Talk:East Timor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To-do list for East Timor:	edit · history · watch · refresh
Here are some tasks you can do:

	Portugal Portal East Timor is part of WikiProject Portugal, a project to improve all Portugal-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Portugal-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Portugal To-do: edit purge Portuguese COTW Wikipedia:Portuguese Collaboration of the Week/Current Portuguese COTW Improve to Featured status Portugal Improve More... Review Requests See Requested articles Listed for deletion Assess Help assessing articles. Need images Translate from Portuguese Wikipedia Wikify Vote: Watch this list — Edit this list

East Timor is either included in the Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

This page has been selected for the Version 0.5 release of Wikipedia and rated B-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category Geography.

This page has been selected for the release version of Wikipedia and rated B-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category Geography.

This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.

An event mentioned in this article is an August 30 selected anniversary.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. 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)

Archives
Archive 1

Contents 1 Supposed controversy and faked data 2 Area according to which source? 3 Updating frequency and policy? 4 Country Name 5 Measurements 6 Suspected Indonesian Connections with Current Crisis in Timor 7 Renaming of East Timor to Timor-Leste 8 Protection 9 AID Nomination 10 2006 Crisis 11 Montenegrin Declaration of Independence June 3, 2006 12 Serbian Declaration of Independence June 5, 2006 13 "Point of View Check" tag 14 Indonesian section 15 Timor Geography 16 East Timor is part of Asia, Southeast Asia more specifically. 17 Editing articles about districts 18 Merbabu's strange reverts 19 Miscellaneous & See Also sections 20 Portuguese Language, a Timorese Government perspective 21 Asia or Oceania

[edit] 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.

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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 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.—The preceding unsigned comment was 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 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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