Talk:East Timor

Archives
Archive 1 - 2003 - April 2006

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)

Supposed controversy and faked data

wikipedia: There remains controversy over the government's promotion of Portuguese, only spoken by an estimated 5 per cent of the population [1] over Tetum.

the real world: UNESCO Timor Leste, 21/04/2005 The increase of the number of speakers of Portuguese in East Timor, that almost tripled since the independence of the country five years ago, is going to be discussed in the Lusophone meeting, between 3 and 5 of October, in Bragança. For this evolution the support of Portugal has contributed, but also from other Lusophone countries, namelly Brazil. (...)the number of timorese speaking Portuguese since the independence passed from about 5 to 10 percent to 25 per cent".... this lusophone meeting had the presence of timorese institutions.

Did the militias moved to the English internet? We see attacks to the name of the country, to the independence (in relation to the country it gained independence), and to the language. --Pedro 16:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I have added both figures (5% and 25%) to the article as there are sources that quote both. This is indicative of the fact that there is a genuine controversy (much of it political). As someone living in Timor and working in a sector where language is a big issue, my first hand experience leads me to believe the lower estimate. However, perhaps both need to be quoted to provide balance.

There is also no doubt that there is hostility towards the Portuguese language from a large segment of younger Timorese. I am merely trying to help people understand the complex language situation in Timor.

Can somebody clearly explain the controversy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mortimerlee (talk • contribs) 22:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I also think it needs to be defined what standard is being used...Many Timorese can understand some Portuguese because of the shared words in Tetum. Does this count? Most however, seem not to be able to speak or read much of the language. I suspect the larger estimates are using a much lower standard of literacy.

I also believe the remark about militias is cruel and an insult to the victims of the occupation, including many friends of mine who lost family and suffered themselves. I am not trying to attack anybody, if anything to defend the dominant national language from further colonialism! --202.72.106.20 02:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Quote from The La’o Hamutuk Bulletin, Vol. 6, No. 3: August 2005. La'o Hamutuk is a local Timorese NGO. This article is available from their website and concerns the article quoted above by Pedro, which is not in fact from UNESCO, but from the Portuguese national wire service Lusa.

"In April 2005, the Portuguese wire service Lusa wrote that "the number of East Timorese who speak Portuguese has increased three times since Independence," going from 5-10% percent to almost 25%. Such a claim has little basis in reality. The number of East Timorese who speak Portuguese is, in reality, quite low."

Wikipedia should be about establishing the truth (where it can be established), not pushing agendas. --202.72.106.20 04:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• the only one that is adding an agenda in here is you! Are there any protests with that? are you saying that the Portuguese news sources are biased? In fact that info is not from Lusa but from that meeting in Bragança and ultimatle from the Timorese language institute. Where's your source stating that it is being contested or that there are protests in there. Yeah yeah I believe that the government is acting against the will of its people, give me a break, the info that reaches here is quite the opposite, some Australians don't like it, because they fear that they are not controlling the region properly, because that tiny nation has allies elsewhere. Do you really think Portugal has a linguistic agenda in East Timor? you're wrong. The timorese government always ask for help and they help them, because it is a brother nation. --Pedro 23:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello again Pedro, this will be my last comment on this issue (for now anyway) as we appear to be getting caught up in an electronic "baku malu". We both clearly feel strongly about our positions. Firstly, I am Australian - but the issue isn't about English. It is about Tetum. Tetum needs support which it is not getting now. One example is that the official government gazette of Timor currently only publishes laws and official announcements in Portuguese, not Tetum. Portuguese should always hold a higher place in Timor because of the shared linguistic heritage (although many locals still see English as a more important language for Timor's future), but NOT over Tetum. Tetum should have pride of place before any of the colonial languages or neo-UN-colonial English.

Regarding sources, my first source is a local NGO called JSMP which comments on the number of Portuguese speakers. They have written a report dealing with language in the courts which is available online. The second is the recently released UNDP report which states as of 2005/6 that the number of fluent speakers is still under 5%, with them referencing the Timorese census. This is also available from their website. The third reference I have mentioned is the article from Lao Hamutuk referenced above which also states a similar figure. This is also available online and two of the three are written by Timorese with the third by a UN agency.

I admit the National Institute of Linguistics (INL) claims a higher figure for Portuguese speakers in Timor, but I feel the weight of sources that dispute this make the claims of INL questionable. Perhaps they are using a different level of literacy? For the record, I am currently learning Portuguese here in Dili and also speak reasonable Tetum. My first language is English and I have a very small amount of Indonesian. I have helped organise Portuguese classes for my Timorese colleagues through the Brazilian Embassy and (I believe) I have a pretty good feel for the situation both in Dili and the districts. I would like to let some other people contribute to this debate now, but of course Pedro you are welcome to a right of reply! --202.72.106.20 12:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• first you question Lusa now you question the language institute. This is not your battle ground against the timorese government... If it is a free country surelly there are people who feel the other way around, but how expressive is that. Protests? Or are you organizing one? This is not about just English is about what I said earlier. UN and English?!?!?! I've read some "nice" things about Australians in East Timor issues over oil, constitution, and protests against Australian troops in the peace keeping mission. I foresee the problem by another angle, but that's said, Australia should be a good and free country, so it should respect its neighbours. Yes, the question is Tetum and i was born yesterday: March 12th 2006!!! --Pedro 13:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a really difficult discusion since, quite honestly, I don't even have confidence in my own impartiality (I'm Portuguese). We can talk about our respect for East Timor ad nauseam, and of our noble sentiments about wanting the very best for the country, but the fact remains that Australia and Portugal have ery specific views and agendas concerning the territory. Portugal, being in no position of power for just about anything for some decades now, has a cultural affinity with the territory and promoting Portuguese is of course part of the strategy. This has a completely altruistic objective for one part, while in another it surely has a "prestige" angle on wanting to preserve the portuguese language in there, with inclusion of East Timor in the CPLP as a form of maintaining some kind of Portuguese presence in the territory. Australia, on the other other, views itself as the area superpower and views all this with ill disguised scorn, since they can hardly swallow anything that will put East Timor outside of their direct sphere of influence; the portuguese language is seen as a relic that should be dropped, I have read Australian opinion-makers on the subject and there is a kind of incredulity on why should East Timor speak anything ohter than Tetum and English (this applies to the legal system as well, since Australia abhorrs the idea that East Timor hasn't adopted Anglo-saxon law. Why would this be expected is behyond me, but Australia does think highly of itself, which is a good thing in the end). So, I also take anything coming from Australian sources about the language situation in East Timor with a large grain of salt, as all thing concerning the type of law, type of government and, of course, economical matters with oild included. I think it's actually quite natual for Australia to want to assert it's rights as the area's power and "custodian" (doesn't mean I agree with it, but that's how the world works). In a way both Portugal and Australia are playing a "white man's burden" card, even if I personally think that Australia downplays the importance and resilience of portuguese and portuguese-derived institutions. In the end though, I think that Australia will assert some kind of control (this last crisis was more than proof enough), even if they have to tolerate some pacts with those that create instabilitiy in the terrirtory, The troops are there, and I don't think that they will leave anytime soon. So, this is all a big geopolitical game, were Australia has the real power of arms and money and Portugal only has the historic and cultural ties. This ties are, however, something that shouldn't be downplayed so easily, especially considering that portuguese has survived in other places without external aid for centuries, and that in East Timor the language is spoken by all those of exerciting some kind of influence and an increasingly higer number of regular timoreses (I know this, I have friends giving classes over there). The "5%" number is something made up with a specific aim. I do hope that the Aussie mate that posted inititally understands that I have absolutely nothing against Australia or Australians, all those that I've met were terrific fellows. Just trying to show that this is a charged subject. --89.26.150.117 22:34, 21 September 2006 (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/cia/publications/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)

Country Name

Since the countries name is the Democratic Rebulic of Timor Leste, shouldn't that be the article name, as opposed to the english translation to keep ito the standard, for example People's Republic of China keeps the prefix and Côte d'Ivoire uses the countries name and not the english tranlation. Philc _T^E_C^I 17:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I would agree, but there's about as many users in favour of East Timor as there are in favour of Timor-Leste, so we don't really have a case for now. —Nightstallion (?) 20:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Timor-Leste is Portuguese for East Timor. This is an English language article. It should be referred to as East Timor in English and Timor Leste when in Portuguese. It would be the same as using New Zealand in stead of Nueva Zelanda on a Spanish language article. Enzedbrit 04:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. English = East Timor. Until the English name is changed (how??) we should maintain "East Timor" in this article. (although this begs the question of why Peking is now called Beijing? I suppose the answer is that the English Language has now accepted the CHinese "Beijing" over the English "peking". Maybe we will one day see "Timor Leste" as the accepted English word, but for now it is "East Timor", and this article should reflect this.--Merbabu 04:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you guys do not know the convention here. Look at the Ivory Coast article. Ivory Coast is redirected to Côte d'Ivoire. Doesn't it imply that even for the English language article, we should use the country's chosen spelling? Thus we should redirect East Timor (unofficial name) to Timor Leste (official name). Kiwi8 09:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no naming convention for countries (despite previous proposals for one), so instead we revert to the general naming conventions. There was a requested move vote held late last year, it can be viewed here. If you want to suggest that the title should be changed, you should make another request for a move (and hold another vote) or revive the naming convention proposal. --bainer (talk) 10:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Kiwi8, i don't think the naming used for one article on a very small country in Wikipedia (ie, Ivory Coast) should become the convention for all. Are we then to go through and change all names to their "native language" names? SHould Germany become Deutschland? France Francais? This is an English language encyclopedia. --Merbabu 14:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Err, France in French is France. Anyways, to elaborate on bainer's comment: the general convention for article titles is to use whatever the subject is most commonly known as in English; official usage is not a determining factor. However, editors of individual articles may within policy develop consensus to change an article's name. The current consensus is for "East Timor".--cj | talk 16:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see #Renaming_of_East_Timor_to_Timor-Leste. -- Pdytwong, 2006/5/27, 17:39 (UTC)

Most of the reasons given in opposition to the move were that it did not comply with conventional use, or that it was not the 'English' name. But this is a name being discussed, not a term. Significantly different rules apply. Since the last vote to move, most international organisations have normalised their usage around Timor-Leste. Given that the name Timor-Leste is now considered correct by most credible English Language sources, it stands to reason that, popularity notwithstanding, the name for this article should be Timor-Leste, with East Timor resolving to it, rather than vice versa. While the popularity of the term East Timor is germane to the issue, factual correctness and proper usage must also be considered. There is no contention concerning the validity of the name or the legitimacy of the request by the government to respect the new usage (e.g. controversial changes like Myanmar/Burma). The name can be spelled using un-accented characters in English. I see no reason not to set a redirect on East Timor which resolves to Timor-Leste. This ensures that both terms are well supported, but resolve the correct manner. -- Dan McGarry 202.80.43.118 (talk) 07:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

We are discussing its ENGLISH NAME! Why must it be Timor Leste IN ENGLISH when that is not an English name?! Other languages have East Timor in THEIR languages on THEIR versions of this article. To insist that in English it be Timor Leste is being nothing but unfair to the English language. If in English this article is not called East Timor then this article is a fraud. Enzedbrit 23:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Enzedbrit - totally agree. People pushing for removal of East Timor are just being pig-headed - IMO. Seriously, how many people know it as Timor-Leste?? We know Germany not as Deutschland. Furthermore, we do NOT have to automatically adopt what a country calls itself in their native language even if this is specifically requested from that country. And for an english language article, accepted use of English overrules the UN as the most authoritative source. --Merbabu 00:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Calling your opponents pig-headed doesn't accomplish things, and only serve to show your intolerance and inability to convince the other side. Kiwi8 16:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, let's keep it clean.Mortimerlee (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it shows one being pig-headed at all. There is also no need to convince the other side. Timor-Leste is not English. East Timor is English. There is no need to convince. If one is going to speak English, then one should also respect that language. Enzedbrit 20:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

lighten up Kiwi8. I said it was my opinion, no doubt you have an opinion too. I should have said stubborn in the face of all contratictory evidence. :) As for not being intolerant and unable to convince others - insisting on English is not a sign of intolerance and the Timor Leste camp wasn't convincing enough to win consensus. ;) he he --Merbabu 04:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Then just use stubborn as it is. For that matter, the East Timor camp is not convincing enough too for the other side, as can be seen from the 13 votes vs 17 votes in the last polling. Kiwi8 09:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

My points on using Timor Leste are very simple. It is still pronounciable in English, and that it is already been readily used in English language newspapers such as Singapore, etc. Not to mention, people searching for "East Timor" will still be able to find the article since it is just a redirect to Timor Leste. But the point is, we got to get people to start geting used to the term Timor Leste because officially, it is the current entity of the country there, to distinguish from its previous occupier. Why we still call Germany as Germany is because that is still the term used in English language newspapers.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwi8 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 30 May 2006

I'll make a final clarification. Official usage does not determine article titles. Article titles are designated on the basis of common usage. If you can present cold, hard statistics that show "Timor-Leste" to be more common than "East Timor" in the English language, and if you gain the support of a majority of editors here, then the article may be moved. However, until such time, the status quo stays. It is not Wikipedia's place to set trends.--cj | talk 09:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this clarification still doesn't convince me. Ok, there may be less instances of "Timor-Leste" than "East Timor" in the search engines and stuff. But that is only to be expected since Timor-Leste is a very new country. Remember that this article refers specifically to a country. If this article refers to the region, then fine, I accept "East Timor". In any case, I do anticipate that "Timor-Leste" will be used more often in the future as long as the country retains its independence and remains stable. It's not that I am stubborn, but all English users have to start having the concept of "The country of Timor-Leste" and "The region of East Timor".Kiwi8 16:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I'M sorry but English doesn't work that way! Unless there is a UN doctrine that all languages must refer to East Timor as Timor Leste then East Timor it will be in English. You should now start your crusade by going to all other languages in which this article is published and say the same thing. What you are advocating is the wikipedia equivalent of cultural oppression of the English language. Enzedbrit 20:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I give another example. Singapore (Singapura) was known as Syonan-To previously when it was under Japanese occupation. If Japan continued to win the war and retained Singapore for a long period of time to say today, would the English papers keep using Singapore? Would it start to use Syonan-To if the war was over?Kiwi8 16:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. Your argument that the country is not known as East Timor is false. I agree that it may well come to be known as "Timor-Leste" commonly at some point, as some argue Côte d'Ivoire has. But Wikipedia must wait until that time comes.--cj | talk 07:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• The first line in the article should be changed too, to 'officially the Democratic Republic of East Timor'. If one wishes to include anything concerning 'Timor Leste' it should state that this is the Portuguese version of the name. Enzedbrit 20:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• The government of Côte d'Ivoire made an official request in 1985 to be known always by its French name in international, and therefore in English, communications. Similar considerations apply to the renaming of certain cities in the aftermath of WWII (eg. Gdańsk was always Gdańsk in Polish, Danzig in German, and Dantsic (phonetic transliteration from German to English) or Danzig internationally until that time -- now it's Gdańsk in German too, unless one is speaking historically) . As far as I am aware no such request has been made by the government of East Timor, which indeed continues to use that name informally (alongside Timor-Leste) in English-language articles on its own websites. Admittedly Timor-Leste seems to be in favour in official English-language documents, but this is the English language, therefore defined not by lawyers but by usage. :-) xoddam 06:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

That is wrong. The name Danzig is still used in news, politics and maps in Germany, just because no one in Germany can speak the Polish name correctly. Only for small cities in former East Germany (now Poland and Czek Rep.) is the new native name in use. By the way: no one of you would use "München" for Munich. ;) --J. Patrick Fischer 13:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• As far as I know, the government of Timor-Leste *did* make a similar request... Are you certain? —Nightstallion (?) 22:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I think we shouldn't be argueing so strongly about the name. I believe that most of the English speaking community knows the country as East Timor. If the official name is Timor Leste, I imagine it will just be a question of time for people's naming habits to change. I would just ask patience to those who advocate for the name Timor Leste. I think the situation of this article's name is right. Those who search for Timor Leste are redirected anyway. I suppose that the day that Timor Leste is used more frecuently in this talk page arrives, then, we can just change it, leaving a redirect for East Timor. Or lets have another vote. Patience... and using the name here may all follow suit in the article. --Francisco Valverde 11:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm with those who wish to keep it as East Timor. The current first line is a pastiche - it is either Democratic Republic of East Timor or República Democrática de Timor-Leste, not a fusion of the two. The only place in the English-speaking world I have heard Timor-Leste is in far-left publications - even aid organisations and the media use East Timor. As this encyclopaedia is intended for use by the English-speaking world, my suggestion would be the English name in bold, with the Portuguese or Tetum name (Repúblika Demokrátika Timor Lorosa'e) or both in italics and brackets immediately subsequent.

There is precedent anyway - we refer to the Central African Republic, Brazil, Germany, Japan, Sweden and the city of Hong Kong as official names even though they are not used locally. There is a trend with European city names to name them correctly, however this is inconsistent - i.e. Torino, but Venice, and definitely not Köln. Orderinchaos78 22:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It should be Timor Leste. It is very clear from http://www.timor-leste.gov.tl/ . If the nation and its people prefer to use that name in English material, then that should be the name used here. The usage is already accepted by United Nation which uses "Timor Leste". Please remember that wikipedia is not BBC, Foxnews, or CNN and therefore not cater solely to western audience; and one of our ideals is to counter systemic bias and respect local naming convention. "East Timor" is but a previous name, and wikipedia can serve better informing readers of the new official name. The fact that "Timor Leste" is of Portuguese origin is irrelevant because many english words originated from other languages. What is relevant is that "Timor Leste" is now used in official English context, locally and internationally.--Vsion 04:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The people of East Timor have no right to dictate to the English speaking world how to speak the English language. We respect the Timorese people by calling their island Timor and keeping the suffix Timor. We respect our language by using the English version of the compass direction that is East as every other language in the world is respected when they use their own word for East in conjunction with Timor for the name of the country. Timor Leste being Portuguese is not irrelevant and the fact that many English words evolved in other languages is irrelevant. We do not need to introduce new words for pre-existing English words especially ones as simple and common as a direction. That is purely insulting to English speakers. Enzedbrit 00:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Although i don't feel insulted (ha ha), I agree with Enzedbrit - this is an english language article and it is known as East Timor in English. Germans call their country Deutschland when they speak German, and Germany when they speak ENglish. Let the East Timorese - God bless them - do the same. THe fact that we have "The Republic of Timor Leste" listed as the official name is already compromise enough. A compromise that i am not particularly happy with, but one that i am happy to live with if it means we can leave "East Timor" as the main article name as that is what the country is known as the in the ENGLISH language. I thought we had worked this one out already? --Merbabu 02:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Look at it from this standpoint: the average English-speaker would probably understand you if you referred to Côte d'Ivoire, but he/she would probably be lost as to what Timor Leste meant if you referred to it as that instead. Besides, Google tells all (restricted to English): Côte d'Ivoire: 107 million, Ivory Coast: 71.8 million, East Timor: 112 million, Timor Leste: 15.7 million. Côte d'Ivoire is somewhat more heavily used than Ivory Coast (probably due to official sources, but I didn't check), and East Timor is DRASTICALLY used more than Timor Leste. When (and if) Timor Leste becomes more heavily used, perhaps we could move the article then, but it should be East Timor until then. IMacWin95 22:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Just for clarification:

• ISO 3166 states that the official short name in English is Timor-Leste;
  • The above claim is misleading. ISO 3166 as a standard does not prescribe country names, it only uses them (in its English and French formulations) to refer to countries. If it did prescribe names, then the "official" name of Taiwan would be "Taiwan, Province of China" (look at the same link provided above). You can interpret the word "official" in the phrase "official short name" any way you want, but the ISO 3166 is itself crystal clear on what it does not prescribe: What is ISO 3166 87.198.255.118 (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• The government of Timor-Leste has indeed urged to be called by that name, through a letter dated August 8th, 2003 from the Permanent Mission of Timor-Leste at UN. UN use Timor-Leste in Latin script official languages (English, French, Spanish), Тимор-Лешти in Cyrillic script, 东帝汶 in Chinese and تيمور- ليشتي in Arabic. See United Nations Terminological Database. Cinabrium 05:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• That is right. The funny thing is, that all other languages in Wikipedia not using Timor-Leste. just because English Wiki is not doing. But newspapers and TV stations just do the same, just like for Ivory Coast. On a lexika should the official name used: Timor-Leste. --J. Patrick Fischer 13:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

There always is just one official long version and one official short version of a country's name. To find out the correct version you simply have to refer to how the country's ambassador is accredited in the U.S. (and in other major English speaking countries). So this proves Timor-Leste to be the only correct version in English.

It's interesting (though admittedly not pertinent to the discussion) that based on the etymology given in the article, the name can be translated as "East East".--Eddylyons 20:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Timor-Leste is not English, it's Portuguese. FilipeS 21:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, it still seems to translate as East East.--Eddylyons 21:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the word "Timor" is interpreted literally anymore. It's just a name. Besides, it's the traditional term in English. FilipeS 21:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

YEs, there are many words in English, and the rest of course, that are derived from other languages and which may still have a meaning in that language. Orang Utan, Kindergarten, come to mind straight away - the list is no doubt endless though. But the point being, that these are now accepted English words in their own right, any meaning they have in their "orginal" language is now only academic. --Merbabu 02:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• If East Timor translates as East East as a reason to have the country's name Timor-Leste, I'll have to laugh. Any translation of

the name is going to be East East then isn't it. Timor is the name of the island in the Timorese language, to the Timorese people. East is the English compass direction for Leste: east. The name in English is East Timor. Enzedbrit 10:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Um... East TIMOR wouldn't translate into East East, East Timur would. And if you wanna get all huffy over a name what would 'supposedly' translate into East East (even though it wouldn't) remember what australia means! But the article should be called Timor- Leste if it is the Official english name even according to UN i think i read above,is Timor- Leste, so just because 'we' in wikipedia think the english name East timor is correct doesn't mean it is also Enzedbrit said The people of East Timor have no right to dictate to the English speaking world how to speak the English language, but does he realise we are telling THEM how and what they should be calling their own country! Australian Jezza 02:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• This has been taken directly from the CIA World Factbook. "The US Board on Geographic Names (BGN) now recognizes Timor-Leste as the short form name for East Timor..." Therefore, All United States Government Organizations use the name "Timor-Leste" as the official short name of the nation. There should be no further argument.--IAMTHEEGGMAN 17:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the title needs to be changed, but there are better reasons to do so than "the U.S. government says so." As we all should know, the U.S. government has its own axes to grind with the name "Burma" and the denial of the existence of the Republic of China. It's not as if they are impartial arbiters and linguistic authorities of the world. —Sesel 17:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

At least of English, they are XD.... erm... Well, actually, all of those names are actually English Names, therefore theres no issue with it. I don't see the People's Republic of China asking for English Speaking Nations to refer to them as 中华人民共和国 or Zhōnghuá Rénmín Gònghéguó. --IAMTHEEGGMAN 14:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

A new point not made by others: I heard it several times on the TV news as "Timor Leste". That along with other more official user use of "Timor Leste" makes me favor the article be renamed Timor Leste and a redirect from East Timor. Archtransit 22:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I may understand *why* this confusion occurs:

1. Even though Portuguese is an official language, very few Timorese are proficient in Portuguese. *Possibly*, 'Timor-Leste' may be seen most often as being just an unanalyzable name, not recognising 'Leste' as 'East' even when speaking Portuguese, just as 'Timor' (Melanesian for 'East') isn't recognised either (Melanesian only entered East Timor with the indonesian occupation so it isn't that well known either).

2. *Not a single* native Portuguse speaker with a reasonable command of English would normally leave 'Leste' untranslated; while for the Timorese 'Timorleste' may be a single name, for any other Portuguese speaker it is nothing else than 'the part of Timor which happens to lie to the East'. There is an East Timor just as there was an East Germany, North Yemen or South Korea. It just is *ungrammatical* (in Portuguese) to treat 'Leste' like an opaque part of a name and leave it untranslated.

3. Possibly because it ends in -r, Timor got to be just -Leste 'East' rather than -de-Leste '-of-East'. Usually, the short form is used for informal parts of cities or regions (Lisbon-north, Alentejo-south), and the longer one for well defined units such as countries.

4. The indonesian name for the country is... Timur Timur.

5. As long as there is no other *-Timor in the same context (name of an independent country), the normal Portuguese usage is just to refer to East-Timor as Timor. This has absolutely nothing to do with disrespect for West-Timor or any other kind of political point - it's just the way languages work, though

6. 'Myanmar' is a stupid name on linguistic grounds, not because of any political motives. 'Burma' is *the exact same word* with the difference that it has a transliteration more respectful of the history of the Burmese language (and there is not -r in the word, either). It's laudable to respect the names of other peoples; it's undignifying *for them and their names* to let them lecture English speakers on how they should be adapted to English - they are not the best source. They don't speak English well enough. Of course, they may be able to make a case for you to abandon some name in particular - it may be derisive, it may coincide with something which doesn't sound good in their own language, lots of arguments can be made. But an argument is by definition part of a discussion ans only holds if it's cogent. 85.241.115.42 (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

7. Just as a last note, which porbbly doesn't belong here. Countries don't have an 'official' English name, unless they have English as an official language. Istm that people are oblivious of the meaning of 'official'. Just because it's used and even insisted upon, something doesn't become official. It's only official if a rightful authority says specifically that it is 'official' - and registering it in the UN isn't the same! As an example, US authorities use English everywhere, but the US has no official language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.241.115.42 (talk) 01:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• • This is the most tragic of debates, I nearly cried reading it. Tragic because this brand new, tiny little country has been fighting for its own identity for 500 years and even now we can't summon the grace to allow it to determine its own name. Its terrible history is embedded in a string of names that record its sad history of colonialism and occupation, Timur Timur, Timor Lorosae, East Timor, Timor Leste. Right now the country is struggling to establish its new identity in the world as a sovereign nation, the name of the country is one vital aspect of achieving this. They specifically asked that it be referred to as Timor Leste and still foreigners feel unable to summon the grace to respect even that. Anyone who has worked there, as I have until recently, regardless of nationality, use Timor Leste, or often just TL, because to do otherwise would show a lack of grace and respect for the country. The Australian Embassy (and DFAT) I am personally ashamed to say, is an exception and use East Timor but then they have issues with the Portuguese influence there, yet even the embassy staff use Timor Leste outside of the embassy. I note the NZ Embassy uses Timor Leste, good on you Kiwis. Australia managed to change the name of its iconic Ayer's Rock to Uluru out of respect for it indigenous owners even though it was universally known as Ayer's Rock and Uluru has caught on because people had the grace to realise that our old colonial ways are over and that was the right thing to do. The argument for an English translation is not just a nice academic linguistic debate it perpetuates half a millennium of foreign interference, it's part of the ongoing TL struggle for independence and, God, they have had enough of war and destruction. Please, please don't keep fighting other people's wars, don't arm the partisan elements, just as a gift, an act of grace, let them call themselves by the name they have asked for and by which the Unites Nations officially knows them. The colonial battles are over; let’s not start yet another war waged by the Anglophone world. Of course we Anglophones are a world majority, but that doesn't give us some warped democratic majority right to determine other people's cultural affairs, that is just a new tyranny a new colonialism. And for those of you foreigners who haven't worked in TL, who don't know any Timorese, who haven't been involved in the struggle for independence, maybe, with all possible respect, you might just want to consider standing on the sidelines on this one. Ex nihil (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:NAME says that we use the name that it is most commonly known by. I have not once heard someone in the media, or discussions refer to it as Timor Leste. That the country has had a sad history or that they have requested a new name has no bearing on English language or how it is used on wikipedia – English language is determined by usage, not by decree. That there was 500 years of “tragic foreign intervention” does not mean Wikipedia owes anyone any favours or sympathy. It’s about hard facts. This is the English language wikipedia (not the East Timor wikipedia) and English and hence wikipedia is based on common usage and until such time as the official name is also the common name in English (assuming it will be!), then the name here should stay as “East Timor”.

That it is called Timor Leste in the country itself and the Kiwi embassy is, respectfully, a fairly small sample of usage. How many people outside the country actually know the term “Timor Leste”? --Merbabu (talk) 00:29, 6 March 2008 (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." [1] 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..." [2] 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.

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 [[3]] - (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

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:

• "There are sizeable Muslim (5%, former Prime Minister of East Timor Mari Alkatiri being its most famous member) and Protestant (3%) minorities." → "There is a sizeable Muslim minority (5 per cent) which incoudes former Prime Minister of East Timor Mari Alkatiri, and a Protestant (3 per cent) minority."

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)

Miscellaneous & See Also sections

Although i can of course see a difference in the links provided, do they really justify two seperate lists? Is there any reason for not having single section? Even if not, perhaps some thought needs to be given to the two sections' position within the article including relative to each other. Perhaps a single list See also with two columns is in order.

Now that I think about, even better - although it takes a bit more work - would be a "topic-table" such as that exists, for example, in Malaysia [4] and Indonesia [5]. Actually, on second thoughts, it wouldn't be that hard to create from a "borrowed" template. Oh, well - I'll add it to my list - but in the meanttime, if there is anyone else out there.... --Merbabu 23:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Portuguese Language, a Timorese Government perspective

Greetings, Having read the beginning of this page and the discussion around the language I found this paragraph from the East Timor Government page interesting:

"(...)Many foreign observers, especially from Australia and Southeast Asia have also been dismissive about the reinstatement of Portuguese, but this is not surprising. Until the demise of the Suharto regime, many were equally dismissive about the very idea of an independent East Timor, arguing that the East Timorese were culturally no different from Indonesians. Even many people who were supportive of East Timor take this view, again mistakenly drawing parallels with Dutch in Indonesia." (from http://www.timor-leste.gov.tl/AboutTimorleste/rellang.htm "East Timor Religion & Language")

Not a definitive statement on anything of course, but it does echo the fact that this is not a simple statistical discussion. --89.26.146.157 04:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me of that website. I've added a link to it at Languages of East Timor. :-) FilipeS 15:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, glad you found it of use (wasn't logged in last time)--Bellum sine bello 19:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Asia or Oceania

Here it's written that Timor est belongs to Asia, but here is written that it belongs to Oceania. Isn't the case to coordinate the two articles? mac9

GDP per Capita - inconsistency

This article says, "East Timor has the lowest per capita GDP (Purchasing Power Parity adjusted) in the world, of only $400 (which corresponds to the 192nd position)." However, if you click the link provided, East Timor is listed as 148 out of 181 (the list doesn't even go to 192!), with Malawi last. Clearly, one of the articles is wrong. Jcb9 14:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject

In my ongoing efforts to try to include every country on the planet included in the scope of a WikiProject, I have proposed a new project on Southeastern Asia at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Southeastern Asia whose scope would include East Timor. Any interested parties are more than welcome to add their names there, so we can see if there is enough interest to start such a project. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

former province of indonesia

I added a sentence regarding its status as former province of Indonesia. As an Indonesian, I was taught in primary school that Timor Timur is the 27th province of Indonesia, and Joined RI (republik Indonesia) in 1970s, without knowning what is actually going on. I also swapped the "Malay and Indonesian" in the section where the name of Timor derived from, as Indonesian is recognised as working language, while malay has no status. I can't change the first one where it said "Malay" Timor, East and "Portuguese" Leste, East. FYI, I as an Indonesian, never use the word "Timor" as "East" and neither my friends --w_tanoto 22:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean it means Timor means east, the same as leste in portuguese Australian Jezza 09:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I as an Indonesian, never use the word "Timor" as "East" and neither my friends- you'd better tell the folks at the Indonesian Wikipedia then: [6]Borisblue 17:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

In Indonesian, 'timur' is used to mean 'east'. 'Timor' is used to mean the island. Furthermore, TImor Barat is 'West Timor' and Timor Timur is 'East Timor'. Simple. As for the obvious similarity between the two words, or indeed the history of the two words, I don't know. I'm just commenting on contemporary usage in Indonesian. As for the link provided to the 'timur' in the Indonesian wikipedia, it merely describes (in Indonesian and very basically) the concept of 'east' as a compass direction.Merbabu 00:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Gov't Revenue and Expenditures

This would be a good section, if current (2006 or later) data could be found (no luck with a quick search of www.timor-leste.gov.tl). The CIA fact book mentions only 2004 revenues and expenditures.

The Dili-based PETROLEUM FUND OF TIMOR-LESTE, for example, has significant income; it is about a billion dollars now, but the money is not being spent - there have been no outflows for years! (Source: quarterly reports: http://www.transparency.gov.tl/PR/PFQR.htm) There are apparent major discrepancies - the GDP per capita was reportedly $800 in 2005, half that in 2004, while the fund has about $1000 per capita in assets, while Economy_of_East_Timor#Future_efforts says oil revenues are just $40 MM/year, but $20.2 bn (est. 1992-2002) in economic aid had come in - some $20,000 per capita!?!

--Elvey 02:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

New CoA of Timor-Leste

The new CoA

Since 18th January 2007, there is a new CoA of Timor-Leste! It was first published in "JORNAL da REPUBLICA", 18th January 2007, Serie I, No.1, page 1664. You can see it at the vote ballots of presidental election 2007. An (not very good) image can be found at Commons. --J. Patrick Fischer 08:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Source in Portuguese --J. Patrick Fischer 06:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Can someone then beef up Coat of arms of East Timor? Chris 06:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

White Leaders in East Timor

Funny how the mesticos who are primarily of portuguese blood and also have the largest influence and power in East Timor where only 5% of the people speak Portuguese fluently, declared portuguese as the official language. If anything the official language should be Tetum or Indonesian until Tetum has properly been incorporated back into the mainstream. Why replace a foreign nations language with another foreign nations language??

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Find a political forum to vent. FilipeS 10:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Red?

all the links showed up in red twice in a row instead of blue.

Edit request

Population count results 2004 for districts, subdistricts and sucos of East Timor: This [7] was only a provisional result, the final results can be found here: [8]. I still edited the German table of subdistricts (de:Liste der Subdistrikte Osttimors), but I hope someone here has time to edit the ET-articles in this language, cause I have to change all German articles. Greetings, --de:user:J. Patrick Fischer --217.249.196.41 07:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Name Issue (again)

Just a note that the US government position is now to use Timor-Leste (see CIA World Factbook entry on Timor-Leste) -- (Shocktm | Talk | contribs.) 21:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Timor-Leste should be used regardless. It is time for Wikipedia to make the right decision and rename this article. —Sesel 21:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You're both damn right about this. - Thanks, Hoshie 23:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. —Nightstallion 19:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This might help. --Merbabu 02:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The previous discussion ignores an important fact that it is both official name AND IT IS SPELLED IN ROMAN LETTERS. While Côte d'Ivoire is spelled in Roman letters, “中华人民共和国” is not. I will second the move to its correct and only correct name -✉ Hello World! 04:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Timor-Leste is a ten-letter unbreakable word of the country. We don't break up Côte d'Ivoire as “Côte Ivory” or “d'Ivoire Coast”. Righh? “Timor” is just an Indonesian word which means east. Need we translate? If not, the article should be named Timor-Leste, if yes, PLEASE MOVE IT TO East East (or East Island East, or Eastern East Island, whatever you like). Don't make the name of the country HALF-TRANSLATED.-✉ Hello World! 04:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I think far too many of these discussions on country and city names get diverted by the idea there is some official regulation of English that gives a separate word to use in that language. Names are not the same as descriptive words where one simply pulls a dictionary off the shelf (or types it into a auto-translater) and gets the word in the other language. When it comes to names for places and countries some are called very different things in different languages (e.g. Germany/Deutschland), others are often called the same thing (e.g. France). This is usually an accident of history. Now names do not always stay the same. Sometimes countries or cities will make a determined effort to have their local name used for one reason or another (it's not just a political thing - in a world of international tourism a single name identity can help to make it easier to sell the place). And when new countries are formed they will often try to have their country called by the same name in multiple languages.

How far the "new name" is adopted varies considerably in different cases - and also in different parts of the world. During the 2006 Winter Olympics the host city tried to get the world to called it "Torino" - the local Italian name. From what I've read the US media coverage of the Games did indeed. However other world English language media did not, or else just used "Torino" for the Games themselves rather than the city, instead using "Turin". Oh and "Turin" isn't English in origin - it's the city's name in Piedmontese. So the debate there isn't "do we use English?" but rather "do we use the Piedmontese name or the Italian name?" The general answer isn't a one or the other but rather which name is most commonly used in English for the place today. Sometimes even when the place has one name today, a former name is still used in a historic context - for instance even though a city in present day Poland is now called "Gdańsk" in English, when talking about the lead-up to the Second World War one speaks of "Danzig" (the German name). Here it's clear that one name has superseded the other in contemporary English usage.

With regards East Timor/Timor Leste the issue shouldn't be "what's the name in the English language?" or "what is the official name?" but "what name is most commonly used to refer to this country in the English language?" Names take time to take effect - and East Timor is not a country that seems to appear much in at least the British media these days I suspect most people primarily know of it from the independence struggle at the turn of the millenium when the country didn't yet have a government to say what it wanted the new country to be known as. But if it makes a concerted effort to be known as Timor-Leste in English then over time that name probably will take effect. Ultimately most country's most common names in English are English speakers following the lead of the country itself. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The Australian Government and Australian print media now generally uses 'Timor Leste'. 'East Timor' probably remains more common, but this is changing. Personally, I think that it's time to use the country's correct name - I've been working on the Military of East Timor article and every recent reference I'm quoting calls the country Timor Leste, so it's a bit odd to be changing that back to an obselete name when writing in what's meant to be an encyclopedia... --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I see evidence of a broad if not total consensus here. There's no point debating it forever. I have made the move. Hesperian 23:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, no. This is not the only section where this is discussed. East Timor is still the common name, the sole criteria according WP:NAME. That it may officially be Timor Leste is irrelevant. You say in England people don't know about the name Timor Leste - well, ask people in the street in Australia and they wouldn't know. When was the last time your read in the papers or saw the news refer to it as Timor Leste? Not even the ABC - there is a reason for that. We are not here to pre-empt how might English move, rather to represent how it is used. The UN or East Timorese govt are not the regulating authority on English language - they can demand all they want, but English is based on common usage - what the speakers use. --Merbabu (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:NAME

Also:

Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists.

The consensus in this section is not clear. It gets muddier and vaguer still when you include the other sections on this page and archives. Further, the move is not in accordance with WP:NAME. Just because enlightened wikipedians know the name "Timor Leste", doesn't mean that it is the common English name that the rest use.

Hesperian, sorry to be so forthright in going against your good faith move. Your continued admin’s oversight of this page is much appreciated. --Merbabu (talk) 23:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have reverted myself as having misread the consensus. Hesperian 00:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion the correct name for this article on Wikipedia is East Timor, as per our naming policy. Do a search on news.google.com for both terms and you'll see that East Timor is still overwhelmingly used. (Caniago (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC))

I must recant what I said last summer on the name. From doing a straw poll of atlases and almanacs at my local bookstore, it's clear East Timor (E.T.) is the current preferred name over Timor Leste (T.L.) for the country. Since Indonesia left the country in 1999, the World Almanac used E.T. in their 2000-05 editions to refer to the country; only in 2006 did they switch to T.L. The TIME Almanac hasn't switched to T.L. yet (I haven't checked the NY Times almanac yet). Out of the 30 atlases tested, only two had T.L.; the rest use E.T. As for the Factbook change: it's good, but the old editions with E.T. instead of T.L. are still around (for example, see UMSL or Inellinet). In short, I agree with Caniago. While I wish this article would use T.L. instead of E.T., we should wait until the world switches. We aren't there yet. - Thanks, Hoshie 09:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the name issue needs to be revisited, after a Talk:List_of_countries/Archive_1#East_Timor_over_Timor-Leste big discussion nearly 2.5 years ago. Just because Wikipedians and others on the other side of the world still refer to it using the wrong name does not make it right. While there is the argument about using English language translations of foreign names, there is also the principle of self-identification. That is why we call Taiwan the Republic of China, despite few countries recognising its sovereignty and the fact that that in common conversation we prefer to say Taiwan rather than the longer and potentially confusing alternative. Fact: The Timorese government wanted to be referred to as Timor-Leste; this should trump any argument about Google counts or what journalists who know nothing about the country say. Time for a revote on the issue? Kransky (talk) 12:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

As the 'nutshell' box above says, we need to use the common name. 'East Timor' is undeniably the most common name, in fact, most people don't know 'Timor Leste' on the 'other side' of the world, or next door here in Australia. The word 'Timor Leste' is rarley (ever?) used even here. See this too:

Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

This is justified by the following principle:

The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists. ''

...this can only suggest 'East Timor'.

As for the suggested ‘self-identification’ reasoning, that the East Timorese govt has decided that Timor Leste is it's English name is irrelevant. English is not determined by government decrees, but by usage. No one is talking about 'right' or wrong, rather common usage.

Wikipedia’s naming of Taiwan is not an apt comparison – that example stands in the midst of major sovereignty dispute involving conflicting claims as to what really constitutes China/Taiwan. No such issues with East Timor. Most importantly, and irrespective of the example, there is no requirement that wikipedia be run on precedent (let alone clumsy comparisons). Each article should be judged on its merits and precedence only where it fits, rather than detracts.

--Merbabu (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Timor-Leste in infobox + opening sentence - reasoning I have changed the long name of the country in the infobox from Democratic Republic of East Timor to Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste, and have done the same in the opening sentence of the article. My reasoning is this:

• ISO 3166-1 [9] states that the long form of the country name in English is D.R. of Timor-Leste.
  • It is worth noting that this is only a usage of the name by the ISO 3166, it is not a prescription that Timor-Leste "should" be used as a standard or official name. ISO 3166 prescribes only codes, not names, and this is very clearly stated in the standard itself: What is ISO 3166 87.198.255.118 (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Pure and simple that is the major reason. But having looked at the debates which have gone on on this talk page, it seems the most oft cited reason for using East Timor over Timor-Leste is that East Timor is most commonly used in the English language. If this is the case, and by using a simple Google comparison test, one will see that Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste[10] is used nearly 4 times as much as Democratic Republic of East Timor[11]

As Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste is the official conventional long form name of the nation, and it is evident that D.R. of Timor-Leste is used 4 times as often as D.R. of East Timor, I have used this as the basis of changing that info.

As to changing the name of the article to Timor-Leste, that will come in time, as more and more countries are switching to the ISO 3166-1 name for the country, and its usage will become more prevalent. --Russavia 19:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

That is not quite correct - you have stated that google recognises "Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste" more than it "Democratic Republic of East Timor". That may be the case (even if we excuse the weaknesses of google tests). But, neither of these names are the common English name. The common English name is "East Timor" - it doesn't matter if anything else is the official English name, Wikipedia calls for the common English name.

Furthermore, the version you changed was a long-held consensus formed between many editors. Thus, whether it is 'right' or 'wrong', your change is controversial and you should get some form of consensus first to change the long-held consensus above (which significantly is the name of the page too). -Merbabu 12:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The above reference to the ISO 3166 is misleading. That standard does not prescribe names for countries, it only prescribes codes. The names are only used by it to refer to countries. The ISO 3166 itself spells this out clearly: What is ISO 3166. Please note I'm not taking a stance on the usage of names or the naming of the article, I am only correcting a recurring misconception gets dragged through this type of discussion over and over again. 87.198.255.118 (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The name East Timor is ambiguous with Portuguese Timor. East Timor is the name of a colony, while Timor-Leste the a name of a country. The naming convention said that it should use a name known by majority English speaker, however, it only applies when more than one name is correct. An incorrect name should not be used, despite doubtfully (Fails in Google tests) “common uses”. Furthermore, the English Wikipedia lacks the article pt:Timor Timur, which mentions Timor-Leste under Indonesian rule. -✉ Hello World! 04:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Article needs renaming now. The article should be Timor-Leste, the official name of the country. It should happen immediately. Then, a re-direct can be put in place so that people who type the old "East Timor" will be redirected to the new article. But the official name of the article must be the official name of the country, Timor-Leste. 124.168.7.125 21:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The country has been known as (and wishes to be known as) "Timor-Leste" from the time it was founded and formally recognized by the international community. The name "East Timor" has a completely different meaning when put in the context of history. (From reading the previous comments, this is perhaps an excellent example of how "common" usage is not necessarily "correct" usage...and I would think that Wikipedia would want to strive for what is "correct", even if what is in "common" use hasn't quite caught up yet.) CiudadanoGlobal (talk) 02:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree the name needs to change to Timor-Leste and others have recognised that there is a problem with the WP on naming when it comes to countries, I note there was a proposed guideline for countries that states that:

: Guideline Unless a clear consensus for an alternative name can be established, articles on countries should be named using the official short name in English as defined in ISO 3166-1. [edit] Rationale The ISO standards set by the International Organization for Standardization are widely accepted around the world. This standard is used by the United Nations.

This proposed guideline was then very much a "misguideline", because it was based on the mistaken idea that the ISO 3166 defines country names. The ISO 3166 does not do this. This is a common misconception stemming from some imperfect phrasing used in the commentary accompanying the tables of country codes defined in the ISO 3166. However, The ISO 3166 explains very clearly in its own words that it does not define country names: What is ISO 3166. 87.198.255.118 (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

ISO 3166-1 defines an official short name in English. The official short name in English is Timor-Leste. The consensus mentioned was done back in 2005 when the country had only just begun to exist and people only new it by its description, East Timor, it didn't have a name really until 2002. It is high time we revisited this. It makes Wikipedia look rather silly and ethnocentric when the truth is determined by a vote rather than the facts, reminds me of a school atlas I had which Angicised everything. Very uncool to do that now. Wikipedia also has a responsibility to be factual because it has become the primary source for information and tends to define truth rather than record it; Googling East Timor puts the wikipedia article at the very top of the list, this suggests to me that Wikipedia is leading people to believe that is the real name. We need to be more factual, less parochial and more responsible. Change the name as per ISO 3166-1. Ex nihil (talk) 03:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is straight forward. I repeat...

Also:

Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists.

The use of “East Timor” far outweighs the use, or even the knowledge, of “Timor-Leste”. You have said you are located in East Timor – but outside of the country, the officially requested version is rarely known, let alone used. Even the most respected media sources still use the term East Timor – note the need to cater for a wide audience, not specialists. Besides, the name “Timor Leste” is adequately explained so we’re hardly being unfactual as you’ve suggested.

The use of “East Timor” far outweighs the use, or even the knowledge, of “Timor-Leste”. You have said you are located in East Timor – but outside of the country, the officially requested version is rarely known, let alone used. Even the most respected media sources still use the term East Timor – note the need to cater for a wide audience, not specialists. Impassioned pleas appealing to emotional sentiments that imply “neo-colonialism” are not really what the debate is about. Besides, the name “Timor Leste” is adequately explained so we’re hardly being unfactual as you’ve suggested.

Also, as I’ve said before, English Language usage is determined by, well, usage. Not by decree, request, nor politically correct and frankly over the top attempts to link the issue to notions of “neo-colonialism”. --Merbabu (talk) 04:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Optimising for readers is a usability issue that does need to be addressed. Equally important is the issue of factual correctness. Given that Wikipedia is designed to educate, it seems that a redirect from East Timor to Timor-Leste meets the criteria of usability, while at the same time asserting the proper usage. Linking is also well-supported, as the phrase East Timor is unambiguous, therefore not subject to a disambiguation page that might discourage readers from accessing the content. I have yet to see a compelling argument against this approach. The contention that common usage is the only factor at issue ignores obvious exceptions like US and USA, which are also unambiguous, far more common than the correct name, and which redirect to a page titled United States of America, a term used by virtually noone in common conversation. Dan McGarry 202.80.46.123 (talk) 03:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me, I should have written United States above, not United States of America. My point stands. Dan McGarry 202.80.46.123 (talk) 03:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

União Nacional dos Escuteiros de Timor Leste

Can someone who speaks Tetum render "Be Prepared", the Scout Motto, into Tetum, for that article? Thanks! Chris 14:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Australian army

I removed

The Australian army has officially referred to the island both as Timor-Leste [12] and as East Timor [13].

as it seems misleading. The second story using East Timor is undated. However since it is talking about the end of Operation Citadel, which happened on 14th May 2005 and a new UN mandate, we can presume it was from 2005. I don't think it suprises anyone that they once referred to Timor-Leste as East Timor at one stage. Surely what matters is what they currently refer to Timor-Leste as. If they continue to refer to Timor-Leste as East Timor then it would be fine to mention that but we need some evidence for that. This link [14] suggests that they've in fact adopted Timor-Leste Nil Einne 07:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

EAST TIMOR IS IN OCEANIA

To anybody who still have the doubt in mind, please see what Wikipedia has to say about East Timor. It´s a state in OCEANIA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcontinental_nation#East_Timor

Emerson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.41.197.75 (talk) 23:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat ironically, Wikipedia articles are not considered to be a reliable source for other articles (see: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Examples). The article you've linked to does not provide a citation for this claim. Indeed, the only citation provided says that East Timor is in Asia. The article also says that the Wallace Line definition is no longer commonly used and Asians generally consider East Timor to be part of Asia (though neither claim is cited). --Nick Dowling 07:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

UNOs's opinion. Anyhow: Emerson is doing vandalism in many languages. --J. Patrick Fischer 07:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

So, if any article in Wikipedia suffers lack of accuracy, the best we can do is to leave this project once and for all...come on...
1 - Wallace line is a division more focused on biology than political or social issues; this doesn´t mean we can not use it to define what is Asia and what is Oceania
2 - Not only Timor but all region nearby is part of Oceania...why people tend to think Oceania begins only east of Australia and New Guinea? Should we also consider the island of New Guinea part Asia and part Oceania, just because it is divided in two political identities, one in Asia, another in Oceania? This is a political point of view of an issue that has to be considered in many other views.
3 - I put there at least three citations. I can provide more, if it´s necessary, since I have a good amount of Portuguese-era books about Timor. I´ve never, repeat NEVER saw any of these books saying that Timor was in Asia. All in Oceania.
4 - Why Timor has languages of the same branch as Papua, Australia and other Melanesian nations?
5 - If Timor is not in Oceania, what the country is doing as a Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) observer? (see table)
6 - The native Timorese has all physical features of Papuas and aboriginals from Australia. If you see them on TV or on a book, without mention from where they are, you won´t guess the difference...are they really an asiatic society?
7 - There´s also the Indonesia problem. As I said, the Portuguese always wrote, before independence, that Timor was in Oceania. Then, with the Indonesia annexation, and the fear about separatists movememnt (that are still strong, especially in Irian and Maluku), Indonesia always reinforce its Asian identity, in order to give an unique identity to the country and supress separatism. So, Timor was in Asia, for all accounts, during Indonesia occupation. Since its independence, however, this Indonesian point-of-view was preserved....but it´s only a remaining idea of the past administration. The culture, the people, all points to Oceania.
8 - And finally, the Papuas from Irian and New Guinea identifies themselves with the Timorese in their propaganda about a free Papua nation. In this propaganda, Timor is viewed as a brother that already achieved what they want, the full independence. Ok, you will say that it´s just political propaganda, and I agree...but why they would advocate a parenthood with another nation if they wouldn´t have any link with that nation? Why they don´t advocate any association with the Sumatra separatist branch? After all, Timor, Sumatra, Irian are all Indonesian islands... Emerson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.41.216.202 (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Before you changed it, the article acknowledged both categorisations. This is fair enough as there is dual definitions, even disagreement to some extent. But to white wash it out of South East Asia and not even acknowledge the differences is completely WP:POV.

As for the rest of your points...

1. Yes, the Wallace Line was a biogeographical theory that put East Timor separate to Asia. That doesn't mean that we simply use it to say that East Timor is not in SE Asia. Further, you talk of the Wallace Line which is outdated - rather, people have long referred to Wallacea, a transition zone between Australia and Asia, in which East Timor is placed. Again, ecology is only one aspect.

2. You say New Guinea is considered part Oceania - correct maybe, but it (and other nearby islands you don't mention) are also considered part of Asia. Not sure what you point here is?!?!?

3. There are many citations saying either way - that is why wikipedia puts in both classifications. We don't go with one single point of view but list all objectively. The threshold of inclusion is verifiability, not "truth". See WP:V.

4. If we exclude for arguments sake the still common Indonesian, Tetum is an Austronesian language, thus tying it closely to South East Asia. Austronesian languages are also in the Pacific (Oceania?) but that at best strengthens the dual SE Asia/Oceansia classification, language certainly doesn't make it Oceaniac at the exclusion of SE Asia.

5. If East Timor is not South East Asia, why is it a candidate member for Asean, the East Asia Forum, and it competed in the 2003 Southeast Asian Games.

6. That's very debatable and a very poor measure. But if we must use it, although there are differences with, say Javanese, there are certainly differences with Papuans too. Like a mix of the two - again, a poor measure, but if used it certainly doesn't exclude them from South East Asia.

7. Is it really up to either Portugal or Indonesia? There are many non-Indonesian and non-Portuguese sources who say that it is in SE Asia. You say the Indonesian view that it is in SE Asia is invalid because Indonesia was a former colonial master - so, what about Portugal? As for the culture and the people pointing solely to Oceania - that's just wrong. The culture and people are influenced by Oceania, just as they are by Asia.

8. I don't understand - you are saying if Papuans say East Timorese are Oceanian's, then wikipedia must remove all reference to South East Asia?

None of the above points exclude South East Asia. --Merbabu 02:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No, Merbabu, The article in the first time I changed it carried ONLY THE SOUTHEAST ASIA point of view. See the history there.

OK, but I never said Oceania should be removed. IN fact I restored the dual-definition. I just said that you shouldn't remove SE Asia. If you remove it again, I will seek further WP:RFC. --Merbabu 04:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Let´s go to your affirmations:
1-I see lots of people criticizing the Wallace line. Can you come up with a better methodology? If you have, you didn´t mentioned it here, and I would love to see it. We don´t even know what method United Nations used to classify East Timor in Southeast Asia.

Find a reference for the Wallace Line as being authoritative defining line between South East Asia or don't include it. Merbabu 04:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

2-Merbabu, have you ever considered why we classify PNG in Oceania and Irian in Asia, since this is ONE ISLAND, with the same caracteristics? Are there any dramatic differences between the East and the West to make this difference? If tomorrow Irian Jaya gains independence, in what continent would you classify this new country? Try to apply this to East Timor and you will understand my point. This classification of Irian in Asia IS JUST POLITICAL. It doesn´t consider the culture, nor the society, nor anything else. It´s the eternal fear Indonesia has of its huge diversity, and the problems (separatism) that it can bring.

WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:V. --Merbabu 04:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

3-Who said I am being partial? See the page about the Wallace Line...you chopped out the table comparing East Timor and Indonesia, and their percentage in Wallace line. THIS IS A TABLE BASED ON WALLACE LINE. IF YOU FEEL IT´S NOT ACCURATE, JUST PUT SOMETHING ELSE BETTER, BUT DON´T CHOP INFO YOU DON´T AGREE WITH. You again changed the text and REPEATED TWICE the mention of Timor being part of ASEAN. Ok, it´s also member of the PACIFIC ISLAND FORUM. You seem eager to show that Timor is in Asia, and ignore all facts towards Oceania....so who are taking a biased attitude here?

I didn't say you were being partial. I said WP must represent all significant and verifiable POV's. As for the Wallace Line being your categorisation, you haven't provided a reference. Where did I try to say it wasn't in Oceania? I've said it is in SE Asia. That WP is required to show two definitions is something you are just going to have to deal with. --Merbabu 04:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

4-Merbabu, you will find Austronesian languages even in Madagascar....should we include Madagascar in Asia? But, check Ethnologue....where are the majority of Austronesian languages? In Asia or Oceania? See the tree linking the languages of East Timor, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, and then tell me your opinion.

Again, Austronesian languages suggest both SEA and Oceania are legitimate. As for your suggestion that there are more Oceanic languages, there are more Asian Austronesian language speakers, and Asia is their source. --Merbabu 04:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

5-East Timor is also in the PACIFIC ISLANDS FORUM, and you seem to "forget" that point too...isn´t Egypt in Africa and participates in a lot of Organizations made for Asian states? The same occurs to Israel and European-oriented organizations...what about Turkey being part of the EU? Isn´t it an Asian country?

Where did I dispute the PIF? What's your point? --Merbabu 04:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

6-The Javanese ARE in Southeast Asia. The Wallace line says it. I agree with it. I am not saying that most of Indonesia is in Oceania, but, some 1/4 of its territory, FOR SURE IS.

In point 2 you said that Asian's only exist on mainland Asia --Merbabu 04:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

7-I am qutoing Portuguese books and data because they settled in Timor for 450 years...that is enought time to discover in what continent their colony is, or not? And, to the Portuguese, what benefit would bring to them affirming something like that? It would be more attractive to colonization if they have classified their colony in Asia...at least, is nearer than Oceania, to the common view...

Age has nothing to with it, in fact, older sources are worse. Even older sources said that the earth was flat. Are you telling me all portuguese sources say oceania? --Merbabu 04:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

8-I am not saying that Wikipedia should erase all data about Southeast Asia. I am just saying that TIMOR IS IN OCEANIAN CONTIENT. And I am referring to the political propaganda that Papuans make in their separatist effort...you can see many videos on Youtube or documents everywhere else where they put East Timor, the aboriginals in Australia and the people from PNG in the same group.

So - if "Papuan propaganda" puts ET as Oceania, then we need to remove reference to East Timor being in South East Asia. We had better tell the UN they are wrong. --Merbabu 04:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Please sign an account and stop using multiple anon IP's. --Merbabu 04:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This is approaching nonsense you are trying to "ganhar no grito" (in Portuguese, "win by yeling louder"...asking the admin to block me won´t stop anybody...you don´t have another better souce than Wallace line, and says you will erase whatever you want? You can not be considered in a serious way. Emerson

Once again, I ask that you provide a published source saying that "the Wallace Line makes East Timor in Oceania" - you haven't done this. However, I just provided a United Nations source for the inclusions of South East Asia. I have not removed your mentions and templates for Oceania. --Merbabu 05:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

And once again, you should see the sources where the article was written down! See http://www.world-gazetteer.com/, the source you erased when you erased my versions from the website. And "your" source of the UN is published?? Come on! See how you are making a biased judgement there??? Can you tell exactly what method UN used to make that classification? Wallace line provides a specifical method! You can not agree with that, but it´s there, until you come up with a better one. Emerson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.41.199.20 (talk) 05:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you show the exact information? And you suggest that your own original research to use the Wallace Line is better than the UN? Please stop wasting people's time.

What does http://www.world-gazetteer.com/ provide? Can you please be specific with a url? Otherwise, stop wasting people's time. Note, I haven't removed Oceania. --Merbabu 05:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

---

There's no right answer here, because "continent" is an ambiguous concept.

Geologically, there is no such thing as "Oceania" and "Asia". Timor is said to be on the boundary of the continents "Australia" and "Eurasia", and the jury is still out on which one of them Timor belongs to.[15]

Geopolitically, the best reference I am aware of (which still isn't all that great, because geopolitics is such a political area) is The World Factbook, which states that Timor-Leste is in "Southeastern Asia".[16].

Hesperian 05:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The same thing about the UN...is it a written source? What criteria CIA and UN uses for this classification in Southeast Asia? Nobody told this until now.

I don't understand what you're saying. Can you say it again, as clearly as possible, please? Hesperian 05:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The user is stating that the Wallace Line is the criteria for deciding which continent countries are on. If you are to believe him, that is a source - I say it is WP:OR - while he now tells us UN and CIA are not reliable sources. Anyway, with IP's and his recently unblocked account, he's well and truely exceeded 3RR. --Merbabu 05:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Domaleixo, if you're asking whether The World Factbook is a published source, the answer is yes. Here is a link to where you can buy the book on Amazon.com.[17] I don't know what criteria the CIA and the UN use, but if it comes down to a choice between accepted the criteria of the UN and the CIA, and accepting the criteria of Domaleixo, the choice is easy. Hesperian 05:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It´s simple, Hesperian...Wallace line has a criteria....a biological-oriented criteria that´s true, but, it´s at least a detailed schema saying EXACTLY where to consider Oceania and where to consider Asia. CIA and UN just brings you a table, nothing else, stating where is the location of the country.....but do they say anything about a criteria? How they came to conclusion that East Timor is in Southeast Asia? Anybody who studies the culture and the society of Timor would see that Timor is oriented towards Oceania, and that Asian classification is more political than anything else...so, what else than this political orientation they have to offer? The island of New Guinea, for example, has the same culture, etc. on both sides, but one part is in Asia, the other in Oceania....what can explains that besides a mere political interpretation of the area? You may like or not Wallace line, but, is there another criteria which classifies countries using the largest amount of views possible? If there´s one, let´s forget the Wallace Line and put this new one, that´s what I am saying! Emerson

The Wallace line demarcates biogeographical continents, which to a large extent coincide with the geological continents. On those grounds, East Timor is not a part of Asia. On the other hand, it seems that geopolitically East Timor is considered a part of Asia.

There are two problems I see with your position.

Firstly, Oceania is a geopolitical continent, not a biogeographic or geological one. From the geopolitical point of view, East Timor is in Asia. From any other point of view, Oceania doesn't exist. Either way, East Timor is not a part of Oceania.

Secondly, reputable sources have been presented, which state straight out that East Timor is in Asia. They may not state their criteria, but they are unambiguous in their position. You, on the other hand, are unable to present any sources, and are relying entirely upon reasoning. I salute your reasoning, but the fact is the sources win. The CIA and the UN are considered more reliable that your good self, no matter how ingenious your rationale. Wikipedia has a long-standing verifiability policy that states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."

Hesperian 06:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That´s another main point I tried to explain to Merbabu, Hesperian. My claim is not based only in the Wallace line. Do you have access to Portuguese Encyclopedias? Search any, for "Timor", and you will see that all Portuguese authors used to classifiy the Portuguese colony in Oceania. I remeber "Lello Universal" and "Enciclopédia Luso-Brasileira", that were quoted by me on the link that opened this topic, but Merbabu indavertedly erased that too... Emerson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domaleixo (talk • contribs) 06:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't erase it. My changes for your reference. Interesting to see that 2 sources which imply you are only "quoting" from memory does not mean all sources. --Merbabu 07:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

When I say "I remember", I am trying to say that there are more books, smart guy...Lello is divided in 4 volumes and ELB in 10, and you can find info about the island on the 4 th volume of the first, and in the 8 th at the second....at least I am giving quotations, I am not doing like you, erasing lots of data, and important tables. I am still waiting for any quotation from your side about this subject, and all you do is to erase my work. Learn with Hesperian, at least he is trying to dialogue with sources!

PS: In case you didn´t noticed, ALL the references at the article are mine, including the one about UN

Emerson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domaleixo (talk • contribs) 07:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Compromise

This debate is pretty silly and the comments by the IP editor are in breach of the policy Wikipedia:Civility. The obvious solution seems to be to state that different definitions place East Timor in Oceania and Asia and cite both definitions in line with Wikipedia:Verifiability. A citation should also be provided to support text stating that the most commonly accepted modern definition places East Timor in Asia if this is the case - it is my understanding that it is. Certainly, the above argument is rather sterile and seems pointless. --Nick Dowling 09:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

A compromise was reached and put into the text - ie both definitions; South East Asia (reference provided) and Oceania (no reference provided). But the edit warrior kept removing SEA (claiming his criteria trumped the UN's) but he has been blocked for 3RR. --Merbabu 09:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I must have missed that in the rather confused debate above (it would help if the IP was to create an account and the people with accounts were to sign their comments - it's hard to tell who's saying what). --Nick Dowling 09:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Am I blocked? Why are you so anxious to get rid of me, Merbabu? And who said a compromise is made? You want to win something yelling louder, young man....and not thinking....that´s your problem... Emerson —Preceding unsigned comment added by FRETILIN (talk • contribs) 10:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

MERBABU, STOP

I can even scan the pages of Lello Encyclopedia and Encyclopedia Luso-Brasileira saying EAST TIMOR IS IN OCEANIA. The book I quoted on Arthur Marcos (featured on the link above) describes with richness of details how Timor tribal society works, just like the other from Oceania, there´s the Wallave line, which you criticize a lot, but is incapable of showing a more modern and improved method of classification (is the Wallacea says something complelely different????) WHAT TECHNICAL ARGUMENT YOU CAN MAKE to affirm Timor is in Southeast Asia, aside than quoting statements from UN and CIA, without any other clear technical explanation??? SO, STOP BEING AN ASSHOLE AND COMES UP WITH SOME TECHINICAL DATA, NOT JUST TABLES WITH NO TECHNICAL-GEOGRAPHICAL BASED SOURCES! Emerson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.41.209.38 (talk) 13:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That is enough! Next time I see a personal attack from you I will start blocking you every time I see you. We have community standards here. Read Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Either abide by them, or go away. Hesperian 01:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The flag, as depicted, appears to be wrong

Based on its legal description found in the constitution and quoted on the Wikipedia page Flag_of_East_Timor, and comparing it to other versions of the flag that I found in a Google Images search, the white star in the flag should be pointing directly at the left edge of the flag, i.e. pointing at "nine o'clock" or 270 degrees. Instead, it is well off this mark. You can see this easily in that the edge of the star from which this left most point of the star juts should be vertical; instead, it's well off plumb.

I have never been to East Timor; I don't know if flags in East Timor actually don't follow the stated rules; I don't know if the stated rules are wrong. I could not find an East Timorian government site (which I'd think would be definitive) showing the flag. Regardless, something does seem to need to be fixed: either the picture, or the rules, or East Timor's compliance with its own Constitution. (If the later, we can't fix it, but we may at least want to note it, as it is sort of interesting.) Major Danby (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Go to an Timor Leste government website and see what they have. Kransky (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I am blind, but doesn't the star point to the left upper corner like it should? The old version, before 08:36, 23. Okt. 2007 showed the wrong angle with pointing to 9 o'clock. By the way: Here is the official law 02/2007. The German excellent article de:Flagge Osttimors offers further sources in English and complete informations about the existing variations (in German). --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

And here is an picture directly from Dili and a construction sheet. Star showing with one end to the upper corner at the mast. Only between 1975 and short after independence have been some flags with the end showing at 12 O'clock. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• 
  The star point to the left corner, doesn't it?
• 
  Original flag in Dili 2006
• 
  Flag at independence ceremony 2002

You're not blind; the question is what is meant in the Constitution by the phrase that correspondes to "the left side end of the flag" in the page I cite above. I don't speak Portuguese (which appears to be the langugage of the Constitution), so I can't venture an opinion. The relevant portion in the English translation is:

"In the center of the black triangle there is a white star of five ends, meaning the light that guides. The white star has one of its ends turned towards the left side end of the flag. The remaining part of the flag is red."

I'm not expert in this field and don't know whether "left side end" is a term of art. If this is taken to mean "upper left corner" of the flag, then you're right. If it is taken to mean "point to the nearest point on the left side of the flag," then the nine-o'clock version would be correct. I haven't found any sites that would clarify this, but perhaps someone else will have better results. Thanks for the reply. Major Danby (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Timor-Leste

According to the CIA World Factbook web site: The US Board on Geographic Names (BGN) now recognizes Timor-Leste as the short form name for East Timor. See here and here. Sounds like a solid argument in favor of moving this article to Timor-Leste. ☆ CieloEstrellado 21:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this has been stated before. But the most commonly used name is still East Timor. English usage is not determined by the CIA, the East Timorese Govt, or the UN - but simply by common usage. See previous discussions - best to contribute there. regards --Merbabu (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Common usage based on what? What people say on the street? What's printed on English-language media? How several publications refer to it? Do you have a study considering some of all of these variables that concludes that East Timor is the most commonly used name for the country in the English language? You know, English usage is not determined by what the Google search engine gives you. You gotta have to give me a reputable source stating it. ☆ CieloEstrellado 05:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Show me that Timor Leste is the most common usage and the most easily recogiseable. do you have a "reputable source" to say that Timor Leste is the most common name?. Let's forget the wikilawyering for a moment: Are you seriously telling me that Timor Leste is better known than "East Timor"? (btw, where did I mention google? please stick to the point and don't throw up false diversions). --Merbabu (talk) 05:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of diving off a cliff, allow me my two cents. The US government (as well as the EU) refers to it as Timor-Leste. The United Nations accepted the state as Timor-Leste. With that said, however, it is common practice across the world to replace directional names with their translations. Thus: Şərqi Timor (az), Timor Oriental (ca), Východní Timor (cs), Østtimor (da), Osttimor (de), Timor oriental (fr), Timor ya Mashariki (sw), Doğu Timor (tr), etc... As such, it appears as though it should be listed as East Timor in the English Wikipedia, but with a note that the US, EU, UN all officially call it Timor-Leste... In other words, keep it like it is now. Svyatoslav (talk) 06:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

What sources do you have for 'East Timor' continuing to be the most common English-language name? Given that it's the name of an actual thing, I think that the official English-language name should be used as it has been accepted by official bodies and international gazettes (eg, the Jane's military publications) across the English-speaking world. I doubt that we'd be having this discussion if it was the name of something like a business or sports team... I've been working on the Military of East Timor article and have found it embarassing to convert all the refences (which all now call the country Timor Leste) back to East Timor. --Nick Dowling (talk) 06:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

When was the last time you heard someone refer to it as Timor Leste? Or a newspaper? A TV report? Any other paper apart from a few pages cited here? How many people know, if asked, what Timor Leste is? Chances are these same people would know East Timor. --Merbabu (talk) 07:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the media still generally (though not always) uses 'East Timor'. However, academic and government publications now almost always call the country 'Timor Leste'. Côte d'Ivoire is always called 'Ivory Coast' in the rare occassions it's mentioned in the Australian media... --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

A cursory search of the DFAT website didn't reveal too many documents referring to the country as Timor-Leste, by comparison to East Timor, except in the more formal sorts of documents, like treaties. I did a Factiva (newspaper article) search covering 1 January 2007 to the present, which should fairly well represent how the print and online news media describes the country today: "Timor-Leste not East Timor" brought back 2659 results, versus "East Timor not Timor-Leste" which returned 17,250 results. I reckon the usage of the Portuguese is still too obscure to warrant renaming the article at this stage. Things will probably slowly change, though, as more promiment sources start calling the country something else. - Mark 15:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point on Côte d'Ivoire. This proves that Wikipedia is either inconsistent or that it has double standards, or both. ☆ CieloEstrellado 11:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

"Traditional pattern of abuse mistreatment"

As a Portuguese, I would like to see at least a couple of good citations on the "traditional pattern of abuse and mistreatment". Otherwise this is not a neutral article. I don't agree with anything bad that happened during the colonial era, and I'm totally unrelated to anyone that lived in the any Portuguese colony at the time. However, such a derogatory remark about a nation as a whole in a public space must be supported very well to say the least. How exactly is Portugal worse than Spain with it's huge scale massacres in America, British hypocritically claiming themselves as champions of the end of slave trade but holding the record for 18th century (when the trade peaked) slave trade at 2.5 million people, Germany wiping out a whole ethnic group in Namibia (the Herero) and Belgium with its racial segregation and it's grave later consequences in Rwanda, just to cite a few examples?

Dinis

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinisov (talk • contribs) 15:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You hypocrite! You complain about "derogatory remark about a nation" not having any supported only then to do exactly the same about five other countries. By the way Britain is not hypocritical in claiming to have been instrumental in ending much of the slave trade (which sadly continues to this day in parts of Africa and Asia). Britain also does not shy away from its historic involvment in this trade, as was seen in many events and exhibitions during last year's anniversary of the Slave Trade Act 1807 ... Also please explain, when did Portugal enact such legislation?

Well that's an easy one! Portugal was the very first country in Europe to abolish slavery in it's home territory, in 1761, 46 years before the british (although the British were, to be fair, the first to abolish it in their entire empire). We also had texts defending the rights of the indigenous since the 16th century. You can read that in any neutral history book, or in the "slavery" page of wikipedia, Portuguese version of course, I believe the english one spends a lot of time discussing the Slave Trade Act and fails to mention that most of the slaves the Portuguese had in Brazil were sold to us by Dutch and British merchants... Absence of Citations aside I stated verifiable facts, I didn't just insult nations and their "brutal rule", which are but mere opinions. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should stick to the facts. Opinions have no place here, whether ours or citations of opinions, particularly broad sweeping ones offensive to a whole people. How would you feel if I mentioned Britain as a country of binge drinking hooligans? I can also find hundreds of citations for that, but are they valid or appropriate? Sure you have hooligans and we slave traded, but does that define us as nations? I also try to not use personal insults in my posts, and this is far too interesting a discussion for that ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinisov (talk • contribs) 17:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move of Military of East Timor

User:Ex nihil and I are proposing that Military of East Timor be moved to Timor Leste Defence Force as this is both the correct and common English-language name for the military. 'Military of East Timor' is a generic name which is not normally used to describe the military - its common English-language name is 'F-FDTL', which is the abreviation for 'Falintil-Forças de Defesa de Timor Leste'. This translates into English as 'Timor Leste Defence Force'. While 'East Timor Defence Force' was used shortly after the force was established, it is now considered outdated, and allmost all publications and foreign governments use 'F-FDTL'. Comments are invited at: Talk:Military of East Timor. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think... Timur means south..

I think "timur" means south because its related with tagalog "timog/timug" which means south and the island of Timor is situated in the far south of the boundary known by Malay world where it got it's name during before pre-colonial times. That's only my own opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.213.127.68 (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

In Indonesian, Timur means East. Timor Timur is East Timor. It is also often casually shortened to TimTim.--Hamster X (talk) 08:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Aiceo

[18] added a reference to a city called Aiceo. I would normally just leave it in, leaving it for someone better acquainted than me to judge notability. However, it was preceded by this, which seems like a clear effort to pump a sponsored site named, surprise surprise! Aiceo.com. So, delete the addition, or keep it?Kww (talk) 02:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Citation needs to be corrected

Citation 15 in this article is listed incorrectly as:

Benetech Human Rights Data Analysis Group (9 February 2006). "The Profile of Human Rights Violations in Timor-Leste, 1974-1999". A Report to the Commission on Reception, Truth and Reconciliation of Timor-Leste. Human Rights Data Analysis Group (HRDAG).

The correct citation for this article is as follows:

Silva, Romesh and Patrick Ball, "The Profile of Human Rights Violations in Timor-Leste, 1974-1999." A Report by the Benetech Human Rights Data Analysis Group to the Commission on Reception, Truth and Reconciliation. 9 February 2006. Available online at http://www.hrdag.org/timor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyerfox (talk • contribs) 05:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

incorrect summary of official UN CAVR report on human rights violations

The main point below is that article incorrectly summarizes the UN report on human rights violations in East Timor by Indonesia. The references given below say that CAVR reports the range of deaths from hunger and disease (during the occupation) is 102,800 - 183,000; that Indonesian forces used hunger to kill people; and that these deaths constitute genocide.

I think it's important to modify the article to reflect the true conclusions of the UN CAVR report about the Indonesian occupation.

The Wikipedia article misleadingly states:

"approximately 18,600 killings and 84,200 'excess' deaths from hunger and illness.[15]"

which lead me to believe the Indonesian government intentionally killed relatively few people, but that difficult conditions caused many deaths.

However, looking more into the UN report, this impression is wrong. This summary of the report by an Australian newspaper says:

http://www.yale.edu/gsp/east_timor/unverdict.html

claims the report says the Indonesian army deliberately used starvation to exterminate people. The occupying army killed up to 180,000 civilians [actually the upper limit is 183,000 from hunger and illness plus 18,600 killings or very close to 200,000 victims]. They also used Napalm and chemical weapons. The Australian paper says the UN report found the deaths from starvation to be an act of genocide.

The official online CAVR report also states (at the end of this pdf):

http://www.cavr-timorleste.org/updateFiles/english/CONFLICT-RELATED%20DEATHS.pdf

that these figures are minimum conservative estimates, the article mistakenly quotes these figures as a "lower range" and approximate values, whereas CAVR states that these figures are the lowest possible numbers, and the actual number of deaths is certainly higher:

http://www.hrdag.org/resources/timor-leste_faqs.shtml#1

The actual range of deaths from hunger and illness is given as 102,800 - 183,000.

It would be fair to add that the Indonesian defense minister responded to the official UN CAVR report with a denial that these human rights violations ever occurred.

If the official UN report made by an independent third party to the conflict concluded there was an act of genocide, I think that should be mentioned.

RiceMilk (talk) 04:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)RiceMilk 20:48, October 22, 2008

I suggest any changes that are made reflect the actual report's findings, not the interpretations of the report. Indeed, the pdf that you provided is not, as you seem to suggest, actually the report, but a summary of the report, and says the upper bound is "speculation". So much so that my intepretation is that when the 183,000 figure is mentioned in the report, the authors don't stand by it. From the (actual) report:

If the assumptions in the underlying data and in the models were correct, the total deaths due to hunger and illness in excess of the peacetime baseline could be 103,000, with a possible (but improbable) high-end estimate of 183,300. Given the uncertainty in these models, we recommend that the finding be that at minimum, during the period 1975-1999 100,000 people died due to hunger and illness in excess of the peacetime baseline.

I'm happy if the article is changed the article to what I've bolded above. I won't support any re-interpretation of the report or commentary surrounding the repot. Eg, if we have a 3.5 year UN-sponsored report available (as we do), I suggest it makes reference to a somewhat sensationalised newspaper article kind of redundant. --Merbabu (talk) 05:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

PS, this is from the FAQ page on the author's web-page:

The magnitude of human rights violations in Timor-Leste during the Indonesian occupation and responsibility for these violations has long been a subject of contentious debate. The Indonesian military has claimed that they were not responsible for the majority of violations during their occupation of Timor-Leste, human rights advocacy groups have argued otherwise. By establishing an empirical basis for this debate, CAVR and HRDAG have helped to shed new light on these important questions about policy, practice and responsibility.

--Merbabu (talk) 05:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Merbabu's correction is an improvement in the article. Merbabu made an excellent point that the UN sponsored report is a much better source for fact than any journalistic summary. The FAQ is also just a few lines long and cannot stand in for the report itself. The actual report makes specific, strong conclusions. I provide some references and quotes that support a much stronger statement even than the modified one proposed above.

The official 2500 page UN report is available on line. Section 8.2.1 A is on pages 5,6 etc. of this pdf:

http://www.cavr-timorleste.org/chegaFiles/finalReportEng/08--Responsibiliy-and-Accountability.pdf

It states:

---

8.2.1 A The State of Indonesia and the Indonesian Security Forces:

The Commission finds that:

The military invasion of Timor-Leste by Indonesia on 7 December 1975 was a violation of one of the most fundamental and universally accepted principles of international law - the prohibition on the illegal use of force by one state against another. The Commission holds the State of Indonesia to be accountable for this violation and responsible for its consequences. Throughout the period of the illegal military occupation of Timor-Leste members of the Indonesian security forces committed massive, widespread and systematic human rights violations against the civilian population of the territory. The Commission is satisfied that these violations amounted to crimes against humanity and war crimes.

Integral to the military operations designed to overcome resistance to the Indonesian invasion and occupation was official acceptance of the commission of gross violations including widespread and systematic executions, arbitrary detention, torture, and rape and sexual slavery. The Commission finds that the Government of Indonesia and the Indonesian security forces are primarily responsible and accountable for the death from hunger and illness of between 100,000 and 180,000 East Timorese civilians who died as a direct result of the Indonesian military invasion and occupation. The Commission received conclusive evidence that between the years 1976-1979 the Indonesian security forces systematically:

---

It continues to document the methods used by Indonesian security forces to starve the people. These include burning and poisoning food supplies, destroying livestock, and locking up large numbers of civilians in prison camps and starving them to death by denying them access to food. It says CAVR has conclusive evidence of these facts.

I think it would be fair to summarize the official UN report and also the official Indonesian denial issued in 2006. something like:

The CAVR found "conclusive evidence" that "the Government of Indonesia and the Indonesian security forces are primarily responsible for the death from hunger and illness of between 100,00 0 and 180,000 East Timorese civilians", and crimes against humanity and war crimes (footnote section 8.2.1 A of the 2500 page official UN CAVR report).

It might also be good to have a reference to this wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_occupation_of_East_Timor and possibly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_invasion_of_East_Timor

I didn't find any online official Indonesian denial of the CAVR report other than the one reported in the CAVR FAQ referenced above.

RiceMilk (talk) 08:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

ISO 3166 does not prescribe country names

Concerning the country's name, there are some references in the article and here in the talk page to ISO 3166 as prescribing an official or standardized name for Timor-Leste.

This is incorrect. The purpose of ISO 3166 is only to standardize country codes, not names. It does use English and French language names in its text to refer to countries whose codes its prescribes, but it is not its role to truly prescribe the names of those countries.

"[ISO 3166] does not establish the names of countries, territories or areas of geographical interest..."[19] (emphasis in the original).

The only party with authority to decide on official names for this country is the country itself. And even then, other governments and institutions (such as the UN, the ISO, or dictionary and encyclopedia editors) are bound at most by courtesy and respect - not by any law - to use that official name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.57.245.11 (talk) 06:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Correct number ans source for deaths during Japanese occupation.

The main article says there were 40-70,000 killed during the Japanese occuptation, but it's marked citation needed. Well, one such is the official web site of the Government of Timor-Leste, see: http://www.easttimorgovernment.com/history.htm In other articles, the figure is given as 40-60,000.

The real problem is that all Timor-Leste population figures, inluding census figures, are unreliable. For examole, different sources state that during the Indonesian occupation from 1975 to independance, some 100,000 or 200,000 Timorese were killed. Demographers, using the available data, tend towards the lower figure, which is still a significant proportion of the population today of over a million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterJohnBeech (talk • contribs) 00:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

*No Title*

{{editsemiprotected}} Suggest removing "In places where Portuguese rule was asserted, it tended to be brutal and exploitative." For the reasons stated in my posts in the talk section "Traditional pattern of abuse and mistreatment". It is not neutral and a mere opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinisov (talk • contribs) 00:21, December 13, 2008

Where is the phrase? Leujohn ^(talk) 13:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

comparable descriptions are made in the section on the "Indonesian occupation".--Merbabu (talk) 04:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but I must say that the Portuguese were pretty creul to their colonies in South America. I would like to see some source that the people herewere treated differently. Leujohn ^(talk) 06:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

 Not done No citation. See above. Leujohn ^(talk) 14:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

No offense taken, I know the Portuguese behaved badly in South America. My only point with this whole thing is not to demonstrate blind patriotism, but to contribute my 5 cents to solve what I feel is a huge bias in history and its understanding due to the dominance of the British empire, then the US and of the English language. You never see this kind of sentences referring to countries responsible for other atrocities, and the sole reason is that the more numerous and rich peoples of those countries don't like to feel bad about themselves, preferring to blame other smaller nations that don't speak English. But if all that is too theoretical there is one simple argument: that is an opinion, even worse, a citation of an opinion. If you check the Wikipedia principles it says you should stick to the facts. By all means give good citations of stuff like numbers of dead and hard facts, you won't see me complain. And if you want an example of a good Portuguese, check out the Wikipedia page about Padre António Vieira. Keep in mind this precedes the all-important (in the English world) Livingstone by around 200 years.--Dinisov (talk) 17:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Timor-Leste revisited

I read the previous discussion on the name and it is simply stupid. The official name of the country is Timor-Leste. This isn't a matter of English, Portuguese or any other language. This is the official name of the country. This is the name used on the United Nations website (English version). It is also used by the IOC. Let's all grow up and change the name of this article. Otherwise, this tyranny by consensus once against proves why many teachers do not accept Wikipedia as a source for term papers. ludahai 魯大海 (talk) 11:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

the point of dispute is not the official name - that is amply described in the article. The point is wikipedia naming convention which requires the name that the subject is most commonly called. How many people do you know who can tell you what timor leste is? East Timor on the other hand...

anectodal speculation about other people's oponion on wikipedia is irrelavant and of no assistance to the question. Please keep discussion focussed.

also, please refrain from words such as "grow up" and "tyranny" when talking about wikipedians. Some might take offence, even suggesting you consult WP:CIVIL be why that is so important to fostering community and consensus.

--Merbabu (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I doubt very many random people on the street would recognize EITHER name. I'm not sure when the last time I heard the country mentioned on the news (the Tsunami?), but I seem to recall it being called Timor Leste. I vote for changing the name to the official name, with East Timor as a redirect.Khajidha (talk) 16:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The article as it is still does not answer what "Leste" means. — Hellerick (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Based on general knowledge of Romance languages (specifically French and Spanish) and extrapolating to Portuguese, I would guess that it means "east", "the east" or "of the east". Khajidha (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Wait, so are we supposed to move "San Francisco" to "Saint Francis"? It's not English so... –Howard the Duck 16:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not a question of "translate all" vs. "translate nothing". San Francisco is (overwhelmingly) most commonly known as "San Francisco" in English writing. That's what counts. Remember, we have Côte d'Ivoire because—and only because—it has been shown that the desired, untranslated, form has become prevalent in English usage. The same evidence for "Myanmar" and "Timor-Leste", when available, will get them moved too. —JAO • T • C 16:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

My point is that "Timor-Leste" is as English as "East Timor". With the IOC, FIFA and several organizations using "Timor-Leste" I dunno how someone can argue it's not English. And like, it's a noun. What's next, Rudy Fernandez being called Rudolph Ferdinand? –Howard the Duck 08:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Timor-Leste not sounding English is certainly not a good argument for not moving this article. East Timor being used more often than Timor-Leste in English is a good argument for not moving this article. Whether or not Timor-Leste not sounding English is a good argument for East Timor being used more often than Timor-Leste in English, is beside the point, as we're not here to change English usage. —JAO • T • C 16:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

A better argument is that this country is referred by the United Nations as "Timor Leste" on English language documents. Look at the UN Press Release announcing Timor Leste's entry into the UN (see [20]) - you will notice that other countries official names in English are included (such as Cote D'Ivoire and Germany).

I fail to see why TL should be treated differently to other states in this nonc-contriversial simple and straightforward naming convention. Kransky (talk) 08:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what other articles do, nor is it a reason to match this article to it. What is important - and has been all along - is the name it is most commonly recognised as. No-one can honestly say that TL is close to ET in usage. --Merbabu (talk) 11:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That assumes that EITHER name is "commonly recognized". I seriously doubt that the man-on-the-street would recognize either name.Khajidha (talk) 12:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Huh? How does it assume that either name is commonly recognized. What does that mean?

anyway, I'm not sure you you live, but everyone where I live knows what East Timor is. Timor Leste? I can guarantee very few have ever heard of it - nor does the media (of any quality) ever use the term TL. --Merbabu (talk) 12:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If the name of the article is to be what the place in question is commonly known as, the place must be assumed to be commonly known. If 5 people know of a place by one name and 1 by another name and 400,000 have never heard of it; it cannot be said to have a commonly used name.Khajidha (talk) 15:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Really, did you ask all of them personally? Or are you just assuming? Khajidha (talk) 15:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Once again, did you ask or are you assuming? I think that the familiarity of either of these names is being overestimated and am asking for more data on recognition.Khajidha (talk) 15:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I would expect that a country's offical name holds more weight than what most lay foreigners would call it. Just because a name is "popular" doesn't mean it is the right term to use. Wikipedia has an article on Paresthesia, even though most common people would refer to this medical condition as "pins and needles". I seriously think this issue needs to be revisited. Don't dumb down Wikipedia!Kransky (talk) 12:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That's an imaginative but not very useful comparison, but this nothing to do with dumbing down wikipedia. We are "revisiting" the issue. Perhaps you need to revisit WP:NAME. --Merbabu (talk) 12:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, to make it clear, the current most popular name for this country in English is "East Timor." I'm just dumbstruck at the comments that "Timor Leste" is "not" English, and we should even know what "Timor" or "Leste" means. It's like saying we should know that Denmark = land of the people north of the border. Or something to that effect. –Howard the Duck 15:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Having followed this debate for years I finally looked up Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) Use Modern Names, as Merbabu suggested and it says, to quote: Another example is Mumbai, which officially changed its name from Bombay in 1995. Our choice of name does not automatically follow the official one, however, but depends on two claims: that usage in English by locals (and wider English usage as well, to some extent) has changed to commonly use Mumbai, although many local institutions do not, and that Indian English, as an official language, should be followed, in accordance with our guidelines on National varieties of English. Well my reading of that is that Mumbai changed from Bombay because that's what the locals used despite Bombay being in wider general use. In which case don't the conventions demand Timor Leste because just nobody here in TL uses East Timor. Ex nihil (talk) 04:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

A fair point, but then English is used much more in India than on Timor. Listening to how the native English-speakers in Mumbai use their language is quite different from listening to how second-language English-speakers in Timor use it. (I wouldn't be surprised if most Czechs writing in English call their country "Czechia" but we don't listen to them either.) This isn't really a case of bias but rather a natural effect of this encyclopedia's language—native English-speakers are who define the language. Of course, there are probably native English-speakers in East Timor too, but they aren't that many, are they? —JAO • T • C 06:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

OK Jao, but all the native English speakers in the country, and that is quite a few plus the First Lady herself, also the Portuguese and other nations use Timor Leste. East Timor would never be used by an English speaker in TL, at least not after they'd been there 24hrs. I am there myself now, have been for a year and a half. Ex nihil (talk) 03:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

but from an international level, which is what we are catering for, east timor is still overwhelmingly the most recognised name and that is what our naming policy requires. While it does seem the right feel good thing to do to use the locally requested name, it is not in line with a long held and justified policy. --Merbabu (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

In Australia, it seems that "East Timor" is still the most common spelling seen in the media (and we probably see more stories about Timor than more remote english speaking nations). That said, searches on Google News show that use of "Timor Leste" is increasing. I wouldn't be surprised if it is the common spelling in a few years. When that happens, the article name should definitely change. Before that point, I am not so sure. --James (talk) 03:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a question of religion

East Timorese are Malay like Indonesians so it is closer from any point of view to Indonesia than to Portugal, a far away Latin European nation...The only reason behind Timorese Independene is based on the Catholic face compared to the Muslim majority in Indonesia. --88.26.57.166 (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

East Timorese are not Malay, rather they are (like Indonesians) of Austronesian ancestry - which is what I am sure you meant. East Timorese like much of eastern Indonesia is Christian due to the colonial European (largely Portuguese and Dutch) influence. My understanding as to why there is a much larger proportion of Christians in eastern Indonesian and ET - in many areas they are the majority - whereas in central and western Indonesia (say Java and Sumatra) Muslims are the majority, is because the influence of Islam was a lot weaker in eastern Indonesia and ET, and it was thus easier for Europeans to convert them to CHristianity. For the Dutch in Java, they largely (but not always) didn't bother trying to convert Javanese Muslims, but there are sizeable minorities of Christians in western and central Indonesia.

It is certainly not correct that ET independence is based on religion. Rather, what is now Indonesia had the Dutch as colonial masters for centuries, while East Timor had the Protuguese. This resulted in a separate national identity for the majority of East Timorese. Note, there are many majority Catholic and Protestant areas in Indonesia that steadfastly feel Indonesian. Certainly, the Catholicism of East Timor did provide a point of difference with Muslim Java and the church/Catholicism became a vehicle for independence , but it was not the *cause* of difference. Many books and other sources on East Timor make this point. Hope that helps. Not sure how exactly how all this would fit into the article --Merbabu (talk) 13:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)