Opothleyahola

This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Islands This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands 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.IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject IslandsTemplate:WikiProject IslandsIslands articles 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 articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Melanesia: Papua New Guinea Top‑importance 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 articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Papua New Guinea (assessed as Top-importance).

The statement that New Guinea is the fourth highest landmass doesn't make sense, or at least it isn't backed up by figures. The link only shows that it ranks fourth in landmasses sorted by their highest point. That fact is more obscure and confusing than it is useful, and I suggest removing it. DPoon 08:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's totally obscure. move to geography or delete entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 17:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the statement, but kept it, to Geography. DISCUSS FIRST. Don't just revert.TCO (talk) 13:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an issue in particular with where it (i.e. Mt. Jaya data) goes, but the problem as I see it is that the introduction really seems quite lacking following your edit. I think the Wikipedia guideline is that the intro section should basically summarize the content of the sections below it, so given that there should be something on political divisions (done), people (not done), biodiversity (not done), history (not done; could be mentioned in passing), and then geography. (Cannibalism is there as well, but this should be moved to go as a sub-section to "People") Looked at in terms of simple structure, I think some changes should be made as it seems a bit out of order. The geography section really should probably be moved up. I'd suggest this: 1. political divisions; 2. geography; 3. people; 4. history; 5. biodiversity/ecology, but I reserve the right to change my mind once I see how this looks.

As for how to mention the highest landmass bit. I don't especially like that phrasing either, but it is a significant fact that NG contains the highest mountains between the Himalayas and the Andes, and that needs to be mentioned prominently. I think a sentence saying (something along the lines) that "New Guinea is the world's highest and largest tropical island" gets the point across. Pressing the point further, other statements such as NG has 12% (or whatever the exact number is -- don't quote me on that as I'm going from memory) of the world's existing languages -- and that between 5 to 12% of the world's species (ditto) despite being only 0.5% of the earth's land surface are relevant and suitable intro material. Abundant sources are available to substantiate these statements. Arjuna (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those sentences would be great. I think they would be better than the one wierd snippet aof having the 4th highest mountain. Although I do think the intro is sufficient. And the section headings are right next to the intro and the article itself is not super long. But whatever.TCO (talk) 13:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make some changes when I have the opportunity. For the record, the guideline at WP:LEAD says: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless must not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. The lead should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article." So this suggests that the lead section needs to be fleshed out a bit (though I think four paragraphs may be overkill). Cheers, Arjuna (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This entire section has hardly anything to do with New Guinea and doesn't need to be

here. Suggest consult Human migration topic.

JohnBurton 00:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bushmen are not the same race as other Africans; there was no mention of the Veddoids or Melanesians; for this reason I substituted a reference to a paper on the Veddoid population. It mentions evidence for Veddoid people in Southwest Asia, India, China, and Australasia as well. (unattributed)

It's not terribly helpful/useful to delete text and simply insert a reference in its place. The root peoples of the so-called "Veddoid" peoples are the San bushmen. I refer you to Spencer Wells' recent DNA investigations that traced San (possessors of the oldest known human DNA on the planet) DNA directly from the San to the Tamils/Dravidians in southern India and then on to Australia in an effort to pinpoint human migration patterns out of Africa. It reinforces what pan-Africanists/Afrocentrists have been saying for decades. It is also why I, as an African American living in a multicultural, multinational community, am constantly mistaken for an East Indian/Bangladeshi. And that is precisely why I wrote the passage as I did. deeceevoice 08:54, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted (and tweaked) the text. The revision is simply incorrect. deeceevoice 08:40, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A source: Oceanea Ethnology: Melanesia

"The basic population [of Fiji] is Negroid, a tall, dark-skinned people with broad features and a mop of black, woolly hair who at an early period occupied the whole area from New Guinea to Fiji. At the present time, they exist as a people inhabiting the western three-quarters of Papua New Guinea. Elsewhere they had been modified through the migration through the southeast of New Guinea and the island chain of Melanesia, of those Indonesian folk who became the Polynesians and the Micronesians." deeceevoice 08:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Many laypeople have old-fashioned thoughts when it comes to anthropology. Modern genetics has proven that Africans and Aboriginal Australians are genetically farthest apart, despite their superficial resemblance. Read reliable books such as The History and Geography of Human Genes by Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza. All modern humans are believed to have African origins, of course, but that doesn't mean Aboriginal Australians are genetically closest to Africans.

Here is an excerpt from Homo sapiens sapiens, the true, modern human:

Australian aborigines are genetically the most distant from the Africans.

See also Ice Ages and the mitochondrial DNA chronology of human dispersals: a review, which provides several good maps of human migration, and see carefully that Aboriginal Australians are descendants of Asians with the M and N types of mtDNA.

Deeceevoice, you probably misunderstand Spencer Wells' studies. The followings are excerpts from National Geographic's article Documentary Redraws Humans' Family Tree:

In his [Spencer Wells'] view, the early travelers followed the southern coastline of Asia, crossed about 250 kilometers (155 miles) of sea, and colonized Australia by around 50,000 years ago. The Aborigines of Australia, Wells says, are the descendants of the first wave of migration out of Africa.

and

Wells says a second wave of hominids left Africa around 45,000 years ago, reproduced rapidly, and settled in the Middle East; smaller groups went off to India and China.

Isolated by mountains and the sea for many generations, and exposed to a colder climate and less sunlight than in Africa, the Asian populations became paler over time.

Since Asians went out of Africa later than Aboriginal Australians did, the former are genetically closer to Africans than the latter are. The current version describing New Guinean people as Africanoids is simply incorrect. - TAKASUGI Shinji 08:04, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's just silly. And, no, I haven't misunderstood Spencer Wells' findings. Genetic "proximity," if you will, is not about timelines. It is about when and how distinctly/widely mutations occurred from the "root stock." Clearly, physically, Asians are quite different from indigenous African peoples, who obviously closely resemble not only the Australian aborigines, but the Papuans, as well. The genetic mutations of Asians over time and the resultant phenotypical differences make them a population distinct from Africanoid peoples. Put an Asian in the middle of, say, Namibia, and they'd be immediately recognizable as foreign to the land. Do the same with a Papuan, and there would be no such recognition. They are black-skinned, look identical to black Africans and their descendants the world over and have woolly, nappy hair. deeceevoice 16:21, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are repeating the 19th-century anthropology, which incorrectly relied mainly on physical appearance. Today, anthropologists agree that DNA is more important than color of complexion. Thinking Papuans are Africans is just silly. People in a tropic region should have dark complexion to avoid UV, and that's all. This article needs more attention from real anthropologists, to remove the error the current version has. - TAKASUGI Shinji 16:46, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)

Further, Spencer Wells' DNA tests reveal distinct linkages between the San bushmen, the Tamil/Dalit people of southern India and the Australian aborigines. Nappy hair and black skin are definitively black African/Africanoid phenotypes. Anthropologists generally concur that the Africanoid Papuan peoples reached New Guinea via a land bridge connecting it to Australia that became visible after a climate change that caused sea level to drop. The Southeast Asians came by sea from the north. What this article needs is objectivity -- not fiction that makes no sense whatsoever. IMO, you can't simply pull black-skinned, nappy-headed black people out of the air (actually, I was thinking about a part of one's anatomy, but I'm being polite) and call them Asians. Your link claiming that "Australian aborigines are genetically the most distant from the Africans" sounds intriguing -- and ridiculous -- enough so that I will take a look at it. (I'm trying to remain open-minded.) But I'm crunching a deadline at the moment and won't be able to get to it immediately. Peace. deeceevoice 17:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Takasugi, I've come across some additional information, which may shed some light on our disagreement. One source I consulted focused on the Australian land bridge. Another focused on additional routes of migration from Southeast Asia as being the first. In each case, however, the oldest waves of migration into New Guinea were characterized as "Negrito" in phenotype. (There's no secret that Bantu-like black peoples were the first inhabitants of these areas also.) Is the general consensus that the first humans in New Guinea came from the north? I haven't had a chance to read up on this widely, but here's a passage I came across (it mentions sea and land-bridge approaches from the north):

Although modern Australian aborigines and African Negroes are regarded by Westerners to be similar in physical appearance, serogenetic and DNA analysis seems to indicate that Negroes and Australians are the two least related peoples in the world [a fact which echoes your point]. Genetically the Australians and Melanesians seem closest related to Southeast Asians. Arguably, black Asians/Australians may have originated in Africa in prehistoric times, but if we count them as African, we should count most Europeans as Asian because Indo-Europeans purportedly migrated out of Central Asia, and by extension, all humans as African, since we all came out of Africa. But since modern Eurocentric views judge race by phenotype and not genotype, a discussion of black achievement can include non-African black civilizations in order to refute European stereotypes of color=destiny.

Of course, the prehistoric "African" (phenotypically/genetically) presence in Asia is fairly widely accepted today -- but I suppose it's still convenient/easier to assume a more direct route from Africa to Australia to Papua than from Africa to Southeast Asia to Papua. It certainly was for the author of the article I found.) But that, of course, doesn't make it the only route, the first route, or even the predominant one. But assumptions being what they are, I think it important to come to the truths of this matter and to use precise language. If it is, indeed, correct that the earliest wave of migration definitively occurred from the north, then it is also important to note that these migrants were also "Afro-Asiatic," apparently being an offshoot of black African "root stock" that mutated/evolved in isolation over the centuries, producing peoples who are phenotypically closer to black Africans, but also who are genotypically more related to other (Afro-Asiatic?) Asian peoples," generally. That may sound awfully complicated; but it's certainly more accurate, given that most people's reflexive/stock images of "Asians" are, phenotypically, pale-skinned; sloe-eyed peoples with straight, dark hair. Tell me, any info regarding which Asian groups the Papuan DNA more closely resembled? (I realize this may be in the article link you provided -- which I will get to; I promise.) deeceevoice 12:35, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm fine with a longer lead (although think the existing para is already very good and contains geography info). Talking about the 4th highest mountain in the lead is just mentioning an obscure factoid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 14:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There must be quite a few native (non-Indonesian) names of the island (or land). Jared Diamond (2005), btw, has a nice treatment of the highland's agricultural practices. A-giau 23:34, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

we could source some info from the world fact book

Since the island of New Guinea includes two different countries, please see the articles Papua New Guinea and Western New Guinea for the separate economy sections. --Hottentot

Can someone fix my citation format for Jared Diamond? It's in the history section, tenth paragraph. I just can't get it right.

Steve

I think I fixed it. Let me know if I did it right. --Khoikhoi 07:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the source for the information that the Torres Strait flooded so recently, around 5,000 BCE? Theshibboleth 21:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The map of New Guinea (New Guinea.png) that has just been placed at the start of the article is very old and shows Dutch names such as 'Aroe' for the Aru Islands, and 'Hollandia' for Jayapura. If it's going to stay in the article it might be better in the history section (perhaps accompanied by a discussion of Dutch colonisation, naming, etc). In my opinion the first map in the article should be as up-to-date as possible. Dougg 00:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've moved it down to the "History" section, and noted in the caption that some of the place names are old. But I wouldn't be sorry to see it go entirely, especially if it can be replaced by a map that shows current place names. Especially in its "colorised" form, it's not particularly historic or beautiful. CDC (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't there any reference to cannibalism here? It seems worthy of at least a mention

-Justforasecond 23:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the Canibal stories realted to New Guinea were mostly lies

Maybe that fact should be mentioned, as Papua New Guinea, like it or not, is best known in some parts of the world for supposed cannibalism.

According to Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs, and Steel, cannibalism may have arisen in New Guinea due to the scarcity of sources of protein. The traditional crops, taro and sweet potato, are low in protein compared to wheat and pulses, and the only edible animals available were small, unappatizing ones such as mice, spiders, frogs. Cannibalism led to the spread of kuru, until the Australian administration outlawed the practice around 1959. DPoon 08:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Section added. Justforasecond 19:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"unappatizing" Really? Do they know this? 170.173.0.1 04:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Most of the Canibal stories realted to New Guinea were mostly lies". That statement is dogma in some schools of anthropology. But talk to Papua New Guineans, and many will readily acknowledge that their grandparents, parents or even they themselves have eaten human flesh. MarcusCole12 04:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I lived in the Fore valley, the diet was mostly sweet potatoes. In a year, the only bird I ever saw was being chased downhill by a man with arrows. You try living on an almost exclusive diet of potatoes for 20 years, and then tell me what your opinion is of "ritual" canabalisim. In my opinion, Mad Cow disease and a lot of KJ cases wouldn't have happened if so many people hadn't been pretending that kuro told us nothing about prion disease transmission

Why does "New Guinea Man" redirect to this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.239.81.107 (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should we mention the volcano, Rabaul caldera? --Uncle Ed 15:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone recently requested citations for the following statements in the "History" section:

Western agronomists still do not understand all practices, and native gardeners are notably more successful than most scientific farmers.[citation needed] Some authorities believe that New Guinea gardeners invented crop rotation well before western Europeans.[citation needed]

I agree these are unsupported and need authoritative reference. No informed person doubts that agriculture in New Guinea was, and remains, a sophisticated endeavor, but the statement regarding success, as well as crop rotation, seems suspect to me. At the same time, this paragraph should mention that archeological evidence is conclusive that agriculture arose independently in New Guinea at the same time as in Mesopotamia (10,000 BP, i.e. 8,000 BCE), and thus New Guineans were certainly early innovators. As for crop rotation, I don't know -- someone with greater knowledge please jump in. Aloha. Arjuna 01:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There you go

I did not research the matter in depth, but found that Jared Diamond said so in "Collapse". So I put that in as a reference. Unfortunately, I only have the german edition at home - so could anyone with access to the english edition put in the apposite page numbers? --82.207.244.205 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can anybody advise under what rule was the Territory of New Guinea in the 1950 >.E.G Britsh,German,Dutch etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.88.57.1 (talk) 00:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The "Territory of Papua and New Guinea" (which included the area covered by the earlier "Territory of New Guinea") was an Australian-governed territory in the 1950s. See History of Papua New Guinea. Wantok (toktok) 03:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LETS ASSUME THE NEW GUINIA ARE AHEM ASIAN. BY THAT NOTE ALL PEOPLE CONSIDERED "ARABIC,INDIAN ARE DEFINED AS NEGROID HAVING THE CLOSEST RELATION TO THE AFRICAN BLOODLINE BEING AFRICAS FIRST DECSENDANTS THEY MAY NOT LOOK LIKE NEGRIODS BUT THEY ARE CLOSEST GENETICALLY SOOOOO WHERE WE GONNA GO WITH THIS NEXT? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.45.86.8 (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT?!?!?!?! --Kurtle (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am researching the for the different languages spoken in png and have been informed of a Pigeon language where and how can i obtain this has anyone heard of it and is it spoken in png? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.235.179 (talk) 01:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this information really update? Are there really uncontacted tribes and unexplored land? It seems kinda weird. 17:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.210.0.19 (talk)

• Oppose merge The other article Indonesia–Papua_New_Guinea_relations left AFD as a KEEP. Now I see a merge discussion on it. The nominator has not yet posted why they think it should be merged. Does anyone here believe any information that is over there now, should be copied over here? Dream Focus 14:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oppose--this article will be mu h too large if the material is merged. Furthermore, The practical merge if any would be into a ciurrently non-existent article, Foreign relations of New Guinea--but even so, it would have to be merged twice, into Foreign relations of Indonesia as well. Since the proposed merge is both inadequate and impractical, the article should be left as is. DGG (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose merge - The New Guinea article is not the place for the border/relations with Indonesia - there is considerable online amount of material about border crossings, refugees and the political issues of the relationship to expand the article for who soever wishes - it is a well detailed issue that needs work - not merging into an article that is not the prime focus SatuSuro 02:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. This may seem ignorant but why would an article concerning two countries be merged into an island? It is politics versus geography which doesn't seem to make sense... I can't imagine this happening in the case of Ireland/Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland or Great Britain/England/Scotland/Wales... and I don't think the United States would merge any of its content into North America either... --candle•wicke 17:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I don't get it. Why would we merge? Is there any explanation of why we would merge? GIven that there is no apparent explanation and apparent universal objection to the idea, I'm going to remove the merge tags. If a good explanation is provided, then they could be reinstated. --Merbabu (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS, there is no reason why the "relations" cannot be mentioned here in brief with a link to the relations page. But that is not the same as merging. --Merbabu (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the section on Plebiscite/Act of Free Choice is unclear. As I understand, the Act of Free Choice was not a plebiscite, so I'm clarifying that. If someone has UN documentation and can cite the process that took place, that would be appreciated. ShearBlue (talk) 06:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An unsigned editor has been repeatedly trying to insert material about the retreat of NG glaciers that I suspect is tendentious in nature. He quite appropriately added a "request cite", which I did, and now seems insistent on adding a qualifier that the glacial retreat has been since the mid-19th Century. This may be true, but this date is highly speculative and based on the one paper I added as a citation. The fact is, scientific understanding of the glacial history is very incomplete, the first actual measurements having been taken in the early 20th Century. (The first Western scientific visit to Puncak Jaya was c. 1910, but the first aerial photographs were not taken until the 1930s.) Therefore, while it is quite possible that glacial retreat has been occurring since the mid-19th Century, this is speculative and glaciologists acknowledge this. I added a second citation that refers to glacial retreat having taken place "since 1936". The point is that no one quite knows exactly when the retreat began, and to add ostensibly definitive claims about when it did is incorrect. I hope the unsigned editor will refrain from making further edits on this until the science is dispositive. Arjuna (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Verifiability, not truth". We editors are explicitly prohibited from adding our own interpretation of sources. This is called either Synthesis or Original Research. If your source explicitly and in no uncertain words tells about "retreat since mid-19 century", it isn't our right to omit this bit of information. Your heated tone ("dickering" isn't a very nice word in my corner of the Globe), by the way, hints on your strong POV and I don't appreciate the tone. To sum it all up, until you find another source timing shrinking on NG glaciers, "19th century claim" stays in the article. 206.186.8.130 (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, 206.186.8.130, and I'm glad to know you understand the principles of the site. It's unfortunate that you found my use of the word "dickering" as a "heated tone", but where I come from the word "dickering" is actually rather mild. (One "dickers" with an auto dealer, but this is not a hostile or invidious act, and indeed the entire point of dickering is to come to an agreement on price.) I invite you also to consider that challenging the good faith of another editor, as you have done by suggesting I have a strong POV, is generally frowned upon here unless there is evidence to back it up. My edits have been entirely consistent with WP:V, and indeed the most rigourous application of verifiability would be to not have over-reliance on any one source. In this instance, such caution is especially warranted because the science and history of the glaciers is rather poorly documented. However, to make this point clearer, I have indeed added a third source. I trust this should be sufficient where the second one wasn't in your opinion, as indeed it is now the most well-cited statement in the entire article. Cheers, Arjuna (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ignorance displayed on this talk page is unbelievable and it makes the page on Papua (New Guinea) unreliable. For starters the name of the island is Papua (as evidenced in its common use by both PNG and Indonesia as the name of the island. For second, there are a large number of ethnicities living on Papua Island, including: Melanesians, Polynesians, Papuans (who are related to Australian Aborigines) and Austronesians. Thirdly, any talk about genocidal oppression of West Papua is historical and is not current. It is in fact an overstatement of even the historical case. Yes there were massacres committed by the Indonesian Military State but were never designed to wipe put the Papauan people. This entity (the Military Regime) no longer exists, Indonesia is now a stable democracy. Even though Western Journalists are not permitted to enter West Papua, there is no restriction on Indonesian journalists. Indonesian Media is completely unrestricted and they do report all sides of the story. To be honest, West Papua is a very stable place, there are currently incidents where a small group of separatists attack police and other workers, but there was a recent protest of Papuan natives against the actions of these people demanding protection because the separatists were shooting at their buses on the way to work. There was footage shown on TV here in Indonesia (NZer living in Indonesia) of Indonesian soldiers protecting native Papuans in a shoot out with rebels. There are also occassional battles between villages or tribes, but that is Papuan on Papuan and an indication that life goes on much as normal there. The Police act as mediators in these cases. We see more of the reality of news here than people do in the West, we are shown very graphically what is happening and its not sanitised like Western news is. The restriction on foreign journalists in Papua is because they are biased and tell lies (let's not forget what the Australians did to the Aborigines, nothing like that is happening in Papua). Given that the population of West Papua is 2.7 million, and the population remains overwhelmingly indigenous, I think it's safe to say that a death toll of 100,000, while terrible (if true), does not account for 1/6 of the population and these deaths occurred in the context of a military regime which was also responsible for the deaths of more than 2 million Indonesians and East Timorese of all ethnic groups, none of which is happening now. I know many West Papuan people, most of them like being part of Indonesia because there are many benefits to this in the current environment. And yes there are problems and yes it's illegal to raise the Morning star flag and blah blah blah, but the Malay kingdoms had colonies in West Papua before the Europeans even thought of leaving Europe so its not the way you think it is. 114.79.55.90 (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)-Peace, Love and Mung Beans brothers and sisters, Tim[reply]

1) Yes there are really still uncontacted tribes, it's the world's second largest island and has a lot of remote and inaccessible areas, especially in West Papua.

2) The language is called Pidgin, in PNG they call it Tok Pisin. It is mutually intelligible with Bislama in Vanuatu and Solomon Islands Pidgin. It uses mostly English based vocabulary with simple Melanesian grammar and logic 114.79.55.90 (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Tim[reply]

3) The 2005 population of New Guinea was 6.4 + 2.7 = 9.1 million114.79.55.90 (talk) 20:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Tim[reply]

Indonesian occupation of East Timor.μηδείς (talk) 23:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first edit I made here was adding Malay archipelago into the infobox, due to its being already present in the text (I did not originally add it). The subsequent edit undid everything. A couple more edits went back either way, and then I made an edit to remove mention of the archipelago from the first sentence, instead replacing it with information about continental plate. This is the current edit:

New Guinea is a large island of the Australian continent. It is located in Melanesia, north of Australia in the Southwest Pacific. It is sometimes arbitrarily considered part of the Malay Archipelago^[1], although it is geologically, culturally and environmentally different from the other islands included.

The "Arbitrarily" comes directly from the source provided, not my own words. I personally feel that the information about the continent is the most important part, and thus should be in the first sentence. This should hopefully also reduce contention. Anyway, that's an explanation for why I made the lead the way it is. Hope it was useful. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes me as an odd coincidence that the net effect of the recent revesions is to push the view that New Guinea is not in Malaysia, that rather it is part of Australia.

According to scholarly usage and the popular scientific press, the continent to which Australia and New Guinea belong is Sahul. This is consensus usage by scholars. While the usage of Sahul is well defined, the use of the name Australia is not. There is no problem also calling this greater Australia. But readers of an encyclopedia should be introduced to the current scholarly usage.

Merbabu is correct that the lead of this article is not the place to argue the propriety of calling NG part of the Malaysian Archipelago. Saying that New Guinea lies to the east of the Malaysian archipelago is perfectly NPOV. It is not an assertion that it is in Malaysia. It is absurd to have an article which does not say where the island is located. μηδείς (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is arguing that it is in Malaysia, rather, but almost as silly, that it is part of the (just as silly) notion of a Malay archipelago. Firstly i removed it from the 2nd (or was it even the 1st?) sentence, then removed it from the lead. Until wikipedia came along and well-meaning editors with Google tried to give MA equal billing with, for example, the entities of Europe and Serbia, the MA was a colonial term, who's remaining use seemed to be limited to some biological and botanic uses - which stemmed backed said colonial era uses anyway. Oh - and I forgot to mention use amongst Malay Malayasians supported by their governments official nationlistic efforts. Interestingly, the MA concept is barely known, let alone endorsed, amongst the 240 million Indonesians, ie the overwhelming majority of the supposed region's "population". As for use with regards to New Guinea: "sometimes" and "arbitrarily" indeed. --Merbabu (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care what we call it, but NG needs to be located for readers geographically. Whatever you call them, NG lies to their east. The political history of the name is not really relevant, given that it is in general usage. If there is some other generally recognized name for the islands that you want to use, that is fine. μηδείς (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd say between SE Asia and the country of Australia, or similar. However, I'd also say that either way the article is looking a whole better for your last few edits. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Guinea is part of the floristic region of Malesia, which is (as far as I know) not a colonial relict, but a real biogeographic unit. Ucucha 18:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For inclusion:

File:TNG map.svg

With everyones' permission, I would like to add New Guinea Singing Dog to the "See also" section. Thank you, osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 18:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that's not so problematic that you have to ask permission.μηδείς (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is it relevant? If it is relevant, then it would have place in the text. If it has no place in the text, then why awkwardly shoe-horn it into a See Also? --Merbabu (talk) 06:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

God, it's not like dogs are unclean or anything.μηδείς (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

huh? Are u taking the piss? Try and be serious.

Are u going to list all animals in NG?? If not, why is the singing dog special? No one has explained why they should go in. --Merbabu (talk) 20:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, Oldsingerman20, it is easier to ask forgiveness than permission. Go ahead and make your edit if you will.μηδείς (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lots of discussion of process but still nothing on content - ie, no explanation of why this would benefit the article. --Merbabu (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idiom you may have been looking for, Merbabu, is "Are you shitting me?" not "Are you taking [a] piss?"μηδείς (talk) 22:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, who doesn't like dogs? I wonder if you are simply a rabid anti-Caninite?μηδείς (talk) 22:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious omission from the See Also is New Guinea's Novopsocus magnus. One of the great wikipedia articles, for one of nature's greatest living creatures. --Merbabu (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Singing Dog clearly doesn't belong in the See Also on this page, IMHO. Perhaps relevant as an edit of Fauna of New Guinea (but again, not just pasted into See Also). Wantok (toktok) 13:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is linked in the first paragraph. So it does not need to be in the see also. (and a mention in the lead is too prominent a mention anyway). --Merbabu (talk) 03:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And a very nice link it is too! Didn't mean to step on toes here. Believe me, I know what it's like fighting off the vultures. If anything were added about Singing Dogs it would need to be something that would enhance the article and draw people to the article. Pray allow me to follow up on one idea that has been suggested. I will be back in touch in a week or so. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 06:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, A big "thank you" to whoever added the photo of the puppies on the steps. A nice bit of Singer history. To clarify, it's a picture of a Singer litter whelped on October 20th, 1991. The parents were Clay Center's Old Dingo and Swamp Fox' Giluwe. The litter was whelped at the Ehrlich Kennel in Kansas, USA. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 07:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be confusing "nothing shown" with "showing nothing". Very early maps do sometimes make odd "here be dragons" statements about unknown areas, but by 1830 (ie well before 1930) maps were being made that showed only known facts. (I do have a map which shows the highlands as a blank white area). This is not the same as showing the area as uninhabited.218.214.18.240 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

       New Guinea is home to many many many species of animals, some unknown to science  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.242.228.20 (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply] 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on New Guinea. 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/20100117084201/http://web2.wku.edu:80/~smithch/wallace/S078.htm to http://web2.wku.edu/~smithch/wallace/S078.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: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on New Guinea. 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/20110706100423/http://www.1degree.com.au/files/AdvertiserPartworks_Part3_Page8.pdf?download=1&filename=AdvertiserPartworks_Part3_Page8.pdf to http://www.1degree.com.au/files/AdvertiserPartworks_Part3_Page8.pdf?download=1&filename=AdvertiserPartworks_Part3_Page8.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060209023212/http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article343740.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article343740.ece

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 01:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]