Talk:Western New Guinea

Contentious info on independence referendum presented as fact

The article says:

"The Act of Free Choice ... was truly the opinion of the West Papuan people without any external intervention."

This statement has no citation and seems to be in heavy dispute. For instance the British newspaper The Guardian calls the referendum:

"a UN-sanctioned but discredited ballot ... in which barely 1,000 West Papuan representatives selected by Indonesia cast votes under threat of violence."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/06/jeremy-corbyn-on-west-papua-uk-labour-leader-calls-for-independence-vote

I understand that a statement isn't removed just because it has no citation, but doesn't this need to be looked at again?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.154.221 (talk) 19:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Official English name

The title "Western New Guinea" as oppose to its legal "West New Guinea" English name, "Irian Jaya" common name from 1973 to 2001, or "West Papua" common English name since 2002 is a Wikipedia invention by editors driven by political agenda and edit war instead of objectivity. BOTH the Indonesian and Netherlands governments used "West New Guinea" in their joint international agreement, https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20437/volume-437-I-6311-English.pdf Daeron (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I've been going through the contemporary sources (newspapers and then secondary analyses): prior to around 1962 'West New Guinea' was the dominant usage in English, occasionally 'Dutch New Guinea' or 'Netherlands New Guinea'. No one used 'Western New Guinea' as the name of the region. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s Indonesian sources refer to 'Irian Barat' (West Irian), and some use 'Irian' to refer to the whole island. Only during the Suharto period, and particularly after 1969, does 'Irian Jaya' seem to have come into general usage. The Indonesian use of 'Papua'/'West Papua' comes after 1998 (but the former is confusing since it could also refer to part of PNG). Adrian Vickers (talk) 06:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

"The only Indonesian territory situated in Oceania"

If the Weber or the Wallace lines are taken as the boundary between the Asian and the Australian continents, Western New Guinea would not be "the only region of Indonesia situated in Oceania" (emphasis added). 112.120.39.24 (talk) 09:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

But the consensus here is that they aren't, so it is. Regards Davidelit (Talk) 09:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

What about, e.g., Trangan and the rest of the Aru Islands? Which continent do they sit on? 112.120.39.24 (talk) 08:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Stop talking about Oceania. It is not a continent. It is a name written in large font on old maps, as a region, but was never well defined, and has fallen into disuse. Australia (continent) is a continent. Zealandia is a submerged continent. Western Papua New Guinea is part of the Australia. Introducing Oceania serves no purpose and is confusing. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Edited. This reduces the excessive verbosity of the lede, and further improvement in concision of the lede would be good.

Oceania was not mentioned anywhere again, so this makes it particularly unworthy of the lede.

— SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

1945?

Before 1950 the Republic of Indonesia was a constituent of the United States of Indonesia, to which the Netherlands handed over Dutch East Indies in 1949. Dutch New Guinea remained Dutch until the early 1960s. The line "Following its proclamation of independence in 1945, the Republic of Indonesia took over all the former territories of the Dutch East Indies, including Western New Guinea." is therefore not entirely accurate. 112.120.39.24 (talk) 09:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)