Talk:Operation Trikora

Source and assertions

This article appears to be based on an Australian newsletter mis-labled as belonging to the American Air Force, the failure of Wiki people to notice which country wrote the newsletter should not be a surprise given the political and historical assertions which have been made. As the newsletter tries to advise readers, it is only writing up some details about a military action that most people in the western world are unaware of.

What the author of the newsletter seems unaware of is that the Indonesian troops had been arrested by the local population and given to the Dutch for transport back to Indonesia. Diaries taken from the Indonesian troops reported surprise to learn that they did not have popular support as they had been told they would have. Similar incursions had been going on throughout the 1950s without effect.

The article is promoting mis-information, the Netherlands had claimed since 1945 that they did not have sovereignty over West New Guinea which they asserted they were administrating only because their government had previously occupied the territory. That is the reason the Dutch were transmitting information under 73(e) of the UN Charter about the territory as a "non-self-governing territory" pending self-determination (article 1 of UN charter and General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV).)

Historically Operation Trikora had no effect on the US decision to draft the 'New York Agreement' which was made on 1 December 1961 according the the US Dept. of State. As the Netherlands was transmitting data under 73(e) of the Charter, Kennedy had his brother draft a trusteeship agreement under chapter 12 of the UN charter - the 'New York Agreement'. Military threats made good theatre for the media but the American decision had already been made under the instance of McGeorge Bundy who was possibly influenced by the Freeport desire to mine Ertsberg after Freeport director Robert Lovett had recommended Bundy to Kennedy in Dec 1960. I think the US Department of State is a more reliable source than an Australian newsletter misquoted at the bottom of the article.Daeron (talk) 01:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

So fix itMike McGregor (Can) (talk) 07:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Bruh, this is Wikipedia. When someone makes an edit, and there's some other wikipedians don't like it even if it's true, his edit can be directly reverted. Remember, Wikipedia articles sometimes are developed upon a consensus to meet which way majority contributors want a fact to be written in. 111.94.127.67 (talk) 02:34, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

A key policy on Wikipedia is verifiability. Content is based on what reliable sources say, and those sources have to be cited.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Infobox

@Rembo01: You have changed the combatant1 field in the infobox to:

• {{flag|Indonesia}}<br>'''Supported by:'''<br>{{flag|Soviet Union}} {{efn|group=infobox|air and naval support}}<small>(air and naval support)
• Indonesia
  Supported by:
  Soviet Union (air and naval support)

Notes

It is pointless having both the {{efn|group=infobox|air and naval support}} and the (air and naval support) in small letters afterwards.

If you are going to use <small>, please can you close it off with a </small>. Yes I know it works without closing, but it is bad practice not to close these things. (I have had to add the missing </small> above because the absence of it messed up this talk page. What happens is that somebody else will change something else, and we will start to get unexpected behaviour; it can be really tough debugging the Wikimarkup.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)