Jump to content

Talk:Timor-Leste/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Etymology section

... provides no explanation whatsoever of the meaning of "Leste". Presumably it's "east", but that should be explicitly mentioned. --202.28.179.5 (talk) 05:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Also ugly nonstandard title. The anchorlink deals with functionality issues, but I'll still note my distaste for the clunky thing that just got replaced. — LlywelynII 15:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
What is truly distasteful is passing judgement on the "ugly clunky thing" which happens to be the given name of the country. If you can't be accurate and impartial you shouldn't be attempting to edit Wikipedia articles in the first place. -jh 86.143.116.218 (talk) 10:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree. The first/second paragraph could say that Leste means East in Portuguese, even though this is fairly obvious. -jh 86.143.116.218 (talk) 10:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move: Timor-Leste

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 04:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


East Timor → Timor-Leste – The proposed name is the UN member and sovereign state name of this country, as you can see here and here, respectively. Much of the notability of this entity is a result of it’s status as a UN member. It must be admitted that “Timor-Leste" is not the most common form of this country's name in English. But an important function of a title is to establish proper normative usage. Hence we have article titles at Mumbai, Kolkata, and Côte d'Ivoire, even though Bombay, Calcutta and Ivory Coast are the more commonly used English-language names. Many countries have made name changes upon independence or other status change. For example, Rhodesia became Zimbabwe, South-West Africa became Namibia, and Annam became Vietnam. The name “Timor-Leste” was selected upon independence and therefore falls in this catagory. Kauffner (talk) 17:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, so nobody’s heard of “Timor-Leste”. But the name “East Timor” doesn’t exactly get top billing anywhere either. It is conventional to follow local usage in the case of lesser known locations. Britannica splits the difference with the title East Timor (Timor-Leste). Meanwhile, Huffington Post, The Economist, The New Zealand Herald, the Jakarta Post, and the CIA's World Factbook all use “Timor-Leste”. Usage of the official name has increased dramatically in the last few years, so I will use very recent data. For Google News since 2005, I get 18,700 results for Timor-Leste, and 15,300 results for East Timor. Kauffner (talk) 17:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose, since as Kauffner says, "'Timor-Leste' is not the most common form of the name in English", and that is the rule we follow (if, on the other hand, it can be established that "Timor-Leste" is now more common in reliable sources, I'd be happy to support a name change). If "Mumbai", "Kolkata", and "Côte d'Ivoire" are not the most common names in English, those articles should be renamed, not this one. That the UN calls the country "Timor-Leste" is not decisive; we're not calling Vietnam "Viet Nam" either, even though that is the name used at the UN. Ucucha (talk) 22:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
    Vietnam is of course quite notable for reasons unrelated to its UN membership. And "Timor-Leste" does get more news hits in the last few years. Kauffner (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
    So is East Timor. Or do you think Somaliland, Western Sahara, and Kosovo are not notable? Ucucha (talk) 01:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
    East Timor is a country run by UN agencies. The UN had the security mandate until March of this year. You have heard of this place before, right? A large percentage of the coverage is related to UN peacekeeping and to political status, with UN membership used as a way to certify full independence from Indonesia. Before independence, East Timor was known as Noam Chomsky's hobbyhorse, so it was quite distant from mainstream interest. Vietnam became a UN member in 1977, an event that had no significant impact on the level of coverage that the country received. Kauffner (talk) 02:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Ucucha. "Mumbai", "Kolkata", and "Côte d'Ivoire" are all controversial title on Wikipedia precisely because it is doubtful whether they are the most common names in English; the question of which variety of English applies is (in all three cases) a political question. Here it is not quite so political; the government chose to be "Timor Leste" in all languages, and English usage has not followed anywhere in the world. Evidence to show that has changed is welcome. This ngram suggests that East Timor still dominates in English as a whole, and the journalistic use of datelines is exceptional; presumably as a response to government pressure. Even if not, we should stay with the established name until the other becomes dominant; as with Mumbai, the political choice could change at the next election. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Extended content
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.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

East Timor → Timor-Leste — Discussed many times above. Consensus is to move. Fmph (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose - no-one except us wikipedia nerds seems to know what Timor Leste even means - and the odd university professer perhaps. English Language is determined by usage and not by the decree of a government. Wikipedia policy is to use common names. I don't think I've ever seen a media report use Timor Leste - it's all East Timor - and I do take quite an interest in what happens in that country. Further, it's not wikipedia's job to promote new things. We are not part of a campaign to set "correct" things. We reflect what is, not what we think they should be. Sure, provide full explanation (as article currently does) but it’s not going to help wikipedia to ultimately have, I presume, every mention of “East Timor” across wikipedia changed to “Timor Leste”.
Anyway, I will get back to improving the article now - there is a little more to this article (and a country for that matter) than the first sentence on this page. --Merbabu (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:UCN (use common names) and WP:UE (use English). Wikipedia doesn't do official names. Damn this "let's use the native names"-approach. This isn't the international wiki, this is the English-wiki. Flamarande (talk) 22:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose "East Timor" is still by a long way the most common name of the nation in English. Flamarande above sums up the relevant policy arguments succinctly. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 10:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose "East Timor" is most common name and the proposed name is unheard to the most of readers.Penom (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support 'East Timor' is the most common-English language name in the media and general publications, but the country's official name is 'Timor Leste' and this is now consistently used by English-speaking governments (except for politicians aiming messages at their general public) and normally used in non-Government publications which are focused on the country. There seems to me to be no excuse to use an outdated and somewhat colloquial name for the country just because people who don't know what they're talking about still use it. I note that WP:ON is only an essay and while I generally support using common names for things, this is a case where doing so doesn't make any sense. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment You say that East Timor isn't used "except for politicians aiming messages at their general public" Seems quite clear that when speakers want to be understood by English-speaking people, they call the country "East Timor". Wikipedia should follow common practice, not try and lead it. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 11:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Notice that Nick-D first admits that "'East Timor' is the most common-English language name in the media and general publications" but then argues that we shouldn't use East Timor "just because people who don't know what they're talking about still use it" (i.e.: the average English-speaking person). He also argues that "this is a case where doing so doesn't make any sense". IMHO Nick-D's arguments follow an extremely illogical reasoning. Flamarande (talk) 13:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Precisely. Wikipedia is a place for "people who don't know what they're talking about" to go and find out more. It is a general reference and not a work of or for specialists. If I'm an average person and interested in finding out more about East Timor, I can find the article where I would most expect it and then find out that the Portuguese name of the country is Timor-Leste. — AjaxSmack 21:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Flamarande, I explicitly stated that while I normally support using the common name for things (which in this case is 'East Timor') in this case I don't think that it makes sense. Seems fairly logical to me (though I'm obviously biased!) - WP:IAR and all that. Nick-D (talk) 08:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
  • Support This pops up every six months or so, and will probably continue to do so until the article is moved. While it doesn't look like this attempt will be successful, I stand by my comments in the above archived discussion (eg, that Timor Leste is the name now used by most national governments and major organisations) and that as a result it's what we should use as the correct encyclopedic name for the article and choose to ignore WP:NAME in the process). Nick-D (talk) 11:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
    Which will happen under one of two conditions:
    • There is consensus to use a name nobody but a diplomat has heard of instead of one English-speakers have.
    • English-speakers have come to call this country Timor-Leste.
    Can we table this until one of those two things happens? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I gave a list of publications that use the term. The The Economist, the CIA, the regional press, international organizations, etc. They don't speak English? These are the people who deal most directly with this issue. If you want to know the name of a subatomic particle, ask a physicist. Name of a country? A diplomat might know! Kauffner (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Kauffner's sources are not a majority, let alone an overwhelming majority, of English usage; stare decisis. A diplomat is a honest man sent to lie abroad for his country; if he knows something, he is unlikely to tell you. That's how we get attestations for such country "names" as The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (alphabetized under T). So here; we do not have to adopt the POV of the current government, and we have policy not to do so; diplomats differ in both respects. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
In contrast to the Greek government's position with respect to Macedonia, the Indonesian government no longer holds a grudge with respect to the East Timor naming issue. The Jakarta Post switched from "East Timor" to "Timor Leste" earlier this year. Look at this JP headline: "Editorial: Bring Timor Leste in to ASEAN". The newspaper's office would have been burned down if they published that five years ago. In the East Indies, bygones are bygones and the days of big countries picking out names for small ones are over. It pretty standard for countries to change their names like this when they become independent. It was always malicious to refuse to do it in this case, and now even Indonesia no longer objects. Kauffner (talk) 02:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is english wikipedia for heaven sake, not portuguese. Come to think of it maybe back in wikipedia Indonesia the name Timor Leste should be turn back to Timor Timur. But here in Indonesia I heard there is an official diplomatic request from East Timor govt that the country should be refer as Timor Leste, the name Timor Timur (exact translation of english: East Timor and portuguese: Timor Leste) awfully reminds them to Indonesian occupation. So Indonesian govt want to be politically correct has agreed to refer the country as "Timor Leste", although IMO in proper Indonesian language it is lingusitically wrong, to put foreign Portuguese name ahead of our own Indonesian name. This naming issues is weird, East Timor tried to be an independence country but desperately clings to the legacy of their former ruler/colonizer. Just my two cents... (Gunkarta (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC))
  • Oppose, because all manner of widely circulated newspapers in English prefer "East Timor", often by a healthy margin:
  Google hits for "East Timor" Google hits for "Timor-Leste"
New York Times 8750 49
Washington Post 8260 5720
Wall Street Journal 314 38
The Guardian 50,900 1290
The Daily Telegraph 1080 36
The Independent 2930 26
The Globe and Mail 220 14
The Age 43,900 845
The Australian 3000 152
Sydney Morning Herald 9010 789
New Zealand Herald 8580 870
The Economist 1760 508

Now, it's possible the trend has been in the direction of "Timor-Leste"; I can't rule that out. But it does seem fairly clear that across the English-speaking world, based on newspaper articles published in the last few years, "East Timor" is by far the preferred term, and would be more familiar to our readers as well. - Biruitorul Talk 04:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I checked these numbers and they are very heavily ghosted. The number of Washington Post results for "East Timor" drops from 8260 to 833 after deghosting. I can't check the higher numbers, but we may assume that these are even more seriously ghosted. Kauffner (talk) 12:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
The ratios are even more lopsided if you do this for Ivory Coast and Côte d'Ivoire, but that country gets its UN member name as an article title all the same. Well, I guess I contributed my Wikibyte, for what little it wa bs worth, to the cause of the Christians of East Timor, who have suffered so much from Muslim savagery over the years. Kauffner (talk) 09:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
The Ivory Coast/Cote d'Ivoire question and your (seemingly bigotted) opinions on East Timor's history are both irrelevant to naming matter. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 11:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
By this standard, I suppose Noam Chomsky would top the list as the biggest bigot of them all. Kauffner (talk) 13:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Totally oversimplify bigotted comments on East Timor history, what Muslim-Christian religious relations have to do with this East Timor naming issue? I would try to avoid further unnecesarry and irrelevant discussion. (Gunkarta (talk) 13:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC))
In fact, witnesses have come forward to testify that the Indonesian army arrived in East Timor prepared to enjoy high tea, but an unfortunate sequence of misunderstandings ensued. Kauffner (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
The suggestions that your comments were unsavoury AND irrelevant, were not suggestions that you ramp up the rhetoric or continue down your tangent of irrelevancy. Please stop already. --Merbabu (talk) 08:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
So you go around accusing other people of being bigots and so forth, and then you wonder why they react. That's a nice hobby you've got there. Kauffner (talk) 11:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I really tried to avoid irrelevant discussion here, but your cluelessness astounds me. Do you really think by leaving some irrelevant comments about other religion/civilization as savage and expect no reactions? and now wondering why people might think of you as bigots? Quite different sets of logics you have there. I suggest you to only write relevant subject, in this case East Timor-Timor Leste naming issue. Gunkarta (talk) 13:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
You ask for sympathy even as you call me a bigot again. I was not born yesterday, you know. Ini bukan Jakarta. Tidak ada kafir di sini. Kauffner (talk) 01:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Your consistent irrelevancy out of topic comments is really persistent. This is english wikipedia, and what your quote in Bahasa Indonesia really means? (I will translate your statement for non-Indonesian speaking editors to understand: Ini bukan Jakarta. Tidak ada kafir di sini. translate: "This is not Jakarta. No infidels here"). I know this is the internet, not Jakarta, and nobody accused anybody as infidel. All I did is gaving the reaction of your previous remark "Muslim savagery". And you constantly making remarks that can be considered as Ad hominem, I suggest you to be careful, please conduct editing and interacting with fellow editors in civility. Gunkarta (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
What happened to "correct spelling" and "don't dumb it down"? If a phrase appears 6000 times in the Washington Post, I think we can assume it's English. The Telegraph has a helpful article on how make the "Timor-Leste" Olympic team feel welcome when they arrive in London. So it seems that the name is making headway, at least in a sports context. Kauffner (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Which of East and Timor is incorrectly spelt?
Rather, this is "don't adopt the official view", which is one of the components of neutrality. Since Ivory Coast being incorrect was the platform of the now-deposed despot, it really may be expected to fade away soon. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think there's anything in Wikipedia naming conventions which says that the function of a title is to establish proper normative usage. In my view some of the other titles are mis-named. I have heard a bit about East Timor, I think I would have had to look up or at least consider where Timor Leste is. PatGallacher (talk) 00:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps some people come to an encyclopedia in search of information, in which case the title should be the most accurate form of the name, the name the country calls itself, and the name that those who deal most directly with it use. Of course, I took the opposite view in Côte d'Ivoire RM. But I think "Ivory Coast" is a much better established exonym than "East Timor". Also "Côte d'Ivoire" vs "Ivory Coast" is just question of French vs English. The continued use of "East Timor" reflects bullying by a neighboring country. Kauffner (talk) 12:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Citation to be Included

Hi, under the History section there was a citation request for the November 28 1975 declaration of independence. I did a quick search and found this page on the US State Department's website. Would this link be valid?

I wish you well. Tor...

Our usual reasons for avoiding websites should not apply to the State Department; it is a knowledgable source, as likely to be fact-checked as most major publishers, and officially produced. I would use it unless there is some question (I don't see what it would be here) of a US POV. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Non-English names

Infobox contains the following names besides English one:

  • Repúblika Demokrátika Timór-Leste[1] (Tetum)
  • República Democrática de Timor-Leste (Portuguese)

While Name section in the text says:

"The official names under the Constitution are República Democrática de Timor-Leste in Portuguese (pronounced [tiˈmoɾ ˈlɛʃtɨ]) and Repúblika Demokrátika Timór Lorosa'e in Tetum."

That seems to be in contradiction. Someone can explain or correct that? Ruziklan (talk) 10:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The constitution says Repúblika Demokrátika Timor-Leste, so I changed names to follow that. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Post-RM discussion

I am a late comer to this discussion but my knowledge of usage is in the world, even English speaking world, Timor Leste is more common. In the U.S., most people never heard of the place, but, of those who have, they know the place as "East Timor". Therefore, it would be an Americocentric view. This is not necessarily bad because of the high number of American readers, but it is an American bias. Auchansa (talk) 00:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

If you want to compare the usage rate of "Timor Leste" in different countries, check Google Insights. For the last 12 months, I get 27 percent for the U.S., 22 percent for Australia. For 2007 and earlier, usage for "Timor Leste" was zilch. So usage is shifting rapidly and I am sure this issue will need to be reconsidered at some point. Kauffner (talk) 06:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
And in the meantime, we should reflect current usage, not projected usage. --Merbabu (talk) 09:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Names and Nation States

Yes I accept that there is a Wikipedia policy re geographic areas, &c., and common names. However when the article is about not a geographic area, but a modern political nation-state, then surely what that nation-state calls itself is what is important. Retaining other names often seems either to be about political disputes over the "proper" government of that nation-state, or to be a form of neo-colonialism. "We know what you call yourself, but your real name is ..." As has been frequently pointed out in Wikipedia, the use of Google to decide matters assumes some value-free status of Google, a commercial entity dominated, as with the WWW, by US cultural production and English language monolinguality (try googling outside the Anglophone world). Appeals to the past and present state of the English language ignores the dynamic nature of all languages, Wikipedia is not there to fossilise English terms as the correct term for all things, it is to reflect reality in a readable format. I therefore would like to reopen debate about this articles name.Brunswicknic (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

To "reflect reality" is to use the far more commonly used East Timor. The reality of the Englush language is not "value laden". As for reopening the debate, it was last held barely 2 months ago. --Merbabu (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Merbabu, seriously I am not being rude, but to speak, to communicate, is value laden. All language use is value laden. There is no "reality of the English language", all living languages are in a state of flux, words and phrases come and go, the use of such terms as nigger and cunt, to use two examples, have changed their values over time. The words we use reflect our values, I believe that people, as represented by nation-states, have a right to call themselves and ask others to call them, the name of their choice. Merbabu, you chose that for yourself here on Wikipedia, you have chosen an 'unreal' name here, as have I. I strongly believe that it is an act of cultural dominance to insist that nation-states be called by names that others have chosen for them. Timor Leste calls itself Timor Leste, Brunswicknic (talk) 10:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not about values, it's about the most common usage. Yes, there is an official name, and there is the common name. Language is constructed by usage, not by decree. And, when/if it's no longer the common name, or no longer overwhelmingly the most known and used, then I would suggest it should be changed. Or when/if wikipedia policy/convention changes. Perhaps you'd like to insist that the Germans, for example, quit referring to Australia as Australien?
But if you think I'm trying to bullshit you, and I'm really about asserting my "values" of "cultural dominance" or something else, then good luck to you. I can only state my case so many times. If you don't like that response, fine by me.
Speaking of "cultural dominance" what you're really saying is that English language usage be determined by decree of a government? Perhaps I need to be subject to official re-education for language crimes. --Merbabu (talk) 11:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Almost no nation state on the planet has its wikipedia article at its official name. Commonname trumps the official name and so this title is appropriate. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I see that I somehow missed the most recent opportunity to tilt at the 'Timor Leste' windmill above ;) I agree that it's not worth re-raising this so soon after that discussion was closed, but I basically agree with Brunswicknic's position that considerable weight should be given to the official English-language names of countries (which in this case is Timor Leste). The consensus is very clearly against this view, however! Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
England, Britain, Great Britain do not take me to the nation-state that is listed under "United Kingdom of ...", America and US does not take me directly to United States of America, these are the official names, not the colloquial, common names, so why do in these cases do the official names "trump" the common names. For many of those who talk about African issues, Congo Brazzaville and Congo Kinshasa are used to refer to what in wikipedia are listed under the official names (indeed C-B and C-K take you to the pages). Common names do not trump official names in wikipedia. Why should the names used by some trump the name a nation-state (not a geographical area, not an historical entity, but a self-governing political entity)
Wikipedia is also not supposed to be the determiner of usage, so the name of a nation-state should also not be decreed by Wikipedia editors.
Merbabu by using terms such as official re-education and language crimes in your statement both shows how value-laden language is and shows how using names for something influences our perception of it. To respond to a statement that I believe that it is wrong for a cultural group to dominate (to demand that their way is the right way) by implying that the person who made that statement is willing to gaol people for their beliefs, all this shows cultural perceptions are not necessarily based on what is right or wrong, but how one feels. To say to the people of Timor Leste who voted for independence and the right to self-determination that we don't care what you call yourselves, we will call you what we want, that is an act of cultural dominanceBrunswicknic (talk) 12:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
The naming follows English language, as determined by usage, not government decree. If either the English language changes or wikipedia policy changes, then to too can the title of this article. Really, it's not that complicated. Anything else you want to say about values and culture, or any attempt to explain my own thoughts to me, really don't count. --Merbabu (talk) 12:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't "Timor Leste" literally mean "East Timor"? How is using the literal English translation of a foreign word an act of cultural dominance? To me their insistence that I use a foreign word while speaking my own language seems to be an indication of their arrogance. --Khajidha (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

--Merbabu, you say there is policy that privileges usage above all in place in Wikipedia, why does not apply to the Britain or America. --Khajidha, do you know how many words in English come from sources other than Anglo-Saxon or even Norman-French? Perhaps look up the etymology of say tattoo (both meanings), amuck, gong, ketchup, hickory. Arrogance is not requesting that people respect other people, arrogance is demanding that your way is the only way. Your user name has an English language translation, should wikipedia refuse to accept it?Brunswicknic (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I am quite aware of how many words in English come from other languages, but the relevant fact is that it was the English speakers who decided to use those words. The Polynesians didn't force us to use their word for ink embedded in the skin, we decided to borrow it (to take just one of your examples). And my user name is a made up phrase from a comic book. --Khajidha (talk) 18:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
PS I am not disrespecting anyone, the name of their country in their language is whatever they wish it to be. Their name in any other language is up to the speakers of that language, the only possible objection that I can see is if the name were inherently offensive (e.g. if the English term were something like "Shitheadia"). Where is THEIR respect for me? --Khajidha (talk) 18:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Official weblink to integrate in the article

Archive & Museum of the timorese resistance, www.fmsoares.pt/iniciativas/iniciativa?id=000857 -- 178.115.250.1 (talk) 11:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Names in the opening

The name "Timor-Leste" is currently given three times in opening sentence. This is poor writing style to say the least. If somebody wants to RM this article so that this nation may be titled at its correct name, I will be the first to !vote "support." I have done everything I can to move this article, and I have the hate mail, vandalism, page protection, etc. to prove it. So I think I can speak with some street cred here: Until the page is moved, the opening must correspond to the current title. This is because we have rules:

  • "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence." (WP:BEGINNING)
  • "Alternatively, if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section....Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. As an exception, a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be retained in the lead." (WP:LEAD#Separate_section_usage)
  • To sum up: The opening should contain one English-language name corresponding to the title, and one local language name. Kauffner (talk) 12:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
That doesn't seem like a good idea to me; there are several fairly common names for this country, and this sentence is (from memory) the result of the previous discussions on this topic. Throwing around terms like the article 'must' use a particular form of wording isn't a great idea given the article's history. Nick-D (talk) 08:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Agreed with Nick. While it might be a good idea to reduce the clutter by say moving "officially the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste" to the "Etymology" section, it only makes sense to keep both frequently used English names for the country in the first sentence. TDL (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Why not rephrase as follows: "East Timor /ˌiːst ˈtiːmɔːr/ ⓘ, sometimes referred to by its Portuguese name Timor-Leste, (/tiˈmɔːr ˈlɛʃteɪ/; Tetum: Timór Lorosa'e}}), officially the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste, is a sovereign state in Southeast Asia." --Khajidha (talk) 04:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I think the guideline is clear, and I don't see any reason not to follow it. No copy editor would allow a sentence anything like the current opening to be published. Among other problems, it gives the word "Timor-Leste" three (3!) times. The opening should not be a legalistic compromise among various views, but rather a clean and uncluttered introduction to the subject. Here is what I suggest:
East Timor ([Timor-Leste] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)) is a sovereign state in Southeast Asia. Kauffner (talk) 13:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
You quoted above "a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be retained in the lead." I suggest that Timor-Leste be kept in bold as well, confirming to readers that search Timor-Leste that they have reached the right page (my brain tends to skip over the italics at the start of wikipedia articles, I don't know if this is the case for others). "East Timor, also Timor-Leste, is a sovereign state in Southeast Asia", or something of the kind. CMD (talk) 16:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I support CMD's suggestion. It is nice and neat. danielkueh (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, that works for me. TDL (talk) 18:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I can accept CMD's suggestion. And I agree that Wikipedia penchant for including all possible permutations of pronunciations, spellings, and local languages is very annoying. I'd rather see articles start with a short sharp sentence - to cut to the chase so to speak. The other details can go in the next sentence, or at the end of the first paragraph, or the end of the lead, or the etymology section, or anywhere but in an over bloated clumsy first sentence. But changing that on Wikipedia is a battle too big for me. --Merbabu (talk) 20:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
CMD's suggested wording also looks good to me Nick-D (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
But we still might have to keep the official name there. How's this:
East Timor, officially the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste, is a country in Southeast Asia.
Thoughts? danielkueh (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Also good. Can push local languages further back into the too??? --Merbabu (talk) 02:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Into the next few sentences or etymology section? I don't see why not. danielkueh (talk) 02:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
"Timor-Leste" is just as official as "Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste". See here. Kauffner (talk)
The present lead sentence contains both. Its format is consistent with the lead sentence of other WP country articles (e.g., Ivory Coast, China, etc). danielkueh (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I guess you already know that having three names in the opening does not comply with the relevant guideline, and that putting "Timor-Leste" twice in same sentence suggests a possible issue with stuttering. Kauffner (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
As I once suggested for the Ivory Coast, replacing "officially" with "formally" for the long form name avoids the whole government-approved short name business. CMD (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Kaufner, the current lead sentence does not violate any guideline (WP:BEGINNING). The guideline merely recommends moving some descriptions to the Etymology section if there are more than two alternative forms. Not following the recommendation doesn't mean we violated a policy or rule. It just means, "hmmm, ok, no need for that." The policy that really counts is WP:consensus. Also, I am not sure how one could infer that there was an "issue of stuttering" when reading the lead sentence. Unless someone else comes to this same conclusion, I think this must be a unique perspective of yours. As it stands, the lead sentence is quite clear. There are two common names (East Timor or Timor-Leste) used to refer to East Timor and that the country has an official name (Democratic Republic of...) under its constitution. And you can find this country in Southeast Asia.
CMD, I have no problems with "formally" as a substitute for "officially." I retained the latter in my last edit of the lead sentence just to be consistent with other WP articles. Regards. danielkueh (talk) 19:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • You call it "consistency", I call it "Wiki-jargon." Here "offically" means only that "Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste" is the longer name, something that is obvious from the context. Whether the opening has three names or two names is not a big deal, at least not compared to the number of names that was in the opening before. Kauffner (talk) 15:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Not sure I follow your statement, "Here "offically" means only that "Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste" is the longer name,..." On a separate note, I agree that the current lead is better than the previous version. danielkueh (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

ASEAN membership

added membership update in a new section of foreign relations. maybe other content relating to foreign relations should also be moved this new section. the section is same structure as Singapore page. thevikas (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Malaysia influenced the culture?

Under 'culture' it is said that "The culture of East Timor reflects numerous influences, including Portuguese, Roman Catholic, and Malaysia, on the indigenous Austronesian and Melanesian cultures of Timor." How did Malaysia influence East Timor's culture? I would say that Indonesian (especially Javanese) influence is much larger. 202.167.250.43 (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

You're right, that should be Indonesian. Thanks for catching that. danielkueh (talk) 14:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I think, someone wanted to say Malayan, not Malaysian influence. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

"...is located 640 km (400 mi) northwest of Darwin, Australia."

I find this geographical specification rather bewildering if not to say "anglocentric". Why is the geographical situation of a souvereign nation state with over a million inhabitants specified relative to the position of some Australian city of mediocre importance (no hard feelings, Darwin, Australia)? If at all, it would seem to make sense the other way round! Who except someone from Australia would care about the distance between Darwin and East-Timor (and which part of East-Timor anyway)? Is Wikipedia a travel guide for Australians? If "nearest anglophone place" becomes a relevant piece of information on Wikipedia, why not include those silly CIA fact book facts like "twice the size of Texas". Anyway, enough of my rant. I will therefore remove this particular piece of information from the article. Maybe someone can come up with a more neutral and relevant description of the country's geographical situation. --Rappatoni (talk) 15:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Or you could just assume good faith of previous editors, explain calmly what is wrong, and then fix it instead of "ranting" with sarcastic hyperbole, (and even racial undertones). Then people might say "yeah, good job". --Merbabu (talk) 21:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, good faith was assumed, I certainly did not want to accuse anyone of intentionally trying to belittle a country. And I don't know how I earned that "racial undertones" remark. However, I may indeed have reacted somewhat allergically. So I'll try again: I think the sentence - as it was - was firstly giving an irrelevant piece of information and secondly had the potential to unintentionally irritate (as it did with me) or even insult readers. Imagine someone from East Timor getting the impression that the authors of the article regard their "small" country as so obscure that its geographical situation is best explained relative to Darwin, Australia. They might then develop feelings similar to those that led me to produce my "rant". That's why I removed it and hope that somebody with greater expertise on the subject than me may come up with a better description. Better? ;) --Rappatoni (talk) 16:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, it wouldn't be wrong to say, it is 600 km northwest of Australia. That's the way how I explain people in Germany, where Timor is located. But Darwin is not as well known in the world, too. That's really a little bit anglocentric. I wouldn't have problems with size descriptions like "twice the size of Texas". Texas is quite well known outside the US. We are using in German Wikipedia this kind, too, if there is not a German speaking country or federal state, which hits the number. By the way: East Timor has more or less the same size like Schleswig-Holstein. ;-) --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 12:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

How about - it's surrounded by Indonesia? just kidding. ;-) --Merbabu (talk) 12:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
This could be everywhere from Sumatra to New Guinea. ;-) --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 23:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'm late adding this; but: It makes more sense if you take the time to look at a map. Map of East Timor in relation to Darwin. Nearest overseas country (except Indonesia--who the East Timorese hate): Australia. Nearest Australian city: Darwin. If I remember correctly, Australia gave asylum to independence leaders such as Jose Ramos-Horta during the Indonesian occupation of East Timor/Timor Leste and some of those based themselves in Darwin from whence they could make radio broadcasts. When blockaded by Indonesia, Darwin was the only entry point by air and was also the launch point for Operation Astute. Darwin may loom a little larger in the eyes of the East Timorese than in yours.

Compare (from the Wikipedia article on Bermuda): "Its nearest landmass is Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, about 1,030 kilometres (640 mi) to the west-northwest. It is about 1,239 kilometres (770 mi) south of Cape Sable Island, Nova Scotia, and 1,770 kilometres (1,100 mi) northeast of Miami." — Preceding unsigned comment added by StonePeter (talk • contribs) 18:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Picture

East Timorese protest against Australia 2013

This picture was deleted with the comment: "Picture is highly contentious. Please discuss". Well, I wouldn't say this. The picture documents the protest of Timorese against Australian government. A encyclopedia documents reality. The Timorese anger is reality. Same case like this Australian propaganda picture from WWII. It is in use in four articles in en-wikipedia. Different measuring for different countries? --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

J. Patrick Fischer, there are several reasons why I oppose this picture's inclusion. First, it is clearly propaganda, and WP should not be a mouthpiece for a particular group's POV (see WP:NPOV) and WP:forum), unless the topic is specifically about the picture (issue) in question and is documented from an NPOV perspective. To maintain NPOV, we would have to add another picture from the Australian side as well. This would be overkill, especially when there's more to East Timor than its disputes with Australia. Second, this article is about East Timor, not about the Timor Gap dispute between East Timor and Australia. Devoting a large space for one picture about one small event would be giving such an event undue coverage (see WP:undue). With respect to the Australian propaganda picture, it is clearly described as a propaganda piece and it is not to be found on the main page about Australia, but in pages such as the Australian home front during World War II. Likewise, if a similar "East Timor home front" page on the Timor Gap was to exist, I am sure this picture would be a perfect fit for that sort of page. Third, the source of this picture is unclear. At the moment, it appears to originate from a user's Facebook page, which is hardly a reliable source (see WP:RS). To assume that it reflects the perspective of the East Timor government or the overwhelming majority of its citizens would be to commit original research (see WP:OR). Regards, danielkueh (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I am not your opinion. This article is about East Timor and it mentions foreign relations and economy. If you are watching the news in East Timor during the last weeks, you can see, this case has main importance for East Timor. It is an essential question there. The picture of the "Stealing kangoroo" is getting widespread, not only on walls at Dili, you can find it on internet groups, too. Of course it is Point of view, but the picture is added here as documentation of East Timor protest, not as opinion. That's why it is subtitled with "East Timorese protest against Australia 2013". We can call it "Timorese propaganda against Australia 2013", if you are feeling better with that. By the way: Much more, this picture has relevance for Australia–East Timor relations article. A deletion there is even less understandable. Or should we only let pictures inside the article, where Australia is good looking, like the one with Autralian peace troops in East Timor or Australian demonstrates for East Timor? Greetings, --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 07:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Our opinions on this issue are irrelevant. We're not here to take sides and/or to vilify one side or the other. This is an encyclopedia and not a forum. Like it or not, there are specific policies that we are all expected to follow. danielkueh (talk) 08:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree that this is a useful image for the Australia-Timor Leste relations article and any articles on this specific dispute, but it seems a bit out of place in this article. Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. Right now, the source of this picture is someone's Facebook page. According to WP:RS, this picture would be described as a questionable or self-published source because it comes from an internet social networking site and not from an independent and reliable source such as a news organization, a reputable book, or a scholarly journal. Furthermore, J. Patrick Fischer has yet to provide one independent and reliable source that clearly documents this picture to be reflective of the views of East Timorese and/or their government. These reasons alone are sufficient enough to reject the picture's inclusion into any WP page. danielkueh (talk) 13:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh, changing the requests? Don't forget, images does not have to be from independent sources. There are many images in Wikipedia, which are coming from companies, politicians, etc., who are offering their images to put them on their articles. Does the image reflect the views of gov and/or population of East Timor? Yes: [6] [7] and the image is 80 times liked in FB and 41 times shared. Very much for a such a little country. Anyhow, the image is not just an image. It is a photo of an image at a wall in TL. So, this image document an opinion in TL: [8]. Anyhow, if you have so much problems with this image in the main article East Timor, I am fine with just adding itat Australia–East Timor relations, like Nick-D said. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

More sources showing opinion of people in East Timor: "The problem is they steal our oil then sell it in other places to buy some kind of equipment bring to East Timor trough AusAid Funding. Because of all this reason this afternoon I would like to bring to the attention of the Timorese community and International community to be careful dealing with people from AusAid. AusAid is an espionage agent." or "Australia has been stealing the oil and gas from the Timor Sea, in an area which belongs to Timor-Leste under international legal principles. Sadly, Australia has shown its manner and its greed to make our small and poor country in this region lose our resources and sovereignty". --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

J. Patrick Fischer, you seem to be willfully ignorant about Wikipedia's policies. For starters, I suggest that you review WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:FORUM. NONE of the sources that you provided identifies that picture with the East Timorese government or the mainstream view of the people of East Timor (your facebook source of one person spray painting a wall does not count). Let me review each one of your sources:
  • Sydney Morning Herald, no picture of the Kangaroo.
  • East Timor government's website, nothing there as well.
  • globalvoicesonline. Ignoring for a moment that this site is an international community of bloggers, which is hardly a reliable source (again, see WP:RS), there is NOTHING on that page that identifies your picture with the protesters.
  • Facebook does not count as a reliable source. And only 80 likes and 41 shares? Please, give me a break. And of all images in East Timor, why that one particular image on a wall?
  • The Diplomat. Again, I don't see your picture in that article.
  • Those last few quotes you gave are from the "Movement Against the Occupation of the Timor Sea." No one is contesting that. But again, so what? Why do the views of this particular organization/movement take precedence over those belonging to other groups/institutions such as the government or political parties of East Timor? I don't see Xanana Gusmao accusing Australia of "stealing their oil." Again, this page is about East Timor, and not about a group of youth activists from East Timor. Ditto for the page on East Timor-Australia relations.
Bottom-line, if you want to post on WP a one-sided and non-notable photo of a drawing by a non-notable artist, which vilifies an entire country by accusing it of stealing oil, then you need to do better than just citing blogs and social networks as well as providing your own personal interpretations. So until you are able to produce something that meets the minimum standards set by WP, that picture stays out. danielkueh (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Daniel, please no devaluations. I am not a beginner, I am wikipedia editor for eight years now, so please don't tell me sth about Wikipedia policies. It is normal to show photos of street art at wikipedia to show political opinions from the street. You are asking for references, which are not requested by Wikipedia. This photo is in use. In Timor AND online. I gave references about the allegation about "stealing oil". You are asking for references of a large scale use of this picture, which is not requested. Posting this image does not mean, East Timorese opinion is correct. This graffito shows the emotions in East Timor very well and documents excellent the problems of relations between Australia and East Timor. By the way: I am not East Timorese, I am German. Where are you from? --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 12:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects the reality. Closing eyes before conflicts between countries is not part of that. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 12:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Patrick, it is not a devaluation. It is an observation. Look at what you just wrote, "You are asking for references, which are not requested by Wikipedia." Wrong! Take a look at WP policies below (my emphases in bold):
  • Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). From WP:RS
  • Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. From overview of WP:RS.
  • Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements. Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources. From WP:NPOV
  • Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions.[2] From WP:SOAP
  • To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. From WP:OR
  • As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. From WP:NOTNEWS
  • Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources.[11] Red flags that should prompt extra caution include: surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources; challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest;[8] From WP:REDFLAG
I think I have said all I need to say about this. If you want to include descriptions about the protest, etc, that's a reasonable discussion. And if you want to include something like that picture, But when you claim that the picture "shows the emotions in East Timor very well and documents excellent the problems of relations between Australia and East Timor" and not just those of one group (Movement Against the Occupation of the Timor Sea), you are indeed making an exceptional claim, you need awhich requires several high quality reliable sources. See WP:REDFLAG OK? danielkueh (talk) 13:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

It is getting ridiculous. The picture is showing a wall in East Timor. That is shown by its source. You want a reference, that it is in use. It is on a wall and even IF it would be just one time used, this is still enough. It is enough. I would maybe understand your arguments, if it would be just a computer made logo. But the existence of a picture on a wall is proved by the photo on its own.

I brought references proving the opinion, which it is illustrating, is going around in East Timor. You can find several news articles about the huff in East Timor. It is legitimate for current events to use news as reference, because scientific papers are never available for these.

The picture does only say, there are Timorese, who are believing Australia is stealing Timorese oil. Nothing more. I said, we can write below Timorese propaganda, if you are afraid people would think, this is a verified fact. Looking at Syrian Civil War I would thinking, it is more problematic to show a picture of dead kids and subtitle it with "Unverfied image of people in Ghouta killed by a chemical attack in August 2013".

And you still didn't say, where you from. NOt from Australia? --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

You can find at Libyan Civil War a picture of "Graffiti in Benghazi, drawing the connection to the Arab Spring". Same case. Only not against Australia. Is this the difference? --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Or at 2012–13 Egyptian protests: "Anti-Morsi graffiti". Do you want more examples? Several at 2013 protests in Turkey. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

J. Patrick Fischer, where I come from is really NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. Frankly, I don't care to know where you are from or who you are. It's irrelevant. The only thing that IS relevant are the policies of WP, which you fail to understand. You seem to be only interested in pushing a POV (see WP:advocacy) about East Timorese and their relations with Australia. There is a lot of information and pictures that we can include in this article. But of all the pictures available, you are dead set on giving undue weight (wp:undue) to this one photo, which is not even notable. It is pure propaganda and has yet to be shown to be representative of the mainstream views of the East Timorese and their government. As for your other examples:
  • In the Syrian civil war article, I don't see any propaganda images being highlighted or featured prominently. I just see pictures of maps, real individuals, and tragic events that are characteristics of the many images found in the mainstream media. Nothing controversial and easily sourced and documented. Whether or not the children died from chemical weapons is not the issue. At issue is whether this is notable and documented by the mainstream media, i.e., reliable source. It is. Anyway, it is not particularly relevant to what we are discussing now.
  • In the Libyan civil war article, the graffiti on the wall showcases the chaos and turmoil in Libya during the civil war. Its context is understood. It is not meant to represent the views of the Libyan warring factions or the Libyan government, pre- and post civil war. Same goes for the Egyptian and Turkey protests. All this is very different from what you are trying to accomplish here, which is to prominently display a "street art" that in your words, "shows the emotions in East Timor very well and documents excellent the problems of relations between Australia and East Timor". Last I checked, there is no war between East Timor and Australia and the government of East Timor has not accused Australia of "stealing its oil." No chaos, major strife, or turmoil. So far, all the "emotions" and "accusations" appear to be limited to just one group, the Movement Against the Occupation of the Timor Sea, and its supporters.
  • If there is a WP article about the Movement Against the Occupation of the Timor Sea, then yes, you have a better chance of sticking that kangaroo picture in there. But not in an article about East Timor and its relations with Australia. Likewise, you won't find pictures of anti-whoever graffiti in an article about Libya and its relations with France, the U.S., or the U.K., just to name a few.
  • A comment about the kangaroo image. In contrast to the images on Syrian Civil War, a reader casually looking at the kangaroo picture for the first time will not know that it is in fact a photo of a graffiti on a wall. If the reader was to click on that image, he or she will read the following description, "Australia steals Timor Oil. Protest against Australia in East Timor." The first sentence is an allegation and it is not clear if the second sentence is a description of a fact or a command to the reader to go out and protest against the Australian presence in East Timor. Anyone who would like to know more would have read the thread on this talk page, something that they are not inclined to do.
I have taken the time to actually read what you wrote and go through your sources and reasons carefully. But you don't seem to reciprocate or to be interested in learning and following WP policies, which makes this whole discussion very tedious and almost pointless. So go ahead and complain as much as you want, but at the end of the day, no reliable sources = no consensus (WP:consensus) for that picture. Period. danielkueh (talk) 20:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
If the only place that this image has been published is on some guy's Facebook page, then it doesn't seem significant enough to include in any Wikipedia articles. A photo of a protest or the like would be relevant, but this doesn't seem encyclopaedic if it hasn't been used widely. Nick-D (talk) 06:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Nick-D. One person spray-painting a tiny image on a wall and then taking a photo of it does not illustrate a widespread feeling of anything. Signs held up in documented protest rallies would be better, if there are any. CMD (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
There was a protest outside the Australian embassy in Dili a week or so ago over this issue. Nick-D (talk) 23:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
@Nick-D: This is not the only place. The symbol of the graffiti is spread out East Timor. You can see its use at the demonstration here at Australian embassy. By the way: It is not just "a guy". He is member of Arte Moris, the main artist group in East Timor.
@Daniel: So, I only see, you are searching for differences between graffiti against Arabian dictators or Australian politics. I don't know, why you are believing, you got the right to decide, your opinion is the only right ("So go ahead and complain as much as you want"). We are discussing here and exchanging arguments. If you have a problem with the description, it would be easy to change it into "Protest against Australia in East Timor" or "Graffiti against Australia in East Timor" or "Picture of graffiti protesting the Australia-East Timor oil treaty". --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 11:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
J. Patrick Fischer, unless you have something that is new and substantive (e.g., reliable sources), I won't be responding to anymore of your comments. Since there is no consensus for that picture, there is really nothing more to discuss. danielkueh (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, you were critizising the description of the photo and pointing out, it coulld be misinterpreted. I was proposing an alternative description. If you don't want to discuss about this, you don't show a democratic behaviour. You are just blocking 100 %. Nick-D and Chipmunkdavis are pointing out relevant problems and I can explain the circumstances. It really looks like, you just don't want this photo for political reasons. Well, I don't care. It is not my problem, if en-Wikipedia has good images in its article or not. Maybe I can find a free license photo of the demonstrations. Would clear 100 % the concerns of Nick-D, but I don't think it would makes you happier. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 13:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thinking about our discussion about thisnot relevant graffiti, reading this. ^^ Greetings from Germany, --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 14:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

System of government

I don't see East Timor as having a parliamentary system, but just a semi-presidential republic. The President has significant powers. Plus, its constitution is based on the Portuguese one: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1644026. B.Lameira (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

"...as commonly known in the USA"

I'm baffled by this qualification in the first sentence - presumably the editor only knows that it's common use there? In any case I'm not sure that it's necessary, or at least we could say it's also usually called East Timor in the UK... maybe the English-speaking world? Any Australians / Irish people / etc like to offer an opinion? 81.147.135.249 (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why it is there either. It is commonly know in the English speaking world as East Timor - indeed, that it is why it is the name of the article. Per basic wikipedia naming convention. WP:NAME. It's redundant. --Merbabu (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Lead

It should mention that East Timor is in the continent of Australia. 99.230.223.144 (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

It is not. The Timor Trough is the end of Australia. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 08:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Someone needs to change the Australia (continent) page, then. --Khajidha (talk) 11:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Official name

Is Repúblika Demokrátika Timór-Leste really Tetum? It's so very similar to the Portuguese name that it makes me think it must be the creole mentioned in the Tetum language article: Tetun Dili

After all proper Tetum and Portugese aren't realated. And the tetum article states: "Besides the grammatical simplification involved in creolization, Tetun Dili has been greatly influenced by the vocabulary of Portuguese,"

and later: The Tetum name for East Timor is Timór Lorosa'e, which means "Timor of the rising sun", Which gives a different Tetum name than the info box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8108:1CC0:11D4:9802:7236:3EC:CEBF (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok now I saw that the Info box on the Tetum language article states that the creole, rather than "proper" Tetum is an official language in East Timor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8108:1CC0:11D4:9802:7236:3EC:CEBF (talk) 17:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

US support of Indonesian invasion

The article states that the US supported the invasion. Based on what information? If this is the case, it should be stated why the US supported the invasion and towards what end. I know it is popular to blame the US for all the world's problems but the accusation should be backed with evidence. Wikipedia strives to be objective in its content and, therefore, should not be filtered through the lens of Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky.

References added. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timor-Leste/Archive_4&oldid=1264890216"