Misplaced Pages

Talk:East Timor: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:15, 20 December 2013 editChipmunkdavis (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers66,779 edits →Picture: Cmt← Previous edit Revision as of 23:08, 20 December 2013 edit undoNick-D (talk | contribs)Administrators106,154 edits →Picture: cmtNext edit →
Line 262: Line 262:
:If the only place that this image has been published is on some guy's Facebook page, then it doesn't seem significant enough to include in any Misplaced Pages articles. A photo of a protest or the like would be relevant, but this doesn't seem encyclopaedic if it hasn't been used widely. ] (]) 06:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC) :If the only place that this image has been published is on some guy's Facebook page, then it doesn't seem significant enough to include in any Misplaced Pages articles. A photo of a protest or the like would be relevant, but this doesn't seem encyclopaedic if it hasn't been used widely. ] (]) 06:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
::Agree with Nick-D. One person spray-painting a tiny image on a wall and then taking a photo of it does not illustrate a widespread feeling of anything. Signs held up in documented protest rallies would be better, if there are any. ] (]) 16:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC) ::Agree with Nick-D. One person spray-painting a tiny image on a wall and then taking a photo of it does not illustrate a widespread feeling of anything. Signs held up in documented protest rallies would be better, if there are any. ] (]) 16:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
:::There was a protest outside the Australian embassy in Dili a week or so ago over this issue. ] (]) 23:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:08, 20 December 2013

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the East Timor article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 3 months 

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconEast Timor Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject East Timor, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Timor on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.East TimorWikipedia:WikiProject East TimorTemplate:WikiProject East TimorWikiProject East Timor
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconCountries
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry
WikiProject Countries to-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconSoutheast Asia Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Southeast Asia-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Southeast AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Southeast AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Southeast AsiaSoutheast Asia
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconMelanesia Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Melanesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Melanesia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MelanesiaWikipedia:WikiProject MelanesiaTemplate:WikiProject MelanesiaMelanesia
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPortugal Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Portugal on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PortugalWikipedia:WikiProject PortugalTemplate:WikiProject PortugalPortugal
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Portugal To-do:

Find correct name The airport is not listed as João Paulo II anywhere. The airport's own website calls itself simply Ponta Delgada, and has no mention of João Paulo.

Improve key articles to Good article

Improve

Review

  • Category:History of Portugal: lots to remove there
  • Template:Regions of Portugal: statistical (NUTS3) subregions and intercommunal entities are confused; they are not the same in all regions, and should be sublisted separately in each region: intermunicipal entities are sometimes larger and split by subregions (e.g. the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon has two subregions), some intercommunal entities are containing only parts of subregions. All subregions should be listed explicitly and not assume they are only intermunicipal entities (which accessorily are not statistic subdivisions but real administrative entities, so they should be listed below, probably using a smaller font: we can safely eliminate the subgrouping by type of intermunicipal entity from this box).

Requests

Assess

Need images

Translate from Portuguese Misplaced Pages

Wikify

Vote:

Watch this list — Edit this list
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIndonesia High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IndonesiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate:WikiProject IndonesiaIndonesia
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Asian / Southeast Asia
WikiProject iconThis 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. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion not met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Asian military history task force
Taskforce icon
Southeast Asian military history task force

Template:V0.5

WikiProject iconSoftware: Computing
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on 15 dates. August 30, 2004, August 30, 2005, May 20, 2006, August 30, 2006, May 20, 2007, August 30, 2007, May 20, 2008, May 20, 2009, August 30, 2009, May 20, 2010, August 30, 2010, May 20, 2011, July 17, 2011, May 20, 2012, and May 20, 2013
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the East Timor article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 3 months 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Malaysia influenced the culture?

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

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

ASEAN membership

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

Move Request

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

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

East Timor → Timor-Leste – Common place term for the country amongst most English-language sources. In previous requests, the name had leveled with East Timor in its use, but now more and more official and non-official English language sources are using the term: Timor-Leste, as I have shown below. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 08:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Cristiano Tomás (talk) 08:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Consider renaming this article "Timor Leste". The use of "East Timor" makes WP look like a bunch of ignorant fools. Americans are terrible with geography and I would predict that the typical American reader would probably support the use of the term "East Timor". I have heard the term "Timor Leste" in the TV news before but it was not American TV. Auchansa (talk) 05:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Did you just call Americans a bunch of ignorant fools? Rreagan007 (talk) 06:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Why does it make Americans look like fools? Maybe it just means that Misplaced Pages editors follow Misplaced Pages policy on consensus and common names. It's been discussed before. Look at this page and the archives.--Merbabu (talk) 06:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I apologize for using the word "fools". I did not say Americans are fools. I did say that use of the term makes Misplaced Pages look like a bunch of fools, for which I am sorry for the outburst. Auchansa (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
As an American, I can tell you that's not even the worst of it. Half of us are actually below average! Look at who we elected president. What language do they speak in Austria, anyway? Kauffner (talk) 12:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

How about we stop talking about Americans and whether they are foolish or not and talk about the name. I recognize that there have been past discussions, but perhaps we should start a new one, as things have changed since the last. Timor-Leste is growing in popularity in English, and is close to, if not already, the most used and preferred term for the country in English. A list of credible English language sources that use Timor-Leste:

Hopefully we can all agree as the mature and logical editors that we are and choose the name that best reflects the country and this article. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 08:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Timor Leste is rarely (indeed ever?) used in the media or in common conversation. It just isn't - you can find all the "official" use you want, but until it becomes the common usage, then it should stay as East Timor. English language is determined not by government decree or by official use. THis has been discussed a number of times, consensus has been for East Timor, and since the latest, quite recent discussion, I do not see any evidence for an apparent "change" or shift towards Timor Leste. --Merbabu (talk) 08:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
CORRECTION: I would not say "rarely". See the BBC News and ChannelNewsAsia (of Singapore). http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/1245242/1/.html and http://www.bbc.com/sport/olympics/2012/countries/timor-leste/athletes To be fair, both are used. Auchansa (talk) 03:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - the time signatures in above are out of order. Indenting is odd. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Usage among U.S. readers in the last year is split 21 for Timor Leste/Timor-Lest, 34 for East Timor (38 percent), according to Google Trends. There was no U.S. usage for "Timor-Leste" as recently as 2007, so things are definitely changing. Neither name is terribly well known to English speakers. To continue to refer to this country by its colonial name long after it has gained independence seems out of step with modern-day norms. If the Indonesian Foreign Ministry and the United Nations can refer to this subject as "Timor Leste", we should be able to treat it is as an independent country as well. The World Factbook gives the name of this subject as "Timor-Leste." This site is recommended by The Chicago Manual of Style as the source for "country names" (§8.43). Kauffner (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Your own link to Google shows that "East Timor" is still more commonly searched for than "Timor-Leste". Certainly there seems to have been an increase in the use of "Timor-Leste" since 2007, but "East Timor" is still more common in English today, and Misplaced Pages article naming policy is very clear that we use the most common English name, and as of right now that is "East Timor". You can't just say, "oh, there has been a trend of increased use of 'Timor-Leste' so we should use that name now even though it's still not the most common name." It doesn't work that way. Trends can slow or even reverse. If "Timor-Leste" ever does become the most common English name, at that point is when the article should be moved; not before. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages policy says that an article title should be the common name of the subject, not the "correct and modern way to refer to" the subject. And it is only your opinion that the "correct and modern way" in English to refer to "East Timor" is "Timor-Leste. And just following up on your example, the official name of the UK is the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" but on Misplaced Pages the article title is simply United Kingdom because that is its common name. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
"United Kingdom" certainly isn't the most common name of the country, so you can see here. "Timor-Leste" is the correct name of this subject if we follow the recommendations of CMOS, the most respected stylebook. Kauffner (talk) 06:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
That seems a bit of a straw man argument; 'United Kingdom' is the name commonly used by other governments and international organisations, which is the case for 'Timor Lete'. "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is almost never used outside of extremely formal documents. Nick-D (talk) 07:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I used that example because the original comment used a United Kingdom example, but you're partially right that it's not a great example. A much better example is how the English Misplaced Pages uses "Ivory Coast" rather than "Côte d'Ivoire" as the article title for that country, since it is the more common English name. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
A complete non-argument. The United Kingdom is not England (and never has been - that's just a mistake people make). "Leste", however, means "East", so "East Timor" is entirely correct. It's simply an English translation of a foreign adjective. We do it all the time, as do most other countries. I don't object to French Misplaced Pages referring to my country as Royaume-Uni, for instance. It's simply the French translation of United Kingdom. No insult there. Neither is there here. I'm always mystified as to why some people tend to find it acceptable for English to be translated into other languages, but not for other languages to be translated into English. If it was commonly known as Timor-Leste in English then I'd agree, but frankly, it isn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I propose to you, my fellow editors, this: Those in favour of changing the article have provided a plethora of evidential pieces in favour of such a move. Those against it have merely argued with hollow words, no sources. I ask those who argue in favour of East Timor to produce references and sources as per their argument. Let us disregard all move requests of the past, for they serve us no purpose, we live in the present. I ask that we all try to find the logical name for this article. I am in favour of Timor-Leste, because many credible sources have supported such a term, but I do wish that those in favour of East Timor have a running argument, we are all fair people here. I hope we can end this discussion with great speed and efficiency, thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 06:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
"English speaking international organisations" do not get to define what is the "correct English-language name of a country", nor what is the common English language name of a country. That is determined by the everyday usage of native English speakers. But you are correct that the use of "Timor-Leste" has increased over the last several years, but it is still not as common as "East Timor". Perhaps one day it will be, but until then the article should remain located at "East Timor" according to Misplaced Pages policy. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't actually think that it's appropriate to slavishly apply WP:COMMONNAME to important things such as countries. Nick-D (talk) 06:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
As far as I am aware of, all country articles on Misplaced Pages are located at their common name. To not place a country at its common name would be a major policy change. It is also interesting to note that 2 of the examples given at WP:COMMONNAME are actually country articles. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Then you don't know about Republic of Ireland (commonly and officially "Ireland"), Republic of the Congo (Congo), Democratic Republic of the Congo (also Congo), or Republic of Macedonia (Macedonia). The country article for Taiwan was at Republic of China not long ago. That sure confused readers. "Consistency" and one of the main criteria for titling given in WP:TITLE. In my opinion, we should consistently follow Chicago style, which is to say The World Factbook. Kauffner (talk) 08:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Taiwan and China were moved to their common English names per Misplaced Pages policy, as was Ivory Coast. As for the 2 Congos, having 2 countries with the same common name necessitates the use of their official names for article titles. The Macedonia case is made complicated due to the Macedonia naming dispute. The only example you listed that I think really should be moved to comply with the common name policy is Ireland, but just because another Misplaced Pages article is at the wrong location doesn't mean we should move this article to the wrong location. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I did a lot of work on the Taiwan RM. That country pretty much stopped calling itself "Republic of China" years ago. I hope the title of this article can be put in line with current political reality as well. Kauffner (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

This template must be substituted.

  • Support - Timor-Leste is the official name of the country, and after its hard struggle for independence it is surely entitled to have its own name respected. This is like discussing whether Zimbabwe should be called Rhodesia in Misplaced Pages. Brocach (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Actually, it's nothing like that at all since "Zimbabwe" is the common English name for that country, while "Timor-Leste" is not the common name. What this actually is like is the English Misplaced Pages using "Ivory Coast" as the title of the article on that country, since that is the common English name, rather than "Côte d'Ivoire". Rreagan007 (talk) 03:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The nominator is incorrect that "Timor-Leste" is commonplace in most English-language sources. It's actually not even that close. See this ngram, where "East Timor" dominates. Also look at Google Books searches, which show 107,000 results for "Timor-Leste", and 567,000 results for "East Timor". That's about 84% in favor of "East Timor". Even when you restrict results to the 21st century, you get 93,000 results for "Timor-Leste", and 352,000 results for "East Timor". That's still 79% in favor of "East Timor". Just 2012? 6,270 results for "Timor-Leste", and 16,300 results for "East Timor". That's 72% of English-language books published last year using "East Timor". The day may come when English-languages sources prefer "Timor-Leste", but we are not there yet. Dohn joe (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment: Perhaps Americans don’t know where East Timor is. Maybe. But I can assure that all but the most ignorant Australians would, for reasons of geography and recent history. But most would not know Timor Leste, let alone that it is the same as East Timor. It doesn’t matter how many “official” usage you can find, it’s what is in common usage. Can anyone tell me that Timor Leste is used more commonly than East Timor. No, I thought not.
And, it’s still the case, that language is determined by usage. Niether the UN or the East Timorese government determines English language usage. Niether does the US, UK, or Australian governments. language is determined common usage. What is “correct” or official is irrelevant. --Merbabu (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Further, Misplaced Pages naming policy has nothing to do with a country earning its right to have its name respected, as implied above. Let them determine their name in their language. We are talking about English here.
It’s got nothing to do with colonial hang ups. It’s, once again, just about usage. Whether “East Timor” was used during “colonial” times is irrelevant. Perhaps those throwing in the “colonial” tag are unfairly trying to discredit the “East Timor” supporters. Ie, straw man.
Common usage, what most people are going to know this as, and English language determined by usage not officialdom is the point. Anything else is irrelevant. --Merbabu (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Question: Doe john, where do you find the number of results on the Google search pages you linked? I've found that when you add a time restriction, the 'Search Tools' line covers up that number. —Neil 03:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Click on the box that says "Search Tools" on the left. Who believes that "East Timor" was mentioned in anything like 16,000 books published in the last year? These numbers too heavily ghosted to be meaningful. Kauffner (talk) 03:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks! No question the numbers are flawed, but I'm not sure the alternatives are a whole lot better. And one way or another we need to figure out which is the commonest name. —Neil 02:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME/WP:OFFICIALNAMES as an immature and illogical editor. The sources provided in support of the nomination are primarily government agencies and their ilk, many of whom use Geneva English which is not the standard at Misplaced Pages. As User:Dohn joe notes above, general English usage still favours "East Timor" (it's not even close). Finally, as User:Kauffner notes above, Misplaced Pages should avoid colonial names like Timor-Leste, the name of the country in the language its colonial overlords, Portuguese. —  AjaxSmack  01:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment: As you point out, the key here is the common name. The country’s colonial history, however, is not relevant. We are not here to righting any historical wrongs. Any such arguments based on “correcting” colonial pasts should be ignored.
Anyway, as AjaxSmack alludes, which colonial power? Portugal? Indonesia? The UN? Australia? An irrelevant question. --Merbabu (talk) 03:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: I hope you're not calling the nominator "immature and illogical"—let's stick to the topic. Also, so you know, I think Kauffner's argument is that Timor-Leste, as the name that the Timorese chose for themselves and that the democratically-elected government uses in English documents, is the less colonial term. —Neil 03:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree that common use should be the primary factor, but I do think colonialism and self-determination should count as well—as a secondary factor, yes, but still a factor. In this case, I oppose the move because East Timor is still the most common name by a substantial margin, but in the case of, say, Burma/Myanmar, where the two alternatives are more evenly balanced, I think a choice made by a democratic government could well be decisive. —Neil 05:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: I just have to note that from the looks of his user page, the original proposer of this move, Cristiano Tomás (talk), appears to be from Portugal and has an interest in Portuguese history and the Portuguese Empire. Now, there's nothing wrong with being from Portugal, but it does make it very unlikely that he is a native speaker of English. And as this debate mainly focuses on what the common English name for this country is, he is probably at somewhat of a disadvantage when it comes to knowing what a typical native English speaker would refer to this country as. Additionally, he may have a conflict of interest in this debate, as he is probably somewhat biased toward wanting to use the Portuguese name for this country rather than the English name. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Rreagan007, I don't think it is appropriate or relevant to be commenting on Cristiano's national or ethnic origin. It may be construed as a personal attack (see WP:WIAPA). So please focus on the comments and not the contributor. danielkueh (talk) 06:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Let me be clear, it is not meant to be a personal attack at all, and if it came off that way, I apologize. I also, in no way, wish to discourage him from his continued participation in this discussion. I was merely pointing out that his opinion on what is the common English name for a particular country, given that he may not be a native English speaker himself and that he may have a conflict of interest, is somewhat less authoritative than that of a native English speaker. And per the Misplaced Pages policy you cited, "pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack". Rreagan007 (talk) 06:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
While I did not take any offense from your statement Rreagan007, I will set the record clear, though it is irrelevant. I am from Portugal, but I have moved between the U.S. and Portugal all my life, and speak better English than most of the native speakers at the school I attend, at least in my opinion. I am at no disadvantage, language wise, but I will give way for possible nationalistic sympathies, I am not a perfect non-bias editor. But like I said, all this is irrelevant, and as you can see, there are other editors that agree with me on the move, and I do not know whether they are Portuguese or not, nor do I care. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 07:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. And I am glad that you did not take offense, as that was never my intent. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Great, let's move on then. danielkueh (talk) 14:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • @AjaxSmack: I meant that this country was an Indonesian colony. That was too subtle? Usage has changed a lot in the last few years, and the ngram results you give are for 2008. The Google trends data represents what our readers are calling the country, not "Geneva English". I'm sure the Highbeam data includes many press releases, but it is a standard test for common name. After all, the people and agencies who deal directly with this country may know what its actual name is. When copy editors have a style question, they don't ngram it. They consult a style guide like The Chicago Manual of Style. CMOS is also recommended in WP:MOS. The name change reflects the country's status as an independent state, so it's not like an Indian city whimsically changing its name. Kauffner (talk) 03:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
    For what it's worth, "East Timor" was never a colonial name. Under Portugal, it was Timor Português, and under Indonesia, it was Timor Timur (which translates as "East Timor", but then so does "Timor-Leste"). Dohn joe (talk) 07:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Readding comment inadvertently removed by Cristiano Tomás. Dohn joe (talk) 07:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
    Timor Timur was the name in Indonesian. In English, they called it "East Timor," as you can see here. Kauffner (talk) 04:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
    I don't get your point. "Timor Timur" = "East Timor" in Indonesian. "Timor-Leste" = "East Timor" in Portuguese. "East Timor" is the translation of the name under the evil occupiers as well as the liberated democracy. Dohn joe (talk) 06:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
    You don't think Indonesians can speak English? The country has an English language press, including several dailies. The Jakarta Post has stories archived that were published pre-independence (2002). They all use "East Timor". See here, here, and here. The paper kept using "East Timor" until about 2008, and then switched to "Timor Leste". Kauffner (talk) 06:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
You do realize that the Google trends data you link to shows that "East Timor" is still more commonly used than "Timor-Leste" don't you? Rreagan007 (talk) 03:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually, no, the purpose of the article title is not "to inform readers, to tell them what the correct name of the country is". The body of the article can be used to discuss the different names of the country, both common and official, but the purpose of the article title is to get readers to the article they are looking for when they type an entry into the search box. That's the whole rationale for why article titles are placed at the common name rather than the official name (or the "correct" name). Attempting to use the article title to "correct" the reader's English language use only increases the likelihood of frustrating and confusing them. Rreagan007 (talk) 08:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Timor Leste is not the "correct" English name for the country. Ye presume too much --Merbabu (talk) 08:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The purpose of a title is to tell readers the name of the subject. It should not be used as a form of SEO. "When there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others," per WP:UCN. Kauffner (talk) 08:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • But "Timor Leste" is not "fairly common". It is still quite an uncommon term as far as the average English speaker/reader goes, despite its increasing acceptance in "official" circles. And that makes it a far more problematic article title than using the commonly known term. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Over all this talk about colonial names and independence rights and such, allow me please to set the record clear. Timor-Leste translates, exactly, from Portuguese to East Timor. The name of Timor-Leste under Portuguese administration was Portuguese Timor. Under Indonesian administration, I am afraid I do not know. There is nothing colonial about the term East-Timor, it is the exact translation of Timor-Leste. The reason that Timor-Leste is gaining reputation in English is because native names are now becoming more acceptable in English, if I may say. I recognize that East Timor was and is a logical name for the country in English, because it means the exact same thing, but the fact is that, as I have said before, Timor-Leste is gaining official, media, and common use, and that is why I proposed this move. I hope that this cleared things up. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 07:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
English language usage, by English language users, not by officialdom, or addressing notions of colonialism. See policy. --Merbabu (talk) 07:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I think Cristiano understands that. He's saying that whether or not colonialism is a valid consideration, it's a non-issue here because East Timor is not a particular colonial term. I hadn't clearly understood that, so thanks for the explanation, by the way! —Neil 02:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. East Timor is still the most common name used in English-speaking countries. The argument that Timor-Leste is its official name and therefore should be used is a non-starter. We use common name in English. That's why we have articles on Venice instead of Venezia and Munich instead of München. This is English Misplaced Pages. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Fact: I worked in Singapore recently. English is the primary language of that country. The TV news uses the term "Timor Leste". A person went there on vacation. They referred to the country as "Timor Leste" in their blog and in conversation. To me, the usage of "Timor Leste" in English is widespread enough as to be used in Misplaced Pages. It is not the case of "Deutschland" instead of Germany. Auchansa (talk) 04:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Fact. Singapore is a tiny city state. For articles about subjects peculiar to Singapore we obviously use the term favoured in Singapore, but I don't think it should have much influence on the terms we use for other subjects on Misplaced Pages. As for someone using the term after visiting the country, my mother has always called the German city Köln since she visited it. So what? It doesn't prove anything. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Not that it should matter, but "Munich" and "Venice" are "official" names too, or at least the names that the cities themselves use on their English-language websites. More to the point, they are in whole different league in terms of notability, as you can see here. Kauffner (talk) 03:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
      • That's simply because the city authorities are sensible enough to realise that those are the names most commonly recognised in English and they're trying to pull in tourists who wouldn't know what Venezia and München were. It proves nothing. I'm also not sure what you're trying to prove with the trends. Most people have heard of East Timor, as it was in the news a lot not too long ago; I doubt whether many have heard of Timor-Leste. Add Timor-Leste and see what you get! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hypothetical question: If the government of Germany issued an official statement tomorrow that the official name of the country in English is "Deutschland", would we automatically move the Germany article to "Deutschland" even though it is not currently the most common English name for the country? Or would we wait until (if ever) "Deutschland" became the most common English name for the country before we actually moved the article there? Rreagan007 (talk) 04:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment I think we all know that it would remain Germany. The German government is not the determiner of English language any more than the East Timorese is. --Merbabu (talk) 02:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Hello all. I made an interesting find here. The chart shows that Timor Leste is currently the highest, followed by East Timor and then Timor-Leste. Perhaps the exclusion of the hyphen makes it that this move is the better name? (as Timor Leste not Timor-Leste). Anyways, I'm not so good with these google gadgets and charts, so perhaps I misread. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 06:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Because you have it set to "worldwide" so you're pulling in a bunch of non-English language searches from places like Brazil. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • We don't need hypotheticals to find out what happens when a country changes its name. Since WWII, the Dutch East Indies has become Indonesia, Annam has become Vietnam, Malaya has become Malaysia, Transjordan has become Jordan, Rhodesia has become Zimbabwe, South-West Africa has become Namibia, Upper Volta has become Burkina Faso, and Tanganyika has become Tanzania. We can see that when a name change is associated with a barbaric regime, as in Burma (Myanmar) or Cambodia (Kampuchea), there is greater resistance to it. "Calcutta" is a far more recognizable name than "East Timor". Yet the title of its Wiki article was changed to Kolkata long before that was common usage. Kauffner (talk) 05:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Of all those examples you listed, they are all currently at their common name in English, with the possible exception of Calcutta. Though India with its very large number of English speakers can probably tip the scales on that article. When East Timor has 100 million+ residents who speak English, then their official pronouncement of an English name will carry much more weight. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Aside from Calcutta, the name changes I mentioned above occurred in the pre-Wiki era, so they don't relate to Wiki policy. But the point is that when people understood the issue, they would switch to the updated name. After Zaire changed its name to Congo, that was the new name. Nobody asked if there was "100 million+ residents who speak English". In most cases, something has to be quite well-known to English speakers before the issue of an exonym even comes up. Minor geography follows local usage. Everything related to South Korea has been put at Revised Romanization, although Nogeun-ri and Joseon are certainly not the most common forms. Kauffner (talk) 07:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, maybe common English usage will change over time, maybe not, wikipedia shouldn't be trying to predict the future.--Staberinde (talk) 10:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is similar in context to the Burma vs. Myanmar debate. However, in this case none of the data presented here indicates that the Timor-Leste is the common name in english. The most comprehensive post containing statistics is Dohn joe's and it indicates that this proposed move is not valid.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Support. Anonymous user from Timor-Leste. Also the name used by America's State Department and Australia's ministry of Foreign Affairs. Since Australians and Americans are the only people still calling this country East Timor, the argument against it is a weak one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.189.170.10 (talk) 07:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

This template must be substituted.

As has been explained a number of times but barely, if at all, acknowledge by those supporting the page move, wikipedia names its pages after the common name. Ie, the English name as determined by usage. And not the name determined by governments and their agencies, even if it is the East Timorese government. Since you have no evidence that only Australians and Americans use the name East Timor, then your argument is a weak one. It is weaker still since you appear to be a WP:SPA account. regards --Merbabu (talk) 09:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, Keep East Timor. I'm agree with Merbabu. I think the political preferences and nouance (that really prone to bias and interest) should not interfere with the fact in common name; it is East part of Timor island. In english East Timor is neutral, acceptable and common, why should refer to its Portuguese name instead? Unfortunately this could not happen in wikipedia Indonesia because our historical burden. In wikipedia Indonesia we refer it as "Timor Leste", although "Timor Timur" is the correct Indonesian translation for the area, but it would sounds "politically uncorrect", since they refer "Timor Timur" as Indonesian occupation era. To think of it even the name "Timor" means "East".Gunkarta (talk) 10:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Neither name dominates the other in usage in English language searches. When there is no clear dominant English usage, use the English term that the entity officially refers itself as. In this case, according to ISO-3166-1, the official English language short form name is "Timor-Leste". --Polaron | Talk 20:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- I like the Misplaced Pages policy on common names a lot. It's what people really use, and that's sounds much more accurate. The article already states the official name of the country correctly. So I see no issue here. The issue in Indonesian wikipedia is different from the English one and "Timor timur" for the present-day country may be regarded as offensive and POV, so it is not the same. In the Portuguese language wikipedia people the portuguese wikipedians tend to prefer official names to common names. --Pedro (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

In view of the "no consensus" decision, the name of the article should be changed to Timor Leste. The major question was whether Timor Leste was a fringe suggestion or not. If it were, the decision would be a clear "no" to change. Since there is significant international usage of Timor Leste, I propose that the name be changed on or after April 15, 2013. This will allow more than one month of further discussion. Auchansa (talk) 04:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

If there is no consensus to move, um, why should it be moved? You're saying it should be moved because there was no consensus to move. Sorry, I don't get it. --Merbabu (talk) 05:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Merbabu; if there's no consensus for a change the change shouldn't take place ;) Nick-D (talk) 06:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Picture

East Timorese protest against Australia 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

J. Patrick Fischer, where I come from is really NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. Frankly, I don't care to know where you are from or who you are. It's irrelevant. The only thing that IS relevant are the policies of WP, which you fail to understand. You seem to be only interested in pushing a POV (see WP:advocacy) about East Timorese and their relations with Australia. There is a lot of information and pictures that we can include in this article. But of all the pictures available, you are dead set on giving undue weight (wp:undue) to this one photo, which is not even notable. It is pure propaganda and has yet to be shown to be representative of the mainstream views of the East Timorese and their government. As for your other examples:
  • In the Syrian civil war article, I don't see any propaganda images being highlighted or featured prominently. I just see pictures of maps, real individuals, and tragic events that are characteristics of the many images found in the mainstream media. Nothing controversial and easily sourced and documented. Whether or not the children died from chemical weapons is not the issue. At issue is whether this is notable and documented by the mainstream media, i.e., reliable source. It is. Anyway, it is not particularly relevant to what we are discussing now.
  • In the Libyan civil war article, the graffiti on the wall showcases the chaos and turmoil in Libya during the civil war. Its context is understood. It is not meant to represent the views of the Libyan warring factions or the Libyan government, pre- and post civil war. Same goes for the Egyptian and Turkey protests. All this is very different from what you are trying to accomplish here, which is to prominently display a "street art" that in your words, "shows the emotions in East Timor very well and documents excellent the problems of relations between Australia and East Timor". Last I checked, there is no war between East Timor and Australia and the government of East Timor has not accused Australia of "stealing its oil." No chaos, major strife, or turmoil. So far, all the "emotions" and "accusations" appear to be limited to just one group, the Movement Against the Occupation of the Timor Sea, and its supporters.
  • If there is a WP article about the Movement Against the Occupation of the Timor Sea, then yes, you have a better chance of sticking that kangaroo picture in there. But not in an article about East Timor and its relations with Australia. Likewise, you won't find pictures of anti-whoever graffiti in an article about Libya and its relations with France, the U.S., or the U.K., just to name a few.
  • A comment about the kangaroo image. In contrast to the images on Syrian Civil War, a reader casually looking at the kangaroo picture for the first time will not know that it is in fact a photo of a graffiti on a wall. If the reader was to click on that image, he or she will read the following description, "Australia steals Timor Oil. Protest against Australia in East Timor." The first sentence is an allegation and it is not clear if the second sentence is a description of a fact or a command to the reader to go out and protest against the Australian presence in East Timor. Anyone who would like to know more would have read the thread on this talk page, something that they are not inclined to do.
I have taken the time to actually read what you wrote and go through your sources and reasons carefully. But you don't seem to reciprocate or to be interested in learning and following WP policies, which makes this whole discussion very tedious and almost pointless. So go ahead and complain as much as you want, but at the end of the day, no reliable sources = no consensus (WP:consensus) for that picture. Period. danielkueh (talk) 20:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
If the only place that this image has been published is on some guy's Facebook page, then it doesn't seem significant enough to include in any Misplaced Pages articles. A photo of a protest or the like would be relevant, but this doesn't seem encyclopaedic if it hasn't been used widely. Nick-D (talk) 06:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Nick-D. One person spray-painting a tiny image on a wall and then taking a photo of it does not illustrate a widespread feeling of anything. Signs held up in documented protest rallies would be better, if there are any. CMD (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
There was a protest outside the Australian embassy in Dili a week or so ago over this issue. Nick-D (talk) 23:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Categories: