copyvio. If you have a problem with a word like "agitation", then you can change it to something like "demonstration". All these issues can and should be discussed separately, as the only glue that holds them together are your unfounded aspersions. Quigley (talk) 00:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Further, hard reverts of Quigley's edits (which were substantial and far more extensive than what you've described above) are not constructive. If you want to change, then tweak Quigley's edits - preferably with discussion. Don't throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater - especially, when you are throwing out referenced content and re-adding unreferenced content. --Merbabu (talk) 00:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- The edits that you reverted did not "solve original research with more original research"; it solved original research with sourcing. The characterization of OPM as a separatist group, an anti-globalization group, and a terrorist group (I intentionally left the last one out because I know such designations can be controversial) were attributed to sources like the Global Terrorism Database and the Federation of American Scientists. Your preferred characterization of OPM as an "indigenous rights organization", by contrast, is definitely not the phrasing of reliable sources. The YouTube uploader of the BBC clip is simply not the BBC, so it does look to be a copyvio. If you have a problem with a word like "agitation", then you can change it to something like "demonstration". All these issues can and should be discussed separately, as the only glue that holds them together are your unfounded aspersions. Quigley (talk) 00:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Question
editDoes this group want to join with Papua New Guinea (and thus unify the entire island of New Guinea under one flag) or do they seek to become an independent country (in which case New Guinea would be a bi-national island, like Hispaniola)? Difluoroethene (talk) 01:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
They intend to "refuse all kinds of modern life" and "development" as well as aid from "religious groups, aid agencies, and governmental organizations". They explicitly say "Just leave us alone please". The OPM's fundamental goal is self-rule combined with a return to a traditional mode of life. They doesn't necessarily want to be a part of PNG but as a whole new one. Source: http://www.start.umd.edu/start/data_collections/tops/terrorist_organization_profile.asp?id=4023 Akbararief (talk) 07:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Whoa, I'm no expert, but I think that quote was several decades ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.195.95 (talk) 09:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
OR, Citation tags
editI've removed the two banner tags from the article as, to a casual reader like myself, this appears to have regular citations to reliable sources, and I saw no explanation on this page for the tags. Perhaps they're just a bit out of date? In any case, the article seems advanced enough that inline "citation needed" tags would probably do the job for remaining dubious claims. If I'm wrong, though, please feel free to revert me. Cheers Khazar (talk) 07:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
support from Libya under Gaddafi
editColonel Gaddafi supported the Free Papua Movement.
the time, the Libyan government was reportedly providing military or other support to the East Timor Liberation Movement, the Kanak Socialist National Liberation Front (New Caledonia), and the Free Papua Movement (Irian Jaya) as well as to Muslim guerrillas in the Philippines.
Page 18
COLONEL GADDAFI'S shadowy international revolutionary organisation Mathaba, established in the Libyan capital of ...Hassan di Tiro himself makes the crucial decisions, and runs a personal network of contacts with the liberation movement leaders Libya supports, among them Jacob Prai of the OPM (Free Papua Movement) of West Papua and Yann Ce- tene Uregei of New Caledonia's Kanak radical faction,
Page 120
In the past year Gaddafi's agents have offered arms and cash to rebels in Papua New Guinea, encouraged an aboriginal separatist movement in Australia, shipped weapons to dissidents in New Caledonia and tried to open an office in the
More sources
editthe time, the Libyan government was reportedly providing military or other support to the East Timor Liberation Movement, the Kanak Socialist National Liberation Front (New Caledonia), and the Free Papua Movement (Irian Jaya) as well as to Muslim guerrillas in the Philippines.
Title Pacific Islands Monthly, Volume 59 Publisher Pacific Publications., 1988 Original from the University of Michigan Digitized Sep 15, 2008
Page 18
COLONEL GADDAFI'S shadowy international revolutionary organisation Mathaba, established in the Libyan capital of Tripoli and dispensing funds to liberation movements around the world, is run by a most unlikely radical. Tunku Mohammed Hassan di Tiro, a Sumatran prince, fervent Muslim and bitter opponent of Indonesia, is the chairman of Mathaba's political committee.... Hassan di Tiro himself makes the crucial decisions, and runs a personal network of contacts with the liberation movement leaders Libya supports, among them Jacob Prai of the OPM (Free Papua Movement) of West Papua and Yann Ce- tene Uregei of New Caledonia's Kanak radical faction,
In an exclusive interview with Pacific Islands Monthly, at his headquarters in Tripoli, he outlined Mathaba's organisation and aims for the Asia Pacific region. The Mathaba Against Imperialism, Racism, Zionism and Fascism, to give the front its
the various independence movements active across the Indonesian Archipelago, including his own Aceh Sumatra Liberation Front. "We are making advances against Indonesia, both on the ground and diplomatically, with Fretilin (East Timor Liberation Front), the OPM, the Republic of the South Moluccas; we are all one.
Title Pacific Islands Monthly: PIM., Volume 59, Issues 1-10 Publisher Pacific Publications, 1988 Original from the University of Virginia Digitized Apr 8, 2009
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,964515,00.html
Page 120
In the past year Gaddafi's agents have offered arms and cash to rebels in Papua New Guinea, encouraged an aboriginal separatist movement in Australia, shipped weapons to dissidents in New Caledonia and tried to open an office in the
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Free Papua Movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070708033307/http://www.insideindonesia.org/digest/dig02.htm to http://www.insideindonesia.org/digest/dig02.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Political POV
editI am removing the word "secede" which is a political POV. I am instead using the description of being "decolonisation" movement which is factual. Logically the OPM or Free West Papua movement formed in 1965 could not be a succession movement from the 1969 Indonesian political claim of sovereignty. The movement continues and appears to have always demanded decolonization and self-determination; there does not appear to be credible evidence that the movement views its intent as secession. Please note that I refer to the Indonesian assertion as a "political claim" because the Republic has never made a claim of sovereignty to the Court (ICJ) or inside the United Nations since 1962 when it legally abandoned all claims to the territory by signing a trusteeship agreement and voting in support of General Assembly resolution 1752 to approve said agreement.Daeron (talk) 17:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Free Papua Movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140712173908/http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter12.shtml to http://un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter12.shtml
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120411004451/http://us.nasional.vivanews.com/news/read/302631-ditembaki-opm--pesawat-trigana-tabrak-rumah to http://us.nasional.vivanews.com/news/read/302631-ditembaki-opm--pesawat-trigana-tabrak-rumah
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
"trans migrant"
edit"On 21 January 2012, armed men, believed to be members of OPM, shot and killed a civilian who was running a roadside kiosk. He was a trans migrant from West Sumatra." What is a "trans migrant"? This possibly implies something that is not meant. The word "trans" does not appear in the linked article (which is in English, not Indonesian). --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 16:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hi. A participant in this scheme: Transmigration program. Regards Davidelit (Talk) 23:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Papua New Guinea is an opponent to Free Papua?
editI've never seen them express a desire for West Papua to stay with Indonesia. vap (talk) 12:42, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
2021 Resistance to Indonesia heating up
editSept 9 2021 reported in newspaper Link label Pro-Independence fighters from the West Papua Independence Liberation Army (WPILA) killed four Indonesian soldiers in a military post in Maybrat last week. Other regencies where WPILA have attacked Indonesian soldiers since 2018 are Intan Jaya, Puncak Jaya and Nduga. Seems like a slowburn going on here, I wonder if the WPILA gain enough power to shut down Indonesian power stations and mines ?
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
infobox "supporters" and "allies"
editI don't think that these countries/others should be listed in the infobox without description of their support (or otherwise) in the main article. And certainly not without a reliable source. --Merbabu (talk) 10:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)