Talk:East Timor

Good articleEast Timor has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 10, 2023Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 3, 2023.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that East Timor uses the United States dollar, but produces its own coins to facilitate smaller transactions?
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on 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, May 20, 2013, May 20, 2014, May 20, 2015, and May 20, 2016.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 15:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
  • Comment or view
  • Article history
)

Improved to Good Article status by Chipmunkdavis (talk). Self-nominated at 16:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/East Timor; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • Recently off a fairly thorough GA review, this is a—to a lay person—comprehensive article, well written and referenced. Article has previously appeared on the main page, but not in DYK and other appearances are a few years ago. Hooks are interesting, from the article, and referenced. DYK done.
@Chipmunkdavis: given that many people probably don't know much about East Timor, any number of alt hooks are possible, even for more general facts, e.g. "... that following the end of Portuguese colonial rule in 1975, East Timor was occupied by Indonesia until 1999?". I also found the use of local fractional coins for the US dollar a nice factoid, especially as it goes with a picture, but this would need to be mentioned and referenced in the article first.
I have also some quibbles regarding ALT0, as the relevant part of the article, Geographical access to courts remains a challenge and has prompted the development of mobile courts is very close to what the source says ("Geographical access to courts remains a challenge. Many municipalities have no fixed courts and rely on mobile services. The government has established mobile courts") so as to be WP:PARAPHRASE.
For ALT1, as the article and the source make a distinction between the budget, the fund, and government expenditure (80% of government spending comes from this fund, which as of 2021 had $19 billion, 10 times greater than the size of the national budget.) and the relationship between these is not spelt out, I'd recommend rephrasing to "... that the majority of East Timor's government expenditure comes from the country's state-owned Petroleum Fund?".
That's it for now Constantine ✍ 09:48, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your inputs. I have a personal preference towards avoiding a hook focused on history, and especially the occupation. I feel more positive about a hook that expresses something about the country as it is now. On local US Dollar coins, I can add that to the article, it does not feel undue as a short note. Re mobile courts, I will reword the article sentence. Re ALT1, no objection to that rephrasing. As before, also no objection to further hooks, I have been immersed in this article for awhile, so input as to what is interesting from others is very helpful. CMD (talk) 10:42, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis: I figured you wanted to focus on positive aspects. Just wanted to point out that most people might be drawn in by something more 'spectacular'. On the hooks:
ALT1 is now "... that the majority of East Timor's government expenditure comes from the country's state-owned Petroleum Fund?"
And I suggest an additional ALT3 "... that East Timor uses the United States dollar, but produces its own coins to facilitate smaller transactions?"
Otherwise all is good to go. A fine article! Constantine ✍ 12:04, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

  • Timor-Leste Product Exports (2019).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi presidential vs parliamentary

What is the idea came from the east timor's government system? I don't know in my mind if timor leste was previously listed as a parliamentary republic one time on one of the instagram post. 2404:8000:1027:85F6:5DF:9A77:C364:2260 (talk) 10:09, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of word appointed

with the popularly elected president sharing power with a prime minister appointed by the National Parliament.

What does the word appointment means on the context of politics? I think the word appointed reminds me with the phrase dental appointment. 182.3.44.99 (talk) 182.3.44.99 (talk) 06:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See any dictionary, such as Wiktionary, where it's the second definition given. Largoplazo (talk) 10:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

East Timor or Timor-Leste?

Why is the article titled East Timor? Im confused by this because East Timor is the former name. Since the official name is Timor-Leste, why isnt the article titled Timor-Leste? 2600:8803:2B17:5900:58FB:E17:EF92:B27A (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See the list of previous discussions on this near the top of this page, beginning "This article has previously been nominated to be moved." The core of the matter is that we go by the guidance of WP:COMMONNAME, under which the official name isn't the deciding factor. Largoplazo (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because we do not necessarily use the official name. Our country articles use the name in common usage in English. It is the current consensus that English usage is "East Timor". If you think that English usage is actually "Timor-Leste", it is up to you to prove that. Note that the country itself is NOT a source for current English usage. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear IP, don't even try to prove it even you believe to have sufficient quantitative and qualitative evidence for a significant and lasting shift of common usage in English, unless your evidence is overwhelming. This is the main takeaway of the last move discussion. There is definitely no consensus among editors that English usage is "East Timor", but there is no consensus for the same claim about "Timor-Leste", either. In such a case, WP follows the inertia principle, summed up as "no consensus to move". –Austronesier (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Our nation wanted to be called as Timor-Leste not East Timor. East Timor was Timor-Leste’s colonial name under Indonesian rule. Af if you think that Indonesia does not speak English, the government actually translates geographical names to English. I know it’s the common English name for my country, but it has a dark memory to the nation. Just try to be more respectful to my nation’s decision even if it needs adjustment to make it common. Because we are talking about my nation’s identity here, not your identity. For me as a Timorese, I think we need a new consensus for this. Mariowiki0097 (talk) 05:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is generally behind the times when it comes to naming and terms use because we look at past academic publications for research......but all can find it as Timor-Leste is a redirect. Moxy- 06:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given that "Timor-Leste" was the country's colonial name under Portuguese rule, and that it means exactly the same thing as "East Timor" so its exactly as dark, just expressing that darkness in another language, why aren't you rejecting that name as well? Colonial names are bad or colonial names are great? Largoplazo (talk) 10:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The collective dynamic lying behind common usage is irrational.
The historical baggage that comes with names and words is irrational.
Non-evidence-based arguments in move discussions are irrational.
The first thing is sometimes hard to accept for people who feel "affected". The second thing is sometimes hard to understand from the outside persective. The third one, well, is annyoing, but Wikipedians are human too. –Austronesier (talk) 11:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The country calls itself TIMOR-LESTE on its English language website: http://timor-leste.gov.tl/?lang=en
The UN lists the country as TIMOR-LESTE not EAST TIMOR.
The CIA lists the country as TIMOR-LESTE not EAST TIMOR.
https://www.cia.gov/resources/world-leaders/foreign-governments/timor-leste
Thus intended name for English speakers is TIMOR-LESTE. As a native English speaker I find calling the country/Wikipedia page EAST TIMOR quite offensive.
The page should be called TIMOR-LESTE. Anything else is plain wrong. The name EAST TIMOR should be used in parenthesis only. Blue Moses (talk) 11:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then you need to launch a worldwide campaign among the publishers of English-language works to change what they're calling it. When it becomes the predominant name in use for it, then we'll switch. You're asking the tail to wag the dog. Largoplazo (talk) 11:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And as a native English speaker I find the East Timorese government's assertion that they know how to speak my language better than I do to be highly offensive. So I guess the two of us cancel each other out. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know you're being facetious but that sort of attitude really isn't helpful here - someone asking you to call them by their preferred name is absolutely not the same thing as claiming they know English better than you, but we should also not be treating some forms of English as better than others. Turnagra (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm serious. And the name for a particular piece of the ground is in no way the same as a PERSON's name. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Timor Leste is also colonial name lol, the difference just Timor Leste come from Portuguese. East Timor is just translation version of Timor Leste. Illchy (talk) 11:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Timor-Leste please! Failing that drop the redirect so that at least the new nation can get its own page.
As for why this rename keeps failing, it's depressing. At least the Australian media has moved on. Cagneya (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you equally depressed that the respective articles about the United Kingdom at Portuguese and Tetum Wikipedia are titled Reino Unido and Reinu Naklibur, and not United Kingdom? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Largoplazo (talk • contribs)
WP:UE doesn't require that the name is English, it requires that the name is used in English. It's why eSwatini isn't still at Swaziland, or Burkina Faso isn't still Upper Volta. Turnagra (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Turnagra and Cagneya: Please have a good look at Talk:East_Timor/Archive_7#Requested_move_6_January_2023 before continuing here without substantial qualitative and quantitative evidence. Too often this discussion is characterized by assertions (from both sides) about predominant usage out of thin air. I'll be back in Jan 2024, not with a move discussion, but just plain metrics for usage in 2023. –Austronesier (talk) 18:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Austronesier I feel like I should clarify - I'm well aware of rhe history on the page name here (and the equivalent on the Ivory Coast page), and I'm not proposing that we launch yet another move request. My previous comment was more because I found the two comments opposing the notion above to be unhelpful and problematic rather than constructively explaining the issue. Turnagra (talk) 18:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Austronesier yes, I've read the discussion. Like I said, depressing.
Here are searches from the Australian Media I could think of using Timor-Leste. Remember Australia is only a few hundred km from the island so surely that carries far more weight than some distant publication that hasn't been and will unlikely be updated in years.
This is the Australian National Broadcaster https://discover.abc.net.au/index.html?siteTitle=news#/?query=timor-leste&refinementList%5Bsite.title%5D%5B0%5D=ABC%20News
This is the Murdoch press https://www.news.com.au/search-results?q=timor-leste
This is the SMH family https://www.smh.com.au/search?text=timor-leste
9News (was MSN?) https://search.nine.com.au/?q=timor-leste&site=news
and so on Cagneya (talk) 00:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Listing increasing numbers of of sources that use the name you'd like to have the article moved to is insufficient. There isn't some tipping point, whether it's 10 or 20 or 50, beyond which a new name automatically prevails. What's needed is a demonstration that the new name predominates over the old one. What does a similar search for "East Timor" reveal? Largoplazo (talk) 01:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the name is in English wasn't my point. It was that so often people write about how offensive it is that Wikipedia uses the long-standing English name for such-and-such country, while the natives of that same country use their own names for English-speaking countries and don't imagine themselves to be committing any offense by doing so. Largoplazo (talk) 22:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually amazed Wikipedia doesn't use the official name. To me, it smells like lingering remnants of colonialism. I think a lot of sources think the official English name is East Timor precisely because the largest encyklopedia in the world features the name *East Timor* as the *correct* name, and including a sly 'also called Timor-Leste' in its introduction, as if it's some sort of second-rate proposal. Quite simply, I'm amazed, and this won't likely change any soon because Timor-Leste is such a small country with no clout to change the minds of English native speakers turning their nose up at all these tiny little nations insisting on their name being used right. One wonders how eSwatini got its name changed approved in the English Wikipedia. — Jetro (talk) 06:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're completely wrong. It's as though you've never read Wikipedia's guidelines on this topic, about which there's nothing colonial. "One wonders how eSwatini got its name change approved ..."—there's nothing to wonder about, it's because your premise is wrong in the first place. Discard your premise, look at the guidelines, look at the discussion where the decision was made, and there won't be anything to wonder about. There's no reason to have to wonder, it's all right there, in black and white, completely transparent.
People were calling it "East Timor" before there was a Wikipedia, and most people have never looked up the article in Wikipedia. Finally, "Timor-Leste" is Portuguese, and Portugal was the actual colonial overlord, so anyone desperate to have Wikipedia rename the article "Timor-Leste" must really be the ones who are pining for the days of colonialism, right?
So please stop with the conspiracy theory-style accusations. Largoplazo (talk) 11:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose a moratorium on move requests

That said, there are still several sources indicate for us why we should oppose instead of support such "East Timor to Timor-Leste" renaming-ism, as we are not stucking on UN-Names. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support an unlimited moratorium on move requests that are a) solely based on WP:OFFICIALNAME and completely ignore our naming conventions; b) provide zero metric evidence except for cherry-picked individual attestations.
Even with metric evidence, everyone should be aware of the bar that User:Kahastok has set: evidence for usage of the proposed target title should not simply outnumber the current title, but do so in non-official and non-officialese sources (e.g. not just texts from international organizations, or NGO texts that often perfunctorily ape UN officialese style; see our discussions in Talk:Turkey). It's usage in mainstream media that counts. Without considering this criterion, any new move request will just become a time sink.
FWIW, I would also like to propose to add a moratorium on sophisms, dim misapprehensions about WP:USEENGLISH and dirty tricks (like citing 10-year old corpora) in future move discussions. But this is already covered (in theory, at least) by behavioral policies, I guess. –Austronesier (talk) 14:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now purely because most Australian media outlets use Timor-Leste and not East Timor. --SHB2000 (talk) 11:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I favor a two-year moratorium. If actual usage shifts in favor of "Timor-Leste", then Wikipedia should reflect that, but any measure on which that would be based is inherently fuzzy that it isn't as though there will be an exact day on which the shift happens, and there's nothing so urgent about it that we absolutely must convene to resolve in favor of the change on that non-existent specific day. Two years is sufficient time to allow to go by before reconsideration while allowing those of us with this article in our watchlists some respite. Largoplazo (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. –Fpmfpm (talk) 07:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Unless I'm mistaken, I'm only seeing two move requests in the past five years. That doesn't seem like the sort of volume that would necessitate a moratorium. Turnagra (talk) 09:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - there is nothing that warrants putting a moratorium on open discussions regarding the naming practices around this country. Absolutely ludicrous to try to squash these talks. And quite frankly, if your watchlists need respite, remove the article from the watchlist - the idea that discussion should be halted for two years so you can "take a break" from all the notifications is crazy. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 14:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
there is nothing that warrants putting a moratorium on open discussions regarding the naming practices around this country is a false premise. What warrants it is that there is virtually nothing to be gained by holding the same discussions over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over within a short interval, repeating arguments that have been rehashed dozens of times when, meanwhile, the underlying data that has to change in order for the final outcome to change has virtually not budged. Meanwhile, it constantly pulls away the attention of those who have the article on their watchlists, who, exhausted from the endless rehashing, decide to ignore the article, with the result that posts about genuinely new issues will be overlooked, completely drowned out by the torrent of messages from people who won't let the matter go for a reasonable amount of time. (I am not referring here to people who broach the change in good faith without having participated in or read the previous discussions, but to those who take it up, at great length without saying anything novel, at every opportunity.)
TL;DR: It's disruptive. Largoplazo (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a one-year moratorium for reasons I expressed above. Largoplazo (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:East_Timor&oldid=1217901630"