Western New Guinea was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 14, 2004 Peer review Reviewed June 16, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed
	Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 18, 2005, and December 18, 2006.
Current status: Former good article nominee

This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Melanesia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Melanesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Melanesia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MelanesiaWikipedia:WikiProject MelanesiaTemplate:WikiProject MelanesiaMelanesia ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Indonesia High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IndonesiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate:WikiProject IndonesiaIndonesia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Geography High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Geography To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles. Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes Map : See Wikipedia requested maps Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places Stubs : See Geography stubs

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

In the history section of this article when discussing the New York Agreement the word "plebiscite" is used twice. Wiktionary defines plebiscite as meaning "A direct popular vote on an issue of public importance, such as an amendment to the constitution, a change in the sovereignty of the nation, or some government policy." I am a college undergrad but by no means super into law, or world history beyond a non history major's understanding but still this was a word/term that I had never heard of. Would changing the word to referendum harm the article in any way? Essentially what I am asking (because I am by no means an expert on Western New Guinean history) is does the word plebiscite indicate, explain, or contextualize the historical context of this specific plebiscite that would be lost by using the word "referendum" or the phrase "popular vote" in replacement of the current term (plebiscite) being used? I will leave this up for a couple days and then if there is no input I will be bold (WP:BEBOLD) and just change it.

Middle Mac CJM (talk) 02:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm not sure 'referendum' would be better because that definitely implies popular participation - which was the original plan under the New York Agreement. One of the Chambers Dictionary definitions of "plebiscite" is "an ascertainment of general opinion in any matter", which is arguably close to what actually happened even though it was by a small number of hand-picked representatives. "Referendum" in the Papuan context nowadays is taken to mean a poplar vote on independence, so it may be confusing to use it in the context of the Act of Free Choice. I would suggest keeping the wording as it is. Regards Davidelit (Talk) 03:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Davidelit! That makes a lot of sense and I now also agree that we should keep the term plebiscite. Should we add a brief sentence after it's first mention as to what that means or do you think the Wiktionary external link is sufficient? Middle Mac CJM (talk) 03:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Thanks for responding. I think it's clear enough. The same word is used across all the relevant articles. By the way, there have been many of these discussions about terminology in the Indonesia project - almost always in historical articles. It keeps the grey cells working... Regards Davidelit (Talk) 04:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]