Jump to content

Talk:Timor-Leste/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5
“Timor-Leste” being used in official situation

Working Languages

Bahasa Indonesian and English both have special status as working languages under the Timorese Constitution section 159:

Section 159 (Working Languages) Indonesian and English shall be working languages within civil service side by side with official languages as long as deemed necessary.

I think this warrants addition to the fact box under Official Languages, I did add it but it was removed. If people think it warrants inclusion it can go back...

Spelling: Accents & Place Names

As this is the English version of Wikipedia, I think all place names and words should be spelled using their Tetum spellings, but without accents. See Liquica and other names that currently are being spelled with accents.

You never see place names from other parts of the world spelled in English with accents. I do not however think they should be anglicised, just trimmed of punctuation that is not used in English.--202.72.106.20 04:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


What do other people think?

I disagree. A number of other places are almost always written with accents, like Yaoundé or Côte d'Ivoire (the last is often called "the Ivory Coast," but very seldom "Cote d'Ivoire"). I think that only those places which are well-established in English get written without accents. Dili, since it receives the most attention, can be written that way, but I don't think the other cities can be. In particular, Liquiçá looks very odd without the cedilla on the c, as one would assume it was pronounced very differently. (Most of the preferred spellings with accents are Portuguese, not Tetum; for example in Tetum Liquiçá is Likisá)Rigadoun 00:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Then perhaps Liquiçá should be spelled Likisá. This second spelling is the one recommended by the National Institute of Linguistics despite the local papers always (without exception) spelling it as Liquisa or Liquica (no accents). I believe the compromise that is being used in some Tetum language publications like Lafaek (the children's magazine) is Likisa.

I also stand by the fact that the vast majority of place names from languages that use accents are written in English without them. However, I will allow others to decide the matter and leave it as Liquiçá for the moment - although this introduces an internal inconsistency in the article as many other place names mentioned should also have their accents added if we were to follow this rule to its logical conclusion. Maybe we can collect votes for either accents or no accents here? --202.72.106.20 04:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Culture: Poetry

What are "crouds"? Is it meant to be "crowds"?

Status of Malay-Indonesian and English in East Timor

this articles gives way too much importance to malay and English. That are used for communitation between People because many people speak Indonesian, while only some speak Portuguese or Tetum, what is greatly changing. And being working language for communication betweeen people that speak several languages it doesnt give any status to Malay or English has the article is trying to give.

REPÚBLICA DEMOCRÁTICA DE TIMOR-LESTE
GOVERNO

____________________

Decreto n.o 1 /2004
de 14 de Abril
Artigo 3.º
Âmbito de implementação
1. O Padrão Ortográfico de Tétum Oficial deve ser seguido no sistema geral de educação, nas publicações oficiais e na comunicação social.
2. Deve ser dada prioridade ao uso do Tétum Oficial e do português na iconografia e sinalização públicas.
3. O inglês e o malaio-indonésio como simples línguas de trabalho, não devem ser utilizados na iconografia e sinalização públicas a menos que acompanhados de textos em tétum e português com visível proeminência.
translation
Democratic Republic of East Timor
Government
decree nº1 2004
April 14
3rd Article
Implementation
1. (...)

2. It should be given priority to the use of Oficial Tetum and Portuguese in the iconography and public signalling 3. English and Indonesian-Malay has simple working languages, should not be used in the iconography and public signalling unless they are accompanied by texts in Tetum and Portuguese with visible proeminence.

INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE LINGUÍSTICA [1]
Requisitos previstos na Política de Língua do Estado

O seu plano-projecto deverá também ter em conta os seguintes aspectos: (a) A língua malaia-indonésia e o inglês não possuem qualquer estatuto em Timor Leste, pelo que não são consideradas fundamentais para a cultura nacional; (b) O ensino do inglês como língua estrangeira, embora encorajado dentro de determinados limites, não é uma prioridade da política educativa do governo, que procura restaurar e promover línguas de importância nacional, anteriormente reprimidas e colocadas em perigo. Como tal, o ensino do inglês e do indonésio não será autorizado a competir com ou a sobrepor-se ao ensino do português e do tétum.

Parte-se do princípio que os concorrentes possuem competência linguística em português, e preferencialmente em tétum, assim como outra língua de trabalho relevante. Estes requisitos supõem também a conversação fluente em tétum e/ou português.

translation
National Institute of Linguistics
... state language policy

(...)

a) the Indonesian-Malay language and English have any status in East Timor, thus they are not considered fundamental to the national culture;
b) The teaching of English has a foreign language, is backed within certain limits, it is not a priority of the educational policy of the government, which searches to restore and promote languages with nationwide importance, which were repressed in the past and became endangered. therefore, the teaching of English and Indonesian is not authorized to compete with or overlap to the teaching of Portuguese and Tetum.

(...)

English and Indonesian are defined in
PART VII
FINAL AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS (East Timor Constitution) [2]

....

It was I believe the second time I've correct the country from which East Timor gained independence. And now this... I was hoping that someone would correct it but noone did nor the language nether the history nor the overimportance of the working languages. Nether the very recent problems between the Church and the government has a paragraph in here...

new studies say that the number of Portuguese speakers more than doubled in the last 5 yrs (today 25% of the population speak it) due to it being repressed in the past it is popular and due to Portuguese-Brazilian cooperation. You can read that in the International Portuguese Language Institute website: [3] -Pedro 01:32, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

earthquake

The paragraph beginning with "A major earthquake..." in the introduction doesn't seem to fit the content of an encyclopedia article. Wouldn't information like this more rather go under a "recent events" heading rather than the article introduction? -MadmanNova 08:11, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agreed - I'm going to remove it entirely. I think it's a pretty minor event, really, and doesn't belong in the article about the entire country. CDC (talk) 16:23, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

deleted

Deleted this nonsense: "To this day, East Timor is a struggling new democracy, only America's prayers and help may serve this nation. The UN should not get involved." Bizud 12:31, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Amen good call..., also I threw "fought a very successful guerrilla campaign" and replaced it with a NPOV version of "fought a guerrilla campaign" Shahathens 20:33, 13 April 2006

CIA World Factbook

Will the page be replaced when East Timor has an entry in the CIA World Factbook?

Effected. - Montréalais

Moved talk relating to Timorese history to Talk:History of East Timor. - Montréalais

what happened to all the old information in the article - some of which was more detailed than the CIA Factbook entry?

I moved it to History of East Timor. - Montréalais

The article's name: East Timor, Timor-Leste, Timor Timur or Timor Lorosa'e?

Shouldn't this really be moved to Timor Leste.? -fonzy

I am in the process of writing to the State Department as if they use East Timor or Timor Leste to refer to the State. Depending on what I get back from them, Let's move the page then. - hoshie
So? I'd argue that the issue of East Timor vs. Timor-Leste is comparable to Ivory Coast vs. Côte d'Ivoire - the state's government officially asked only to be called by its local name in international relations, so I'd say it should be Timor-Leste... Nightstallion 19:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree. Timor Leste is how they prefer to call themselves, East Timor is perceived to be Indonesia-centric. Tagasilab 10:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I just noticed that the World Almanac lists East Timor as Timor-Leste now in the 2006 edition. I highly recommend a move. -- Earl Andrew - talk 06:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Hm.. maybe, maybe not. See discussion and voting further down (I have already cast my vote, but now I'm less sure and more "neutral/undecided"). Tagasibal, in what way is the English name East Timor "Indonesia-centric"? To me, that would seem illogical. //Big Adamsky 15:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Until its independence, East Timor was, without a doubt, the generally accepted name for this territory. I would therefore suggest refering to the territory and its history as East Timor and using Timor Leste only when refering to the new republic and its history post-2002 Esquimo 16:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Who wrote this incredible piece of text?

Due to her potential submarine oil fields, the tiny country currently runs the risk of becoming a puppet state like Panama and the Republic of Texas. Some even think that petroleum made the Western countries, especially Australia and the U.S., separate East Timor from Indonesia. I'm still laughing about the puppet state of Republic of Texas. Cheers! User:Marco Neves

This could probably be rephrased but I think asking questions about Western support for a potentially oil-rich aspirant nation like Timor Leste and not for oil-less occupied territories such as Tibet, Western Sahara etc is pretty valid. For the record, the Republic of Texas was an oil-rich state whose independence from Mexico was supported by the USA in the hope of securing access to its oil - seems a valid example to me. Esquimo 16:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Who cares what the State Department of a foreign power thinks? The name of the country is Timor Leste. I'm putting it where it belongs. Tannin 10:07, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I was wondering why was the article on East Timor renamed to Timor Leste? Has the country changed its name recently or should it always have been Timor Leste? Is Timor Leste, Portuguese for East Timor or does the name have another origin? I have only every heard the country called East Timor. -- Popsracer 11:14, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

how the country prefers to be refered

It's how the country prefers to be refered. "Timor joined the United Nations in 2002, it decided to be officially referred to by its Portuguese name, Timor Leste, as opposed to its English name."

It's like the Ivory Coast which is refered to as Côte d'Ivoire. - fonzy

The difference is I can type "Timor Leste" on a computer keyboard without giving myself a headache! :) Tannin

you get a headache typing the words "East Timor"? - fonzy

This is crazy. Tell me this: where is the article on Germany located? Or Japan? Or China? Our naming convention requires that you "Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly used in English than the English form." See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). -- Tim Starling 04:29, Sep 13, 2003 (UTC)
I definitely agree. This should be at East Timor as that is the most commonly used name in English. It's different from Côte d'Ivoire, since that name is now commonly used in English, whereas Timor Leste is not. - Montréalais 02:44, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I agree. Until stupid people like myself start calling places by their native names, this article should be at East Timor. Tuf-Kat 02:55, Sep 18, 2003 (UTC)

On the contrary, Timor Leste is the country's name now, and will quickly become the standard way of referring to the place, particularly in those parts of the world which have most contact with the new country. There is symbolisim here, and it ain't unimportant: "East Timor" was a colony, then a nation under hostile military occupation - their choice to select a new official name should be (and will be) respected by the international community. Tannin 03:00, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's our job to preempt, predict or lead a name change. Perhaps we should keep using East Timor until usage changes, and then change it here. Two random thoughts:
  • Are you sure it's not Timor-Leste (with a hyphen)? That's what the UN website calls it. [4]
  • Wasn't Timor-Leste a colony too? Just the lesser of two evils, I guess. (Tim) (Exactly. -- Tannin.)
-- Tim Starling 03:14, Sep 18, 2003 (UTC)

I agree, we should move with change, not lead it. But that change is well and truly underway. Most websites update far more slowly than we do, but they are getting there, bit by bit. As for the hyphen, yes, that is in common use also (and was the form that I originally expected to use) but my searching suggested that the two word form seemed to be preffered. Tannin

I don't think the frequency of website updates comes into it. It's been almost 12 months since Timor-Leste joined the UN. In that time, the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has made no move towards a change in nomenclature, judging by these press releases. This US Deparment of State list, updated last February, gives "East Timor" as the short name, and "Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste" as the long name. The official East Timor Government site predominantly uses "East Timor" in English text. The main page of that website has a (not necessarily accurate) timestamp of September 10, 2003. And searching Google News for each name, restricting results to those published since August 18, returns 37 "Timor Leste" hits, and 1230 "East Timor" hits. -- Tim Starling 04:41, Sep 18, 2003 (UTC)
I agree with Tim - and Tannin it wasn't called East Timor when it was a colony it was called Portuguese Timor
PMelvilleAustin 21:50, Sep 21, 2003 (UTC)
I'll be making the move tomorrow if there are no further reasons not to. - Hephaestos 08:12, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Timor Leste is Portuguese for East Timor. The question is pointless, there is no symbolism here. The colony was called Timor Português, the Indonesian Province Timor Timur and now it is called Timor Leste (East Timor in Portuguese). User:Marco Neves

East Timor is clearly the term used in English quite predominantly. Especially given that Timor-Leste is just East Timor in a non-English language, not actually a different name, I see no reason to deviate from the English usage. We don't call Germany Deutschland, after all. --Delirium 22:09, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC)

The European Union (which includes the UK and Ireland) uses East Timor and not Timor-Leste [5] for both long and short forms. --Akkolon 19:11, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If someone doesn't like this they're (of course) free to revert, but I'm deleting "When East Timor joined the United Nations in 2002, it decided to be officially referred to by its Portuguese name, Timor-Leste, as opposed to its English name." This is unnecessary - the article for Germany doesn't say "When West Germany joined the United Nations it decided to be referred to by its German name, Deutchland, as opposed to its English name." This appears only to have been added to appease those who, as demonstrated by their advocating the movement of this page to Timor-Leste, are confused as to the difference between a state's official name and its name in the English language. Bizud 23:37, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Although if people are going to revert, as has been done, an explanation would be appreciated. I'm reverting it back.

Looks like I have to change it back again.Bizud 22:56, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • the problem is that the country really choose the name "Timor-Leste" to be used in all languages. So Timor-Leste in English is Timor-Leste. the name of the nation in English is "The Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste." and not "The Democratic Republic of East Timor.". That doesnt mean it shouldnt be known as "East Timor". see this pic... [6] Germany in English never uses "The Democratic Republic of Deutchland". I'm going to correct it. -Pedro 23:44, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • If the above is true, what's with the Repúblika Demokrátika Timor Lorosa'e? Shouldn't that be Repúblika Demokrátika Timor-Leste?

East Timor The CIA Factbook also calls it East Timor; they call Cote d'Ivoire that (technical reasons for wrong name, presumably. WP:NC expressly says "English name, not official name" when they differ. We will doubtless change name when Timor-Leste does become more popular. Septentrionalis 05:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Oil

Indonesia invaded because of oil and other such resources, this should be included. Mir 04:13, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Says who? What's your source? 144.131.218.105 14:29, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I dont know if there is a source per se, but it is a logical conclusion. I mean East Timor had oil which is a valuable commodity, and indonesia invaded East Timor and as a result would have control of that oil. Mir 06:03, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In 1975 when Indonesia invaded, the oil was in a disputed border region. Exploration had been suspended pending a treaty. So in practical terms, East Timor didn't have oil until the Timor Gap Treaty in 1992. Suharto had political reasons for invading East Timor, as discussed in History of East Timor. It's certainly not a logical conclusion, you need a reference. -- Tim Starling 07:30, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Oil in Timor Gap is own by Australia not Indonesia.

-->A problem that I have with the sentence under Economy, "[o]n July 7, 2005, an agreement was finally reached under which both countries would set aside the dispute over the maritime boundary, and East Timor would receive A$13 billion (US$9.65 billion) in revenue," is that this does not provide a time frame over whichthis revenue will be paid. Is this an annual figure that will continue for the length of the agreement with Australia? This number is important in ascertaining the relative benefit to the people of East Timor and Australia, because it allows policy-relevant statistics such as net present value (NPV) to be calculated. I think that's an important part of understanding the impact of the agreement.

The infobox

Take a look at Template talk:East Timor infobox for a little background. The info box mentiones (outdated) information put in by a very persistent anon user who isnt exactly vandalizing, but more a little clueless. The info box as it is now messes up the article with his footnotes. All attempts to communicate with this person has been in vain as he does not respond to any communication. So I leave it up to the editors of this article to resolve what to do about it. Thank you. Inter\Echo 16:38, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I just wanted to let the folks who have worked on this page know that I am taking a personal initiative to try to improve Indonesia-related articles on Wikipedia, the details of which can be found on the Talk:Suharto page. Please read it, and contact me at my talk page if you are interested in undertaking this effort.--Daniel June 28, 2005 06:54 (UTC)

Indepedence form Portugal?

Isn't it independance from Indonesia in 2002 and POrtugal in the 1940's which only lasted something like 7 days [anonymous]

  • LOL. --Pedro 30 June 2005 02:35 (UTC)
  • I laughed but he is wright (except on the 1940s thinkg eheh), everybody thinks that. I think we should put a note that East Timor was never part of Indonesia, it was just an unrecognized invasion, so it couldnt gain indepencence from a country to which it was not part of.-Pedro 30 June 2005 16:39 (UTC)
  • I agree. Shouldn't the independence be from Indonesia in 2002? According to the current article: Lisbon effectively abandoned East Timor, which unilaterally declared itself independent on November 28, 1975. So, I ask, who controlled the territory from 1975-2002? Which country's army was there? Which country claimed to be have control? Is the answer to any of these questions Portugal? It seems to me that Indonesia was the (colonial?) master during these years. Whether or not it was recognised, how does that change the facts on the ground? -DJK
    • Plz sign your comments. East Timor declared its independence in 1975 and was invaded by Indonesia. It never bacame part of Indonesia. BTW, the Country did made its 30 yrs anniversery some days ago... Portugal did not recognized its independence because it would mean it would accept East Timor's integration in Indonesia, by not accepting the independence, it meant that it was still a dependency of Portugal (which the UN recognized as such). This is the reason why the there was made a referendum. Portugal was invaded by Napoleon, that doesnt meant that the country was part of France, at any time. It was "just" an invasion. If people invade your house, that doesnt mean your house is theirs.
      • On maps common in North America made between 1975 and 2000, East Timor was usually shown as a part of Indonesia. Indonesia claimed it was a part of Indonesia (which surely doesn't make it so). As for Napoleon, he also invaded the Netherlands and Dalmatia, and those countries were a part of France, again at least on current North American maps. If people invade my house, move in, and live there for 25 years, a lot of people will surely think it's their house. -DJK

US maps are still not the auhority in international recognitions and status. The UN nver regonised the Indonesions invations, nor th nilateral declartions of independence. --BBird 11:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

  • They did not make a referendum to become independent from Indonesia, they made a referendum to choose if they wanted to be integrated in indonesia (not to become independent from indonesia) or to be an independent state, the third option was removed because Portugal did not wanted any option to keep it as a dependency. So, the common confusion: independence from indonesia thing is incorrect. There are documents, etc. stating that the independence is from Portugal. I noticed many people stated: in 2002 both Indonesia and Portugal recognized its independence, that is not correct. Indonesia would recognized the state like Australia, the US, China or any other country did; not like Portugal (the country that it was dependant). Plz don't confuse both things in a serious subject like this one.
  • BTW Portugal was in the "hot summer" year, there was no effective rule in Portugal, there was caos and almost in a civil war as there was to be instaled a communist state/dictature, and Portugal did not recognized nothing in that time.
  • If you see the article and subjects about East Timor in here, you'll see not very correct information, there are people that like to put their not very neutral view (or historical view) on things, I don't want to talk because I stress very easily. I'm thinking if it was this way that this subject was showned in your countries, cause somethings are pretty shocking, There is a guy even saying that the name in Indonesia should be in the article. Is he kidding? -Pedro 17:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Culture: Hair Removal

"An interesting point of culture is that it is duty for adult women in East Timor to remove all body hair (except on the head), even the hair on their forearms."

To me, this seems like a very oddly specific piece of information to put into a general summary of East Timor's culture. Why mention only women's hair removal habits - if hair removal is relevant at all shouldn't men be included too? I'm sure that none of the articles about Western countries mention the fact that most Western women remove their leg hair, or that many Western men shave their faces. There is an article about depilation where this might be relevant, but I really don't see the point of it here. --203.102.247.40 02:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

East Timor "Coverup"

The link to "Australia's East Timor coverup" is incredibly POV and unencyclopedic. It has no place here.

Liberation day

"September 20 Liberation Day by UN forces in 1999 "

There were no UN forces in Timor until much later in the campaign. Timor Leste was liberated by Australian led INTERFET forces in September of '99. The UN should not be given credit for an action in which it took no part.

Quite right, I've fixed the article. It was said at the time that the UN was happy to participate in peacekeeping, but not "peace-enforcing". They didn't (and still don't) have the resources to conduct a serious military operation. -- Tim Starling 23:56, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
INTERFET was the UN-given name of a UN-sponsored action led by Australia... Best regards, Marco Neves 06:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Official name

This has been discussed twice before, but anyway, my next attempt. Timor-Leste is the English name of this country in the same way that Côte d'Ivoire is the English name of Côte d'Ivoire. East Timor is, just like Ivory Coast for Côte d'Ivoire, one of the former names of the country. Confer this, this or this. I propose moving the article to Timor-Leste; the government and people of Timor-Leste apparently want to be referred to by that name. — ナイトスタリオン ㇳ–ㇰ — 15:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely. I've put the move tag above, hopefully it gets attention. —Cantus…☎ 22:02, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Did you also put it on Requested moves? — ナイトスタリオン ㇳ–ㇰ — 09:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
I tried to make my point regarding Timor-Leste and Czechia here. Wish me luck. — ナイトスタリオン ㇳ–ㇰ — 22:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Wayne Sievers???

Can Wayne Sievers please remove his self-indulgent page which was linked to from East Timor. Wikipedia has no need of insignifigant and/or wannabe politicians writing their own self-promotion pieces into the project. Show some respect.

For your amusement, here's an excerpt: "Born Wayne Thomas Padraig Severs in Sydney, Australia to parents of Irish and German decent, he changed his surname back to Sievers, the original form of his name..." Your not Nelson Mandela, Wayne, we don't care!

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

East Timor → Timor Leste

Apparent page-move-request orphan: gained template and some ad hoc discussion, but no listing on WP:RM. Alai 02:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Explanation for the request (from WP:RM)
While East Timor is still the most common name in English, the government of Timor-Leste has explicitly stated that it wishes to be known only as Timor-Leste. ナイトスタリオン ✉
Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

Support

  1. Support. --bainer (talk) 05:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support; Côte d'Ivoire is at Côte d'Ivoire, not at Ivory Coast, and yet Côte d'Ivoire translates to Ivory Coast and Ivory Coast is a well-known English name of that country... ;) Either way, I'll leave it at that; I think I've made my point on enough pages now. ;) ナイトスタリオン ✉ 13:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. Strong support > Timor Leste – The UN recognises it and refers to it as this (actually Timor-Leste (with hyphen)), so we should too; compare with Cote D'Ivoire. E Pluribus Anthony 01:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support Timor Leste is the real name, and by the Ivory Coast precedent it should be moved.Borisblue 23:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support This is the official name now and a redirect could simply lead to the new name. Gryffindor 01:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support Timor Leste . If the name didn't have an English meaning like Timor Wookie or Timor Naboo , there wouldn't be a problem. But since it has an English meaning now we feel a need to use the equivalent. I guess we should also make the following moves:
    The City of Des Moines should be The Monks City.
    Baton rouge should be Red stick City.
    Los Angeles should be The Angels City.
    China should be Middle Country.
    Mexico should be People of the Navel of the MoonCountry and City .
    ----Jondel 01:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
    • That is a completely spurious argument. The Manual of Style says the page should be at the most common name used in English. The above are the most common names in English, not their translations. East Timor is the most common name by a mile over its translation. The language is irrelevant. The only issue is 'what name do English speakers use? They also used Kaiser but not Konig, so we refer to the German Kaiser, but the King of Prussia. They use Nicholas II for the last tsar, but Wilhelm II for the last Kaiser. It is what is used, not what language is used, that is relevant. User talk:Jtdirl 07:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support. The Govt. prefers TImor-Leste, so that should be the location of the article. Brisvegas 08:13, 6 November 2005
  8. Support (with hyphen) Eclecticology 22:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support. The Côte d'Ivoire precedent seems pretty clear to me; if a country has officially requested to be known by its own local name in foreign languages rather than by an English translation then that is what we use. Most people in everyday sppech would still talk about Ivory Coast or Burma but we still respect the name-change. Wikipedia's duty should be to be correct, not popular. As for Aoteatoa - bring it on! Why should a South Pacific country be named after a small island in Denmark anyway? Esquimo 16:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
      • NZ is named after a Dutch province not a Danish island. Last fall I did propose merging the article Aotearoa into a separate "names" section of New Zealand to bring them in line with other similar cases, but this proposal was met with hillariously childish jeers and attacks on my reading ability and mockery of my intellectual capacities and accusations of racism and bigotry and what not. ;o) See also the latest discussion at Talk:Río de la Plata. //Big Adamsky 18:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
        • How about because New Zealand is the name that 99% of English speakers know it as? As for "if a country has officially requested to be known by its own local name in foreign languages rather than by an English translation then that is what we use..." Why should we change the name because, for example, the Burmese dictatorship has decided, on a whim, to use a name (Myanmar) that it is not widely used by the people themselves? That is not Wikipedia policy, which is to use common names for English speakers. This is not the Maori Wikipedia, Timor L'Este Wikipedia, or the Burmese military dictatorship Wikipedia. Grant65 | Talk 17:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Apologies to Adamsky - I had assumed New Zealand was named for Zealand rather than Zeeland but I was mistaken. Now that I come to think about it it does seem rather obvious given the Dutch connection in that part of the world. However, the argument still stands really, doesn't it. And while I don't see a case for unilaterally renaming NZ as Aotearoa (typo before, again apologies) on wiki, if the government and people of the country decided that was how they wanted to be known from now on, that's how it should be. Of course, where there are two competing versions of a name at once the common usage rule is quite sensible (Livorno, not Leghorn - but Florence, not Firenze) but where the one name actually REPLACES another chronologically we should change immediately on wikipedia and let the rest catch up. Esquimo 20:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support. It's the official name, and the preferred name, which I think is important to respect. It is also growing fast in use. Arre 12:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support It will be the common name in a few years, and since the country gov. requests it, it should be changed. I work for an NGO in Timor and we decided to go by Timor-Leste (note hyphen) as the gov. requested.--Chinawhitecotton 06:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The first point is irrelevant under the Manual of Style. Guessing what may be common in a few years time in POV. The MoS requires "most common name" now, not what might at some unknown date in the future possibly become most common name. Secondly, NGOs who work in countries generally have to do what governments tell them to do to avoid being thrown out or arrested. This is an encyclopaedia and encyclopaedias do not do the bidding of governments. Ever. So it is irrelevant what any government says. We are not a propaganda piece for governments, but a totally independent entity. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 05:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support. Reasons stated below.--Hello World! 05:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support This is its name. Plus, this naming business can get rather goofy, as people will still be able to find the right article if they search (thanks to the magic of redirects!) and renaming it will inform people. See also Czechia/Czech Republic and Viet Nam/Vietnam. -Justin (koavf), talk 03:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support. reason: the official English name is "The Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste." references:
    Official Web Gateway to the Government of Timor-Leste
    English country names and code elements
    United Nations Multilingual Terminology Database
    -- andry 21:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support They want to be known as Timor Leste, so... why should we enforce our own will upon them? Rvencio 14:51, 12 February 2008 (Pacific Time)

Oppose

  1. Oppose, East Timor is "common English translation" of Timor Leste (which is Portuguese, Portuguese being the language promoted by the government of this country - "East" in English = "Leste" in Portuguese, see http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/east#Translations ); for further argumentation see Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Proper nouns and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (common names)#Specific cases. --Francis Schonken 12:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose until this becomes usual English name, if it ever does. The government of East Timor could change their minds tomorrow. Septentrionalis 16:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose: East Timor is still the most common name in English, by far, and that will be where most readers seek it. Jonathunder 10:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. This is the English Wikipedia, and in English the country is almost always called East Timor. --Zundark 14:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose, this is a English-language version, so the correct name is also the current one. --Angelo 18:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose --Philip Baird Shearer 01:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Brazil, Guinea-Bissau, and Mozambique were also Portuguese colonized countries; we do not refer to them as Brasil, Guiné-Bissau, or Moçambique. Make a redirect for Timor-Leste to East Timor, and be done with it. --Daniel 08:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Those, however, do not request to be referred to by their domestic names internationally... ナイトスタリオン ✉ 10:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
        • It's irrelevant. The reason these countries have different spellings in English is because its pronunciation and alphabet are incongruous with that of Portuguese (e.g., the "s" "é" or "ç" sounds) and thus the closest equivalents are substituted. "Leste" according to common rules of English pronunciation would (inaccurately) be rendered "Lest" (silent e) and not "Lest-ay." Better to translate it whole hog.--Daniel 19:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. This is the English Wikipedia. *drew 06:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. The common English usage is "East Timor". If its government has requested that Timor-Leste be used, that can be prominently mentioned in the article. (More importantly, I think it's misleading and confusing to tell people that independence from Portugal was achieved in 2002.)
  10. Oppose. I see no claim here for now that the common English usage is shifting to "Timor-Leste"; it's hard for me to imagine the common English-language reader searching there first. --Dvyost 07:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. I think we should go with common usage. Personally I think the likes of Côte d'Ivoire and Myanmar (Burma) are even worse ideas. I look forward (not) to the push for New Zealand to be moved to Aotearoa. Grant65 11:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. To my best judgment, the article should sort under "East Timor" with the first sentence mentioning: a) its location b) its full official name and c) its name in Tetúm, Portuguese and Indonesian-Malay. Many countries have alternate names or spellings that may be used in the context of another language but not without the effect that the user somehow appears not entirely neutral, that he or she has a certain agenda or wishes to express political correctness or a personal love for the local language or culture. Compare the examples given above, plus Hellenic Republic, Viet Nam, Kanaky. On the other hand, Côte d'Ivoire and Myanmar (did that rhyme?) seem to have slipped into common usage, at least in the English language media. Big Adamsky 15:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  13. Strong oppose. Under the mandatory Manual of Styles rule the article is placed at the form of name used predominantly internationally by speakers of the language of that Wikipedia. East timor is the name used by English speakers therefore under the MoS it is the name that is supposed to be used. Diplomatic name, and government-sponsored name is irrelevant. That goes in the infobox. User talk:Jtdirl 17:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  14. Oppose as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). --Khoikhoi 05:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose since it is referred to in English as "East Timor", including in the CIA World Factbook entry. Wikipedia, like the English language, is not bound by the requests of foreign governments, as is quite clearly the case with Czechia. Côte d'Ivoire is an exception, no doubt as a result of the aberrant American education system. Tomertalk 04:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose for the simple reason that in English it is and will always be known as East Timor.--naryathegreat | (talk) 03:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose. This is the English Wikipedia. LuiKhuntek 09:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose. Per above, MoS, Use English, international common usage, etc. Also, I think that a monolingual English-speaking layperson is most likely to type "East Timor" into the Search box. Information on the other form of the name can be provided once they get to the page. For people "in the know", have Timor Leste redirect. -Fsotrain09 19:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

  • See also this one: http://pt.wiktionary.org/wiki/Timor_Leste#Tradu.C3.A7.C3.A3o
    Translated: the Portuguese Wiktionary says that the English translation of "Timor Leste" is "East Timor"... ;) --Francis Schonken 12:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I have already put evidence that the CIA (which uses "Cote d'Ivoire"; their character set is worse than ours) uses East Timor in #how_the_country_prefers_to_be_referd, above.
    • Note also opposition in that section by editors Tim Starling, Montréalais, Tuf-Kat, PMelvilleAustin, Delirium, and Akkolon. While there is some support also, I question whether this nomination is proper: we should not be asked to discuss something again and again until the vote can be counted the way the proposer wants. Septentrionalis 16:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
      • The UN homepage lists Timor-Leste as Timor-Leste. I also repudiate the accusation of improper nomination; there hasn't been a vote before, to the best of my knowledge. Furthermore, as has been discussed elsewhere (see the links above), Timor-Leste fits the criteria of official English name and self-identifying name. It's not the most common name used in English, but the ratio is 1:12 currently, which is not too bad in my humble opinion. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 17:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Explicitly to all those who voted oppose because "this is the English wikipedia": Consider Côte d'Ivoire; Ivory Coast is used at least as often (compare Google News results for the two terms), and would be the "English" official name. Why is Côte d'Ivoire at Côte d'Ivoire, then? ナイトスタリオン ✉ 19:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I might, if it were under a move discussion, prefer Ivory Coast, but for a couple of reasons: 1) "Côte d'Ivoire" is somewhat more common in English use than "Timor-Leste" is. 2) Côte d'Ivoire has been at that name for quite some time as this article has been here for some time. If other factors are equal, I prefer to leave articles where they are, as moves do create work and can surprise editors and readers. Jonathunder 01:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
By the way, I do not even agree about "Côte d'Ivoire"; I guess it should be moved to Ivory Coast instead... This is English Wikipedia, not a international version. Even in Italy we say "Costa d'Avorio", not "Cote d'Ivoire"... --Angelo 18:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

moved from WP:RM

  • maybe East Timor is a new country (and a new and different culture), so that's why there's some confusion, because it really prefers to be known as Timor-Leste in every language, this is due to emotional and differentiating (from its neighbours) reasons, who doesnt remember the timorese in the jungle and in the streets crying "Viva Timor-Leste!". The article is ok now, because there is the "Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste or East Timor", the First is the official name and the second is the common usage. I don't see where's the problem, and I bet that they also do not see any problem. -Pedro 11:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Support Having spoken to a delegation of Timor Leste sent to the SEA games, East Timor is Indonesia centric. Tagasilab 10:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Why does the History part begin with the "First Europeans to arrive" as if before that there wasn't any history? It's a shame...doesn't anyone know enough to let us know...?
    • I'm not sure why the comment was here, but it bugged me too and I added some from the History of East Timor article. If that makes the history section too long, it can be shortened but please include some of it so it's less Euro-centric. Also regarding the history section, we could use fewer "See also"s at the end, I think, especially since many are mentioned in the article, and the ones that aren't could be.Rigadoun 17:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Some of you maybe interested in the similar debate at Talk:Río de la Plata.Grant65 | Talk 03:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

So because the government of a country decides it wants to be called something else, every language in the world should kowtow to their desires. Hawaiian has no "r" "s" or "t", nor does it permit consonant clusters, nor syllable-final consonants. The closest Hawaiian could come to this ridiculous demand is Kimolu-Lekike. I wonder how the government of Timor-Leste (Portuguese, as it happens, for "Timor the East") would react. It seems to me that it would make a lot more sense for them to demand to be called Timor Timur. Tomertalk 19:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Support move. The english version of the web page of the Government of Timor-Leste use “Leste”. For those who argue “Leste” is not an English word, please note that “Timor” is not an English word too. “Timor” is an Indonesian word which just means “east”. Please preserve the country's name WITH TEN LETTERS. As a NAME OF PLACE (a proper noun), “Timor-Leste” should be used in any Indo-european language that uses Latin alphabets. Don't try to break up the country's name and translate a half in English and another half remain in Indonesian. --Hello World! 06:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Shakira song

I just pulled this text from the history section:

Recently, the Colombian pop star Shakira recorded a protest song entitled "Timor". The song, written and composed by the singer, tells about how the Western midia gave importance to the East Timor Independence case a few years ago, and how the same midia does nothing for the country on recent days.

I don't see this as a major event in Timorian history, but I'm prepared to listen to arguments to the contrary. What do you all think? --Dvyost 08:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, so this is not important for the history of East Timor, but Shakira is defending the country on her song. -- Rodrigo December 26th, 2005 at 06:51 (Brasilia time)

I puted a small Trivia note on the end of the page about the song... is that OK? -- Rodrigo December 26th, 2005 at 06:58 (Brasilia time)

That makes more sense to me--thanks! --Dvyost 20:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I think this paragraph is better in trivia than anywhere else, but I still think it's superfluous. It tells me nothing about East Timor. I think it's also worth considering what we would have to do to be consistent: how many other singers have sung about East Timor? How many writers have written about it? It may be that someone has a perspective on this that I haven't thought of - I'll pop back in a couple of weeks and see what anyone has to say before I move the paragraph to Shakira's article. Hughcharlesparker 11:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia in Tetum

We are looking for speakers of Tetum (ideally, native speakers) that may cooperate in the launching of a Tetum version of the Wikipedia. Visit the test page of the Tetum Wikipedia and support this project (click in Tetum). Regards --82.102.25.163 01:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC) Manuel de Sousa

Poorest country in the world

Though it is true, I think stating East Timor as the poorest country in the world in the first sentence makes it sound as if it is the defining feature of this nation. It is not. I changed it and created a new paragraph explaining the fact and also stating its relative position regarding HDI.

Best regards,

Marco Neves 14:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Move

From East Timor to Timor-Leste, counting 13 support votes to 17 opposed. See Talk:East Timor/Archive 1#Requested move section below. –Hajor 03:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

This move should be voted on once again, given that the US Board on Geographic Names and the CIA Factbook (along with the UN) now consider this country's canonical name to be Timor-Leste. This fact effectively renders arguments concerning language and conventional usage invalid. Timor-Leste is, for all intents and purposes, now the English name for the country and is recognised as such by a sufficient number of English Language sources of reference to be considered correct. Not sure about the formal process(es) required to re-open this move, but changes in circumstances clearly call for a reconsideration. Dan McGarry 202.80.43.118 (talk) 04:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

  • This is an ancient issue and I doubt you will get it up against a fairly intractable opposition, I tried once, as have others, but I would support a revote on the grounds that Wikipedia should record facts where those exist over popular belief or common usage. In the English speaking world East Timor is still the most common usage even if uneducated. Ex nihil (talk) 06:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Regarding the age of the question, cases of usage must necessarily be revisited on a regular basis, as they are subject to change. I read the discussion stretching back to 2005 before I posted this suggestion for a re-vote, and I feel that the opposition was more credible at the time of the vote, because there was no consensus at the time concerning the name. That's changed since then. See my reply below re: common usage. Dan McGarry 202.80.46.123 (talk) 03:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Ex nihil is correct. "East Timor" is still the most common and widely recognised name, even if it is not the official name. Thus, to my understanding it is the appropriate name for this page. It doesn't matter that official bodies use "Timor Leste" or that enlightened editors on wikipedia know what it is - the fact remains that most people know what "East Timor" is, but very few would know what "timor leste" is if they were asked. Further, the issue is explained concisely in the article.
English language usage is dictacted by usage - not official decree. Thus, if the overwhelming majority of people start using "Timor Leste" (and if this is reflected in the media) then it can be changed - but not because a few government bodies and some academics use the "correct" term. Indeed, if it was in such common usage, then requests to change it would be daily by many readers/editors - not every 3-6 months which seems to be the frequency of change requests. --Merbabu (talk) 07:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not questioning the issue of usage. In discussion below, I suggested changing the emphasis, with East Timor redirecting to Timor-Leste, which is universally recognised to be the correct usage. There's some validity to the statement that common usage must be considered, but it needs to be weighed against correctness. Admittedly, the proper appellation is mentioned at the top of the article, but that makes the title seem more incongruous, not less. In this particular case, nobody has offered a compelling argument against the colloquial name East Timor redirecting to a more accurately named page: Timor-Leste. In this scenario, the colloquial usage is supported, and the visitor is properly educated, which, of course, is the purpose of Wikipedia. Dan McGarry 202.80.46.123 (talk) 03:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • With regard to the issue of frequency of change requests, I suspect that this is because only a tiny minority of Timorese are even aware of Wikipedia's existence. Fewer still have access to the Web on a regular basis. Dan McGarry 202.80.46.123 (talk) 03:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Area according to which source?

-edit- Based on the central UN, UNDP and Governmental documents I have change the area to 14609 km2 (instead of the current CIA-factbook version) -edit-


The area of East-Timor varies between sources, being 14600-18900 km2.

Sources supporting 18900 km2:

Government of Timor Leste website http://www.timor-leste.gov.tl/AboutTimorleste/ExploreTL.htm

United Nations Timor Leste website (rounded up 19000 km2) http://www.unagencies.east-timor.org/facts_on_timor_leste/statistics.html

Sources supporting 15007 km2: CIA factboot https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/tt.html

Sources supporting 14919 km2: United Nation Development Program, Timor-Leste Human Development Report 2006

Sources supporting 14609 km2: National Geographic country profile http://plasma.nationalgeographic.com/mapmachine/profiles/tt.html Timor Leste Government National Development Plan (www.tl.undp.org) Most of the UN-missions' (UNTAET, UNMISET, UNOTIL) documents I've cheched (www.unotil.org)

ps. By January 2006 4% of the land border between Indonesia and East Timor was still not agreed on.

Simohell 06:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

In September 2006 The foreign Ministry of East Timor seems to have come up with a new area: 5,950 sq mi (15,410 sq km) http://www.mfac.gov.tp/travel.html

Area 14,874 that was used in August to replace 14,609 appears to come up in some internet references already dating before the independence.

Simohell 15:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Just for reference, the 14,874 figure is from the UN Demographic Yearbook (2003) edition. It is also the figure used by the UN Statistical Division for environmental statistics, for example here. --Polaron | Talk 15:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I would still assume that UNOTIL and National Development Plan would have more recent information. Since 14874 wss already published before the border agreement signed while Horta was visiting 37th ASEAN Ministerial Meeting in June 2004. Then 90% of the borderline was agreed, apparently moving the borderline in some places.Simohell 16:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Updating frequency and policy?

Some statistics change quite often. How are we going to update them? According to official sources, estimates (and by whos?). As a noted in my previous comment the land-area has competing figures even within the different UN-sources (UN-TL, UNDP-TL).

UNDP published a HDI for 2004 in Timor-Leste Human Development Report recently (0,426), but this does not quite allow for ranking, since the comparison HDIs for most countrries are from 2003.

Simohell 06:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Measurements

Shouldn't this article use metric measurements first, because the official languages of East Timor are Tetum and Portuguese, and every single non-English-speaking country in the world is fully metric? JIP | Talk 18:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The majority of English-speaking nations are metric as well. Yes, metric measurements should take priority in this article.--cj | talk 16:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, only the US is fully non-metric, and Canada and the UK have maintained confusing mixes of metric and non-metric (in Canada it's an issue of linguistic pride as Quebec is fully metric :)) As for the original contention, non-metric units, unless part of a quote, really shouldn't be there at all IMO on a non-US article. Orderinchaos78 22:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Um... Most english speaking countries are metric too...Australian Jezza 05:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Suspected Indonesian Connections with Current Crisis in Timor

Earlier today an anonymous contributor deleted a phrase from the history section of this page that partially implicated Indonesian forces with the ongoing violence in the country. I have not reverted the edit but the footnote from the BBC that I attached to the article clearly states that, "Many in [the Timorese army and police] ranks lack basic policing skills. A core contingent which does have experience from the Indonesian police is resented by the rest."

While maintaining a NPOV attitude for this article, I'd like to manage a compromise that would show that Indonesians (but perhaps not Indonesia itself) are still important powers in East Timor and are contributing to the violence.

Suggestions? Potashnik 00:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I understand that so far there is no evidence of outside involvement, and deletion from the article of un-verified accusations of "Indonesian forces" being involved seems appropriate - and you seem to agree. However, as for the idea that there is still a strong Indonesian influence, isn't that stating the obvious??? It's not just manifest in this current crisis but almost every aspect of East TImor. Ie, most people in this country with very young median age, grew up under Indonesian rule. Why not state (if it is indeed correct and can be verified!) something like: resentment of a contingent of the security forces once trained by Indonesian police is contributing factor to the current crisis? But to explicitly say that Indonesians still have influence as can be seen by current crisis is stretching the point a bit and altering perspective on the crisis.--Merbabu 02:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry for not updating sooner, but I've been busy at work. Anyway, today the Voice of America reported that, "The rebel soldiers hail from the west of the country and most supported Indonesia during its 24-year brutal rule of the country." [7] Additionally, the Washington Post reports that the rebels "are apparently allied with police and former soldiers angered by the dismissal in March of 600 soldiers -- more than 40 percent of the country's army..." [8] so I don't see a problem with noting that the rebels have Indonesian ties. Potashnik 16:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Hmmm - "supported" indonesian rule doesn't necessarily mean they still "have" Indonesian ties? We shouldn't come to our own conclusions in the article.
      • You're right; perhaps I have been jumping to conclusions. Do you object to putting the VOA quote in the article and letting the reader decide? Potashnik 17:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Um, putting a VOA quote in the article is much better, but like other details from the media recently added in that section i am still not convinced it is providing much value. There are a few articles on the crisis (2006 East TImor Crisis & Operation Astute) and maybe the VOA quote should go there. maybe we are getting too many details info in this article - shouldn't country pages be reserved for general info? --Merbabu 23:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Renaming of East Timor to Timor-Leste

I made this amendment based on the following grounds –

(1) The Government of the country in question names the country the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste (long-form) and Timor-Leste (short-form). See the English official website of the above government.

(2) The name of the country admitted to and registered with the United Nations is Timor-Leste, not East Timor. See United Nations member states.

(3) It is not uncommon that countries name themselves in non-English form instead of the commonly used English name, like Côte d'Ivoire (formerly and commonly known as Ivory Coast) and Belarus (formerly and commonly known as Byelorussia).

(4) So it is not a matter of whether you like it or not, nor what the common English name is. We should adhere to and respect the name adopted by both the international diplomacy and the country itself.

Should there be different views, please feel free to discuss here.-- Pdytwong 2005/5/27, 17:20 (UTC)

Please refer to the Talk:East Timor#Country Name. Please make the effort to discuss your changes and gain consensus before actually enacting it.--cj | talk 17:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Then why we don't simply name Côte d'Ivoire as Ivory Coast??? No double-standard please!!!!! -- Pdytwong 2005/5/27, 17:30 (UTC)
Should there be no counter views on my justifications above, please unprotect the article of Timor-Leste and make it the formal page for the country. Thank you. -- Pdytwong 2005/5/27, 17:34 (UTC)
There are counter views; in fact it's a two year old argument. Please see the link that Cyberjunkie provided to the discussion higher up the page. Teke 17:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Still no one can answer these questiona in a proper manner, "Then why we don't simply name Côte d'Ivoire as Ivory Coast???", and why we do not adopt the name by UN just as the case of Côte d'Ivoire??? It reflects that we do not respect the country and its people who want us to name it as what they want. -- Pdytwong 2005/5/27, 17:40 (UTC)
Do you know why the government of Timor-Leste adopts this name instead of East-Timor? It's becuase the latter, from their point of view, is a colonial legacy, just like the case of Côte d'Ivoire (please forgive my repeated quotes). -- Pdytwong 2005/5/27, 17:45 (UTC)
If you take the time to read over the discussion archives at Côte d'Ivoire and to consider the naming policy itself, you'll realise there is no double standard to complain of. It was argued and supported by amongst editors at Côte d'Ivoire that that name was in fact common in English. In any event, your edits were ill-advised – cut-and-paste moves are thoroughly discouraged for practical and legal reasons.--cj | talk 17:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
If you think I hadn't read and consider the naming dispute in the discussion above as well as that in the discussion page of Côte d'Ivoire, you are completely wrong. What I stress here , as I did it above, is that we, the Wikipedians and ordinary people, have to respect both the consensus of the international diplomacy led by UN and the will of the country and its people, not the so-called consensus among ourselves. If we fail to do so, we are just a group of people who live in the ivory tower and fail to fight for the truth. -- Pdytwong 2005/5/27, 17:56 (UTC)
As a Wikipedian who has been here (including reading and editing) for two years, I'm disapppointed that the Wikipedia has become a "regulatory state" like some so-called advanced countries in the world. No discussion, no rationality, no truth!!! -- Pdytwong 2005/5/27, 18:01 (UTC)

The Côte d'Ivoire example is a flawed one. In English, all the evidence shows that the country is overwhelming referred to as Ivory Coast. Côte d'Ivoire is only used by countries in its vicinity and by the US (sometimes). An examination of usage by governments, foreign ministries, media, sport and elsewhere showed over 80% usage of Ivory Coast. Even the US Secretary of State regularly calls it Ivory Coast. What happened on WP was that a group of users voted to ignore the most common name rule on such ludicrous grounds as "people internationally should be using Côte d'Ivoire and we should be leading them" (a flagrant breach of NPOV and MCN), "my country (US) uses Côte d'Ivoire and therefore it must be right" (even though even in the US, more use Ivory Coast, including the major news networks, the Secretary of State and the President), "the Government says use Côte d'Ivoire" (even though WP does not do what governments tell it to), and "using the English language name is a offensive to French speakers there" (a breach of the rules of English language WP). If as has been proposed, the most common name becomes automatically enforceable, Côte d'Ivoire will immediately have to be renamed, irrespective of the wishes of small clique of French language speakers and American contributors who voted to ignore MCN and do their own thing contrary to the overwhelming independent evidence. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. But then why the United Nations admitted both countries (Côte d'Ivoire and Timor-Leste) uses such names instead of Ivory Coast and East Timor. The UN, as the "world government", should be of the most authoritative status vis-a-vis the naming convention of all countries and their peoples. And more important is that if the people of the country do wish others to use such name, there is no ground not to respect them. Please correct me if I am wrong. Thank you! -- Pdytwong 2005/5/27, 18:12 (UTC)
Jtdirl, it is not helpful for discussion here to re-ignite old resentments. But it is correct that situation here is different to that at Côte d'Ivoire. At least in that case, there was at least some evidence presented showing "Côte d'Ivoire" preponderance. That isn't so here. Moreover, it is important to stress the point that official usage does not determine article names on Wikipedia. So the argument that because United Nations accepts something, so then must Wikipedia will be ultimately fruitless.--cj | talk 18:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
The answer to that is simply that this is the English Language wiki; as such an English encyclopedia. I would expect Britannica and others to list names by the most likely one a person is going to search under. I understand the point you are making, but (I'm assuming you are of Portugese heritage from your contributions to this and Brazil) we don't call it Brasil simply because we speak English and you know how we are about our native tongue ;). I don't think we're denying any peoples of anything; I have more concern over the people of East Timor and the past 20 years they've been through than a Wikipedia naming concern, you know? Lastly, the UN is not a world government- it's more of a global organization than ruling body. Teke 18:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments of all. While I agree that we usually use the conventional names to refer to particular countries (e.g. using Russia even during the rule of the Soviet Union and Great Britain to refer to the United Kingdom), and now I can accept (though not agree) using the conventional name as the article name, I think the same rule cannot be applied to the List of countries that has already stated clearly (and agreed upon by editors from the very beginning) in its 2nd paragraph that -
The names of countries in the list are given in English and include both the short official names (e.g. Afghanistan) and the (longer) official names (e.g. Islamic Republic of Afghanistan). The listing of any name in this article is not meant to imply an official position in any naming dispute.
Please pay attention here - it's that the English official name rather than the conventional one be adopted in the List. The definition of English official name, from my point of view, is the name adopted by the government of the country and/or admitted by the international diplomacy (e.g. UN). So that's why we put, say for example, Côte d'Ivoire (not Ivory Coast) and Congo, Democratic Republic of (not Zaire) on the List. But we do add supplementary notes after these names, like (Formerly and commonly known as Ivory Coast) and (Formerly and commonly known as Zaire) to best reflect the situation.
So I think the official name principle should continue to be applied to the List of countries. Your views please. -- Pdytwong 2005/5/27, 19:01 (UTC)
And I agree with the conventions on the list. The U.S. government identifies the country as East Timor, by the CIA world factbook]. I'm just going with common naming for the English language; if I were ambassador to Côte d'Ivoire I'd say the Ivory Coast. Then again, francophones are particular about those kinds of things. Bottom line is that East Timor is the convention of the English language; the name of Timor-Leste is identified in the opening. Besides, don't both names mean "East East"? Perhaps they should reconsider the name entirely...joking, joking. Teke 19:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
If we do choose to adopt conventional names for the List of countries, then the principle stated in its 2nd paragraph (i.e. using official names) should be revised. Besides, I agree that the CIA World Factbook uses the term East Timor. But you may wish to note that the UN uses Timor-Leste throughout its English websites and it's that name be adopted as the English registered name for UN membership, just like (again) the case of Côte d'Ivoire. Please pay a visit to the UN websites (English verson) and you can see that these two names of countries can easily be found there. As far as the official name principle for the List of countries is concerned, I think the UN websites are much official than the CIA World Factbook of the US. -- Pdytwong 2005/5/27, 19:26 (UTC)
Oh yes, I looked at it. I think that basically we've come at the impass that was reached on prior discussions, which is why there is no concensus reached and the article remains under this name. It's under English convention, and starts with "East Timor, officially..." so there's the compromise. I've enjoyed discussing this with you, and thanks for the civility in conversation. These debates often turn nasty, so this is enjoyable. Can we agree to disagree, all article names aside? I'm off for the day, so I withdraw from discussion after this. Nice meeting you, and happy editing! Teke 19:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
aahh - warm and fuzzy hugs all around. :) WHat happens when it is unblocked though?? he he

Please refer to the latest discussion at Talk:List_of_countries and put your comments and views there please. -- Pdytwong 2005/5/28, 06:20 (UTC)

Let's end the discussion about the change of name of this article and focus on my proposal concerning the naming of East Timor/Timor-Leste in the List of countries that can be found at its talk page. -- Pdytwong 2005/5/28, 13:29 (UTC)

I've undone my edit, which had been done in ignorance of the raging debate here. 85.241.115.42 (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Protection

This article and Timor-Leste have been both edit and move protected to force discussion on the issue of its title.--cj | talk 17:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Nonetheless, it's in bad form to protect pages dealing with Current Events. 68.32.48.42 15:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree, very bad form. I have seen pages without protection that have seen far more editing than this one. Remove the protection. Enzedbrit 20:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
This one might be different though as that it is the actually title and hence location of the article that is up for question (and repeated revert war of attrition) – not so much the content.--Merbabu 23:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
To clarify, the page was only move-protected, but then someone manually cut-and-paste merged this article to another title, and turned this page into a redirect. That is why Cyberjunkie chose to full protect the article. --bainer (talk) 00:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
OK thanks for info. Is it then possible to keep the move-protect (and hence East Timor title) but re-open the page for editing within it’s current location/name?? --Merbabu 01:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

To all, as I said above, I had accepted (though not agreed) to maintain status quo in respect of the title of this article. And I appeal to you all to turn to focus on my proposal concerning the naming of East Timor/Timor-Leste as well as the discussion about the 'official name' prinicple adopted in the List of countries that can be found at its talk page. -- Pdytwong 2005/5/29, 02:51 (UTC)

AID Nomination

I have nominated this article for the WP:AID. It could be a good platform to have this article elevated to feature status. If anyone wants to support or comment on this nomination they may do so at the East Timor nomination --Francisco Valverde 14:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

2006 Crisis

This section is slowly but steadily getting larger. We should be careful that it doesn’t get larger and that changes merely update old information with new. And it should only give the general idea, not go into pages of detail. Firstly because the crisis already has it’s own article where the details should go (see link) and secondly, but more importantly, we don’t want to give the crisis too much space in comparison with the rest of East Timor’s history. Sure, it is in the news a lot right now, but so far there is nothing to suggest that it will become anywhere near as important historically as say the Indonesian invasion and the independence struggle. What do others think? --Merbabu 00:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, it should essentially be a one-paragraph summary of 2006 East Timor crisis. --bainer (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

not 2006

Its wrong writed. its not 2006 crisis but Politic militar crisis. Before you write about history of a nation you should know wright the history of that nation. thanks..--Ivan Zeruwsky (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Montenegrin Declaration of Independence June 3 2006

As of June 3, 2006, East Timor is no longer the world's newest independent sovereign state. Based on the results of a referendum held on May 21, 2006, Montenegro declared independence on June 3, 2006. As of June 2006, it is the newest sovereign state in the world, and is awaiting international recognition.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.215.31.218 (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Serbian Declaration of Independence June 5 2006

On June 5, 2006, Serbia has formally declared its independence in response to Montenegro's vote to secede,which officially confirms the union of Serbia and Montenegro's break-up. At a special televised meeting, the National Assembly of Serbia declared Serbia the legal successor to the defunct union of Serbia and Montenegro with 126 MPs voting in favour, with none against.

This makes Serbia (and not Montenegro anymore) technically as of June 5 2006 the world's newest sovereign state.

East Timor has already lost the title both de jure and de facto as the newest sovereign state since June 3, 2006 with Montenegro's Declaration of Independence. Since June 5, 2006 East Timor is the world's third newest sovereign state.

From the [[9]] - (www.news.bbc.co.uk/(BBC News) website

Serbia is not a new state, but the successor of SiM, which is the successor of the FRY. Montenegro is the newest state. —Nightstallion (?) 13:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Exactly right - Serbia's "independence" is by default - declaration is a matter for national pride more than anything else IMO. The institutions of state all exist but a change in the stationery is necessary, as well as of course electoral and budget changes, whereas Montenegro now has to create new primary-level institutions to replace or complement its second-level ones, and East Timor essentially started with zip. So Montenegro, then East Timor. Orderinchaos78 23:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"Point of View Check" tag

Why is this tag here? Where is the point of view subject matter? I'm not saying it's inappropriate, just wanting to make sure it really should be there. I will remove it soon if there is no-one has any reasonable objections. --Merbabu 06:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree -- where is the POV controversy? This is one topic that should be relatively straightforward. The inter-generational tension between Portuguese and Indonesian is easily described, as is the shift from one country name to another (all of which conveniently mean the same thing). A-giau 03:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree and will remove the tag. Ashmoo 04:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Indonesian section

While generally good, the 'Indonesians' section needs a few little tweaks. Could someone in the know, take a look at these problems?:

The East Timorese guerrilla forces, known as Falintil, fought a guerrilla campaign against the Indonesian forces from 1975 to 1999. Their casualties were relatively light compared to those they inflicted upon the Indonesian military.

Who estimated the Falintil casualties? We really need numbers here, so that the reader can determine what 'reasonably light' means.

However the Indonesians generally took their frustrations out on the civilian population, often torturing and killing claiming that they were 'helping the rebels'.

This summation of the Indonesians motivations definitely needs a source. And attributing their actions to 'frustration' borders on POV.

From 1975 until 1993, attacks on civilian populations were only nominally reported in the Western press.

What does 'nominally reported' mean?

Ashmoo 04:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, I think this section is very poorly written, contradictory, and repetative, yet, whenever I try to make changes here, they are immediatly reverted. --Yeshalkno 13:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Their casualties were relatively light compared to those they inflicted upon the Indonesian military.[citation needed]

This statement seems to be saying that the Timorese casualties were light compared to casualties inflicted upon the Indonesians by the Timorese. Yet, I have not seen any information about Indonesian casualties whereas later in the article we have estimates of 60-200 thousand Timorese casualties. This statement either needs to be clarified and backed by fact, or removed. --Yeshalkno 14:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Timor Geography

Timor is part of the Indo-Australian Plate as it pushes north and upwards during the pass two to seven million years, it is not part of the Malay archipelago or Asia; the Asian plate lies across the north western coastline of Timor. Many people may be mislead by the Timor Gap, assuming that it is the boundary point, in fact it is caused by the same crimpling effect which created the island and its mountains (shame, otherwise Timor might already be higherthan the Himalayas).58.107.10.239 07:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

your distinction is only a tectonic one. What about culture, history, geography, ecology? Plate tectonics is not used to classify countries geographically. If it was, Australia and India would be neighbours. You also bring up the "Malay archipelago". THis has always been a loose term - and i am not sure what relevance it has to the East Timor article? I would say the same thing for the concept of Australasian although most accept that the island of Timor is not part of Australasia. You don't mention the concept of Melanesia, of which Timor is part, although it is not considered pure Melanesia, as like Indonesia and other neighbouring regions is also considered Autronesian. Either way, trying to classify in too fine a detail just ends up getting confusing and conflicting. --Merbabu 09:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
So your input is concerning Melanesia, and I agree with you. The pre-Portuguese indigenous population is Melanesian, i.e. black Pacific islander and just like indigenous Australians, not Asian. Also as you know Timor is East of the Wallace Line with an Australian biology. So now you agree that Timor is part of the Australian continental geography, biology, and human history; and that it has no connection with any part of Asia excepting that it is very close but not part of some continental islands of South East Asia.
Wikipedia etiquette is that you should always discuss an issue before using 'revert'; though you did at least come to the discussion page as an afterthought. The text I returned to the article was a very honest attempt by someone to address the issue without ignoring the political and fiscaly motivated claims of Jakarta to various parts of this island which had every right to self-determination and independence from Asian or Australian governments.58.107.10.239 13:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
No, i did not mean that we should classify East Timor as Melanesian (like many classifications that too brings difficulties and contradictions) but merely bringing up ethnicity, language, geography, ecology to highlight that there are many ways to classify a country and that classifying it purely along tectonic lines is a questionable way to classify it over and above other factors. As i said by way of example, if we use that logic, then India and Australia can be classified together, while Australia would not be in the same group as PNG or NZ. And no, i did not say that it should be classified as part of Australia over Asia. Your classification was purely tectonic, and even on that logic, Australia and timor cannot be grouped together. So, even if we did use the ill-advised tectonic classification as the major classifier (over and above all other factors) you still had it wrong, it seems. --Merbabu 22:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
P.S. as noted in the edit history, the text I re-inserted back into the article had been removed on 2/Feb/2006 without explanation.58.107.10.239 13:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

East Timor is part of Asia, Southeast Asia more specifically.

East Timor is part of Asia, Southeast Asia more specifically, PERIOD! Even if it lies like India on another plate is absolutly of no signifcance. They are both part of Asia and universally accepted so. 193.255.230.227

It is more Asian than Australian, though there are same Australian/Oceanian features. The population is mainly Malayan. Only the people, who are speaking the Papua-languages Fataluku, Makasae, Makalero and Bunak are Melanesian. Tetum, Atauru, Bekais, Galoli, Habun, Idalaka, Kawaimina, Kemak, Makuva, Mambai and Tokodede are Malayan. Baikeno are from an older origin than Melanesian. The animals are from Asia and Australia, but there are not many Australian animals like the Kuskus (Phalanger orientalis). There are Asian deers, bats and amphibias (check: de:Fauna Timors Timor-Leste's football team is member of the Asian Football Association and the country is member of the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), wants to become member of ASEAN. It is proud to be the second Catholic Asian country after the Philippines. And please, don't believe, I am saying this, because, I would be pro-Indonesian. I am a friend of Timor-Leste. --J. Patrick Fischer 18:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Patrick, Firstly addressing your last comment, in 2006 you can be pro-Indonesian and pro-East Timor. ;) In fact, in 2006, in many ways (no, not all) these two countries are getting on better with each other than either of them are with Australia.
I also agree, Patrick, with your comments on classification - east timor is more Asian that Australian on most criteria. IN fact, i might have opened up a can of worms with the Melanesian classification. Like most classifications, it should be treated as a guide only. Is the "melanesianness" of timor the same as that of Papua? I think not. Like ethnicity, the flora and fauna is also MIXED. it is not simply Asian or Australia and your comments are in line with this. (in the same vein, although Alfred Wallace initially proposed a definite line, it is now generally accepted that the Wallace Line is more a transition zone than a border between two distinc groups). --Merbabu 22:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

NO PERIOD AT ALL

-Colonial Portuguese documents says Timor is in Oceania (I can cite meticulously one by one), Encyclopedias like Delta Larousse says Timor is in Oceania, and Timor is part of the Pacific Islands Forum. Why it can not be classified Asia/Oceania?? Turkey, Israel and Mexico many times receives this kind of double classification. Timor has a strong melanesian culture, even the resemblance of the natives with those from Papua New Guinea or Australia is evident. Even in political arena, the movement for a free Irian Jaya sees East Timor as a kind of a brother Melanesian state.

I DEFEND A DOUBLE CLASSIFICATION, Asia/Oceania, a transition region.

Emerson 189.41.197.75 23:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Editing articles about districts

Can anybody repair the infobox of the articles about the districts of East Timor? I don't know how to do this. Since there are new (bigger) maps, the whole box went wild. Same in Portuguese and Tetun-Wikipedia! Thank you, --J. Patrick Fischer 10:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Merbabu's strange reverts

User Merbabu reverted several changes I had made to the article. Most of them were not very important, just matters of style, but I did spend a lot of work in them. As an argument, his edit summary had just a bland "move out of place detail from Lead to Language section + grammar/language check". But he did not edit just the Lead.

And, although the changes I had made were small, I would not describe them as "a detail", so I naturally assumed he had edited more than he meant to. If not, I think he should explain the reverts he made here first. FilipeS 16:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You should not take the changes personally, nor should any amount of time you spend on them preclude others from disagreeing with them. Also, i suggest calling people's edits "strange" is not going to help win over people to you. When you make so many changes, you can't expect them all to be agreed to by others. You don't mention i left the majority i did agree with and left.
I moved detailed information that does not belong in the lead of a country article. Leads should only contain the most important info about a country in very short space. Sure, say its language is official language is Protuguese, but is this really that significant it must be in the lead: It is the only Portuguese-speaking independent state in Asia, although there are modest lusophone communities within other Asian countries. For example, Portuguese is also one of the official languages of the Chinese S.A.R. of Macau. A Macau mention is important?
as for more explanation (which is more than is required - and more than you gave):
  • some are errors including The Netherlands is singular.
  • Several of the changes (most?) were not reverts, but changes to your changes. I did say i did these. (+grammar/language)
  • others were completely unrelated to your changes and you have not explained why you reverted them.
  • Most of your string of edits were completely unexplained, at least i offered a general explanation.
Is this really the way you suggest we continute to work on this article? I hope not. I am sure you agree it is a little tedious. Instead, i will slowly and surely reconsider my changes and re-implement them where appropriate. I trust that is a good compromise?
Thanks --Merbabu 16:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

This written after edit conflict:

I have to say, too, that some of Merbabu's changes were not for the best:

FilipeS 16:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

So please just change the typo and not blunt revert the other correct changes at the same time. --Merbabu 16:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "The culture of East Timor reflects numerous influences, including Portuguese, Roman Catholic, and Malay, on the indigenous Austronesian and Melanesian cultures of Timor." → "The culture of East Timor reflects numerous influences, including Portuguese, Roman Catholic, and Indonesia, on the indigenous Austronesian and Melanesian cultures of Timor."

First of all, that should be "Indonesian", not "Indonesia". And, secondly, East Timor had Malay influences long before Indonesia even existed.FilipeS 16:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not a question of who had the influences first, and you are trying to compare the concept of Malayness with the nation Indonesia created in 1945. Different things. Oh, and one can always fix a typo and leave the rest. --Merbabu 16:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "As for architecture, some Portuguese-style buildings can be found, along with the traditional totem houses of the eastern region." → "Architecturely, some Portuguese-style buildings can be found, although the traditional totem houses of the eastern region also survive." FilipeS 16:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Where was the "grammar" problem with my version, here? FilipeS 16:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

No grammar problem, but like some of the other changes you removed, my changes either built on yours (ie, not reverts) or had nothing to with your changes at all. I suggest the courteous thing to do would reinstate those changes you removed with a blunt revert. Note, i didn't blunt revert - i used a bit more precision. They are "Matters of style" as you called it.
Perhaps, you are taking the changes a bit to personally/preciously? That's my opinion anyway. --Merbabu 16:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but instead of my spending my time correcting mistakes after you, I'll tell you what: how about in the future you're more careful not to make them in the first place? Incidentally, my English is clearly better than yours. FilipeS 16:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Gee, you certainly don't make any attempts to be civil. As i said, and you have just confirmed it, you need to learn to not take things so personally. Perhaps it is my typing on 2 occassions in the article. Even "better still" would be to just change the 2 typos and leave my other 1/2 dozen changes in place. --Merbabu 17:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Now, addressing the rest of your points:

  • I have no objections to the move you made from the lead to the language section, and I thank you as well for having changed your mind regarding the reference to Macau. Given that the decision to make Portuguese an official language of East Timor was controversial, with some critics arguing that it had no connection to the land and no international usefulness, I do think it's a good idea to put the use of Portuguese into proper perspective.
  • "others were completely unrelated to your changes and you have not explained why you reverted them."I simply reverted the article to its previous version.
  • Most of my edits were "unexplained" because, as I've explained, they dealt with minor matters of style. (E.g., "the Netherlands was" grates on my ears, though I'll take your native speaker's word for it that it's right.)
  • It is not a question of who had the influences first, and you are trying to compare the concept of Malayness with the nation Indonesia created in 1945. Different things.
I'm not sure why you're saying I was "trying to compare the concept of Malayness with the nation Indonesia created in 1945". I wasn't. It's just that Indonesia occupied East Timor for 24 years, whereas Malay culture influenced it for several centuries. Seems much more relevant!
  • No grammar problem, but like some of the other changes you removed, my changes either built on yours (ie, not reverts) or had nothing to with your changes at all.
In the particular excerpt I was talking about, you did not "build" anything. You just reverted the article to a previous version. I had changed that previous version because it contains biased language:
"Architecturely, some Portuguese-style buildings can be found, although the traditional totem houses of the eastern region also survive."
This implies that the survival of Portuguese-style buildings is somehow antithetical to the survival of more traditional styles of architecture, which of course is unproven speculation. FilipeS 17:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh this is too funny. Although you are misrepresenting much of the situation, they are on such minor points i question why either of us are still replying. --Merbabu 17:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

POV is not a minor point in Wikipedia! FilipeS 18:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

With respect, could you please stop saying or inferring things i did not say - or intend to say. And, my apologies if I am wrong, but I get the distinct impression that although you are clearly genuine in trying to improve articles, you also seem to be doing your best to show me up, often - or rather usually - unfairly. Please assume good faith. No doubt you agree that it should be about the article, not the editors.
As for the actual edits, your apparent wish for "As for Architecture,..." compared to my reverted suggested "Architecturally,..." is hardly a question of POV, rather it is a specific example of the "minor points" i was referring to. And saying a certain architectural style has survived does not imply something "antithetical", although i agree although could be interpreted that way - although i doubt this was why you initially changed it, rather i suggest you found it easier to just revert the lot - maybe not?
But, in the spirit of collaboration and assumption of good faith, i feel it is important to specifically state that, I like your most recent batch of edits to this page (and by the way to your efforts in referenceing Languages of East Timor). kind regards--Merbabu 23:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for you supportive words! :-) Alright, I will try to be more civilized from now on. Regarding the article:

  • I did not mean to suggest that you had anything to do with the lines in the article I criticized. I suppose you did not write them; you just reinstated them.
  • "As for architecture" and "Architecturally" are all the same to me. My problem was with the rest of the sentence, which sounded a tad biased to me. And, yes, that was why I rewrote it, originally. FilipeS 21:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timor-Leste/Archive_1&oldid=1264890210"