Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Timor

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Changed "MP-40" under Dutch weapons to "MP-28"...the MP-40 was not used by the KNIL however German MP-28's were purchased by the Dutch pre-WWII. Source: http://www.geocities.com/dutcheastindies/weapons.html

What about the Timores, Portuguese and Japanese?

[edit]

This article only describes the Allied Combatants and desn't say anything about the Timorese and Portuguese or even the Japanese. When I was writing the German Article, I couldn't find informations about Japan, but this source gives a lot of information about people living on Timor during the battle. Use it! --J. Patrick Fischer 21:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

__________________

Response to above query..........

That source is now cited in the notes as by Geoffrey Gunn (1999). I'm not sure what the status of that work is; it is possible the author may not agree with its contents anymore...thus the name was not attached when someone decided to reproduce the pdf. It should' be consulted, as should his Timor Loro Sae 500 years (1999) but there are a growing number of other sources which could be used to follow up leads. (Dewobroto (talk) 15:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

''''''FURTHER INFORMATION ON TIMORES:''''''

[edit]

can be foundin 'ALL THE BULLS MEN': C.Ayris, 2006,ISBN 0-646-45824-8, Copies c/o 2/2 Commando Association.

Reassessment

[edit]

Although previously assessed as a B for a few projects, I have reassessed this article as start class. This is mainly due to referencing which I feel is not up to the required standard. Specifically a lot of the sources used are internet sources of dubious reliability. Anotherclown (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the 48th Div. units

[edit]

In its current form, the article says that units of the 48th division began arriving from the Philippines. The citation is a general book on the pacific war with which I am not familiar, but Materials on East Timor during World War II (Tokyo: Ryukei Shyosha 2008), p.27 says that Lt. Gen. Tsushihashi Yuitsu and the 48th division were then based on Java. As this bibliography is done by Timor specialists based in Japan, I suspect this is correct, but checking is necessary to ensure that SOME units didn't actually come from the Philippines. The same bibliography does list the autobiography of Tsuchihashi (1985) which might be useful for anyone with Japanese language ability. Koseisho Engokyoku (1961), and several other memoires in Japanese would help a lot. (Dewobroto (talk) 15:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Expand/Cleanup

[edit]

I added the template "Expand German". The template was now second time removed. Statement: "there may be minor points, but nothing warranting a tag. Please simply add the required information"

Sorry, the situation of the in the area living people is not a minor point. The artcle is still "only-Australian-view", looks more like a veteran's website article. I do not want to add the informations on myself, because I do not think, my English is good enough. I added the tag to notify a help for adding informations about Timorese and Portuguese in this time. If you are feeling ashamed, there could be informations in German WP, missing here or prefer to talk only about English speaking nations, it is a deficit of this article. Maybe you are prefering the Cleanup Template than the expand German-Tag. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 11:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick, the relevant policy is WP:BRD. That is bold, revert, discuss. You added the tag, I reverted, now we discuss. Not you adding it or something similar. Simply adding a tag and walking away from an article is not helpful in my opinion. Please provide more guidance than simply a tag. If you would like information added, please outline it more clearly here on the talk page, with references, and I will attempt to work it into the article. Simply saying more information about the Timorese and Portuguese does not help me. For instance, how much information are you wanting? A paragraph, a whole section? Even if you want to write something on the talk page in your own words (with reliable sources), I would be happy to help fix any English problems that might exist. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Expand-tag was in the article since 2011. Following the policy, you should first discuss, before deleting it. I mention, where are informations and sources in English available. Even how much is possible to insert into the article. Have a look to the German version. That is my last comment about this here. I really do not have the time to show people, there is a world outside their own country. One notice should be enough, making people just having a look, before deleting the notice. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 09:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To which policy do you refer to regarding removal of tags? In my opinion, the article has been expanded since you added the tag and I see no reason why the tag should remain for several years with you as the sole arbiter of whether it is applicable or not. Finally, I've tried to look at the German article and frankly several paragraphs are uncited, so I would be careful copying from that. If you wish to contribute, I've offered to help you with the wording of what you want to introduce, but you say you don't want to write something. I don't see how you can then insist that others should. I don't speak any German and the Google Translation is practically unintelligible to me. You, apparently can speak both German and English, so you would be best placed to add the information. Adding a tag and insisting others improve an article is not constructive. Writing something on the talk page and trying to establish consensus for its inclusion, however, is. That is what I suggest you do. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a discussion of what information is felt to be missing (with some suggested sources) would be far more helpful than any tag. Unfortunately the edit summaries [1][2] are probably a bit too brief for any non-Timor specialists to be able to use as guidance also. Additionally, whilst I agree some information on the local population deserves its place in this article, at this stage the overall subject is only covered in outline so any addition probably also needs to be fairly brief to avoid issues with WP:UNDUE. Anotherclown (talk) 10:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Timor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Timor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it clear in this entry that the Allies invaded neutral Portuguese Timor before the Japanese?

[edit]

The fact that the Allies were first to invade neutral Portuguese Timor is an important part of the historic record. The editorial "slant" of the entry is about the Japanese invasion -- which followed the Allied invasion and was in response to it. Would the Japanese have respected Timor's neutral status if the Allies had done the same? We will probably never know. 2603:800C:3944:BC00:E873:339B:4FF3:BA98 (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Timor&oldid=1218479662"