Jump to content

Talk:East Timor/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 7

Name Issue (again)

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

Timor-Leste should be used regardless. It is time for Wikipedia to make the right decision and rename this article. —Sesel 21:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
You're both damn right about this. - Thanks, Hoshie 23:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely agree. —Nightstallion 19:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The previous discussion ignores an important fact that it is both official name AND IT IS SPELLED IN ROMAN LETTERS. While Côte d'Ivoire is spelled in Roman letters, “中华人民共和国” is not. I will second the move to its correct and only correct name -✉ Hello World! 04:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Timor-Leste is a ten-letter unbreakable word of the country. We don't break up Côte d'Ivoire as “Côte Ivory” or “d'Ivoire Coast”. Righh? “Timor” is just an Indonesian word which means east. Need we translate? If not, the article should be named Timor-Leste, if yes, PLEASE MOVE IT TO East East (or East Island East, or Eastern East Island, whatever you like). Don't make the name of the country HALF-TRANSLATED.-✉ Hello World! 04:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:NAME

Also:

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

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

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

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

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

I must recant what I said last summer on the name. From doing a straw poll of atlases and almanacs at my local bookstore, it's clear East Timor (E.T.) is the current preferred name over Timor Leste (T.L.) for the country. Since Indonesia left the country in 1999, the World Almanac used E.T. in their 2000-05 editions to refer to the country; only in 2006 did they switch to T.L. The TIME Almanac hasn't switched to T.L. yet (I haven't checked the NY Times almanac yet). Out of the 30 atlases tested, only two had T.L.; the rest use E.T. As for the Factbook change: it's good, but the old editions with E.T. instead of T.L. are still around (for example, see UMSL or Inellinet). In short, I agree with Caniago. While I wish this article would use T.L. instead of E.T., we should wait until the world switches. We aren't there yet. - Thanks, Hoshie 09:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the name issue needs to be revisited, after a Talk:List_of_countries/Archive_1#East_Timor_over_Timor-Leste big discussion nearly 2.5 years ago. Just because Wikipedians and others on the other side of the world still refer to it using the wrong name does not make it right. While there is the argument about using English language translations of foreign names, there is also the principle of self-identification. That is why we call Taiwan the Republic of China, despite few countries recognising its sovereignty and the fact that that in common conversation we prefer to say Taiwan rather than the longer and potentially confusing alternative. Fact: The Timorese government wanted to be referred to as Timor-Leste; this should trump any argument about Google counts or what journalists who know nothing about the country say. Time for a revote on the issue? Kransky (talk) 12:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
As the 'nutshell' box above says, we need to use the common name. 'East Timor' is undeniably the most common name, in fact, most people don't know 'Timor Leste' on the 'other side' of the world, or next door here in Australia. The word 'Timor Leste' is rarley (ever?) used even here. See this too:
Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.
This is justified by the following principle:
The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists. ''
...this can only suggest 'East Timor'.
As for the suggested ‘self-identification’ reasoning, that the East Timorese govt has decided that Timor Leste is it's English name is irrelevant. English is not determined by government decrees, but by usage. No one is talking about 'right' or wrong, rather common usage.
Wikipedia’s naming of Taiwan is not an apt comparison – that example stands in the midst of major sovereignty dispute involving conflicting claims as to what really constitutes China/Taiwan. No such issues with East Timor. Most importantly, and irrespective of the example, there is no requirement that wikipedia be run on precedent (let alone clumsy comparisons). Each article should be judged on its merits and precedence only where it fits, rather than detracts.
--Merbabu (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Pure and simple that is the major reason. But having looked at the debates which have gone on on this talk page, it seems the most oft cited reason for using East Timor over Timor-Leste is that East Timor is most commonly used in the English language. If this is the case, and by using a simple Google comparison test, one will see that Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste[2] is used nearly 4 times as much as Democratic Republic of East Timor[3]

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

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

That is not quite correct - you have stated that google recognises "Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste" more than it "Democratic Republic of East Timor". That may be the case (even if we excuse the weaknesses of google tests). But, neither of these names are the common English name. The common English name is "East Timor" - it doesn't matter if anything else is the official English name, Wikipedia calls for the common English name.
Furthermore, the version you changed was a long-held consensus formed between many editors. Thus, whether it is 'right' or 'wrong', your change is controversial and you should get some form of consensus first to change the long-held consensus above (which significantly is the name of the page too). -Merbabu 12:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The above reference to the ISO 3166 is misleading. That standard does not prescribe names for countries, it only prescribes codes. The names are only used by it to refer to countries. The ISO 3166 itself spells this out clearly: What is ISO 3166. Please note I'm not taking a stance on the usage of names or the naming of the article, I am only correcting a recurring misconception gets dragged through this type of discussion over and over again. 87.198.255.118 (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia policy is straight forward. I repeat...
Also:
Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists.
The use of “East Timor” far outweighs the use, or even the knowledge, of “Timor-Leste”. You have said you are located in East Timor – but outside of the country, the officially requested version is rarely known, let alone used. Even the most respected media sources still use the term East Timor – note the need to cater for a wide audience, not specialists. Besides, the name “Timor Leste” is adequately explained so we’re hardly being unfactual as you’ve suggested.
The use of “East Timor” far outweighs the use, or even the knowledge, of “Timor-Leste”. You have said you are located in East Timor – but outside of the country, the officially requested version is rarely known, let alone used. Even the most respected media sources still use the term East Timor – note the need to cater for a wide audience, not specialists. Impassioned pleas appealing to emotional sentiments that imply “neo-colonialism” are not really what the debate is about. Besides, the name “Timor Leste” is adequately explained so we’re hardly being unfactual as you’ve suggested.
Also, as I’ve said before, English Language usage is determined by, well, usage. Not by decree, request, nor politically correct and frankly over the top attempts to link the issue to notions of “neo-colonialism”. --Merbabu (talk) 04:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Optimising for readers is a usability issue that does need to be addressed. Equally important is the issue of factual correctness. Given that Wikipedia is designed to educate, it seems that a redirect from East Timor to Timor-Leste meets the criteria of usability, while at the same time asserting the proper usage. Linking is also well-supported, as the phrase East Timor is unambiguous, therefore not subject to a disambiguation page that might discourage readers from accessing the content. I have yet to see a compelling argument against this approach. The contention that common usage is the only factor at issue ignores obvious exceptions like US and USA, which are also unambiguous, far more common than the correct name, and which redirect to a page titled United States of America, a term used by virtually noone in common conversation. Dan McGarry 202.80.46.123 (talk) 03:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Pardon me, I should have written United States above, not United States of America. My point stands. Dan McGarry 202.80.46.123 (talk) 03:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a question of religion

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

East Timorese are not Malay, rather they are (like Indonesians) of Austronesian ancestry - which is what I am sure you meant. East Timorese like much of eastern Indonesia is Christian due to the colonial European (largely Portuguese and Dutch) influence. My understanding as to why there is a much larger proportion of Christians in eastern Indonesian and ET - in many areas they are the majority - whereas in central and western Indonesia (say Java and Sumatra) Muslims are the majority, is because the influence of Islam was a lot weaker in eastern Indonesia and ET, and it was thus easier for Europeans to convert them to CHristianity. For the Dutch in Java, they largely (but not always) didn't bother trying to convert Javanese Muslims, but there are sizeable minorities of Christians in western and central Indonesia.
It is certainly not correct that ET independence is based on religion. Rather, what is now Indonesia had the Dutch as colonial masters for centuries, while East Timor had the Protuguese. This resulted in a separate national identity for the majority of East Timorese. Note, there are many majority Catholic and Protestant areas in Indonesia that steadfastly feel Indonesian. Certainly, the Catholicism of East Timor did provide a point of difference with Muslim Java and the church/Catholicism became a vehicle for independence , but it was not the *cause* of difference. Many books and other sources on East Timor make this point. Hope that helps. Not sure how exactly how all this would fit into the article --Merbabu (talk) 13:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Genocide in East Timor United States Government's involvement in Genocide in East Timor I am new to Wikipedia so please excuse me if I make a mistake. I was just wondering why what is considered to be one of the most horrible examples of Genocide in the 20th century, East Timor, has not been added to this subject. I am struggling to comprehend why so much effort is being put into something that is comparitively trivial (The official name of the country), and the subject of the genocide which occured there is not even being discussed. Also, there needs to be a topic added: The United States involvement in Genocide in East Timor. This topic needs to be added as well as the United States supplied the arms that the Portugeze were using in their effort to kill East Timor's innocent citizen's.TexasSasquatch (talk) 20:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You mean the Indonesian Army and militian on the Indonesian Government side where using - not Portuguese, right? 93.108.213.157 (talk) Rafael V. 26/08/2009 —Preceding undated comment added 17:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC).

Yes, there was a terrible Jihad, against the people of East Timor. And the Catholic won this terrible Jihad.Agre22 (talk) 02:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)agre22

Oil in East Timor

This site: [Oil in East Timor] talks about the growing of oil production in East Timor.Agre22 (talk) 02:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)agre22

Bottom Template

For the people who can edit the article: The bottom template, named Template:Countries of SAsia does not exist. Change it to Template:Countries of Asia. 84.202.12.32 (talk) 12:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC) (norwegian user, see Kristian Vangen)

Timor-Leste revisited

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

the point of dispute is not the official name - that is amply described in the article. The point is wikipedia naming convention which requires the name that the subject is most commonly called. How many people do you know who can tell you what timor leste is? East Timor on the other hand...
anectodal speculation about other people's oponion on wikipedia is irrelavant and of no assistance to the question. Please keep discussion focussed.
also, please refrain from words such as "grow up" and "tyranny" when talking about wikipedians. Some might take offence, even suggesting you consult WP:CIVIL be why that is so important to fostering community and consensus.

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

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

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

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

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

It's not a question of "translate all" vs. "translate nothing". San Francisco is (overwhelmingly) most commonly known as "San Francisco" in English writing. That's what counts. Remember, we have Côte d'Ivoire because—and only because—it has been shown that the desired, untranslated, form has become prevalent in English usage. The same evidence for "Myanmar" and "Timor-Leste", when available, will get them moved too. —JAO • T • C 16:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
My point is that "Timor-Leste" is as English as "East Timor". With the IOC, FIFA and several organizations using "Timor-Leste" I dunno how someone can argue it's not English. And like, it's a noun. What's next, Rudy Fernandez being called Rudolph Ferdinand? –Howard the Duck 08:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. Timor-Leste not sounding English is certainly not a good argument for not moving this article. East Timor being used more often than Timor-Leste in English is a good argument for not moving this article. Whether or not Timor-Leste not sounding English is a good argument for East Timor being used more often than Timor-Leste in English, is beside the point, as we're not here to change English usage. —JAO • T • C 16:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
A better argument is that this country is referred by the United Nations as "Timor Leste" on English language documents. Look at the UN Press Release announcing Timor Leste's entry into the UN (see [4]) - you will notice that other countries official names in English are included (such as Cote D'Ivoire and Germany).
I fail to see why TL should be treated differently to other states in this nonc-contriversial simple and straightforward naming convention. Kransky (talk) 08:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what other articles do, nor is it a reason to match this article to it. What is important - and has been all along - is the name it is most commonly recognised as. No-one can honestly say that TL is close to ET in usage. --Merbabu (talk) 11:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
That assumes that EITHER name is "commonly recognized". I seriously doubt that the man-on-the-street would recognize either name.Khajidha (talk) 12:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Huh? How does it assume that either name is commonly recognized. What does that mean?
anyway, I'm not sure you you live, but everyone where I live knows what East Timor is. Timor Leste? I can guarantee very few have ever heard of it - nor does the media (of any quality) ever use the term TL. --Merbabu (talk) 12:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
If the name of the article is to be what the place in question is commonly known as, the place must be assumed to be commonly known. If 5 people know of a place by one name and 1 by another name and 400,000 have never heard of it; it cannot be said to have a commonly used name.Khajidha (talk) 15:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Really, did you ask all of them personally? Or are you just assuming? Khajidha (talk) 15:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Once again, did you ask or are you assuming? I think that the familiarity of either of these names is being overestimated and am asking for more data on recognition.Khajidha (talk) 15:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I would expect that a country's offical name holds more weight than what most lay foreigners would call it. Just because a name is "popular" doesn't mean it is the right term to use. Wikipedia has an article on Paresthesia, even though most common people would refer to this medical condition as "pins and needles". I seriously think this issue needs to be revisited. Don't dumb down Wikipedia!Kransky (talk) 12:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
That's an imaginative but not very useful comparison, but this nothing to do with dumbing down wikipedia. We are "revisiting" the issue. Perhaps you need to revisit WP:NAME. --Merbabu (talk) 12:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, to make it clear, the current most popular name for this country in English is "East Timor." I'm just dumbstruck at the comments that "Timor Leste" is "not" English, and we should even know what "Timor" or "Leste" means. It's like saying we should know that Denmark = land of the people north of the border. Or something to that effect. –Howard the Duck 15:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Having followed this debate for years I finally looked up Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) Use Modern Names, as Merbabu suggested and it says, to quote: Another example is Mumbai, which officially changed its name from Bombay in 1995. Our choice of name does not automatically follow the official one, however, but depends on two claims: that usage in English by locals (and wider English usage as well, to some extent) has changed to commonly use Mumbai, although many local institutions do not, and that Indian English, as an official language, should be followed, in accordance with our guidelines on National varieties of English. Well my reading of that is that Mumbai changed from Bombay because that's what the locals used despite Bombay being in wider general use. In which case don't the conventions demand Timor Leste because just nobody here in TL uses East Timor. Ex nihil (talk) 04:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
A fair point, but then English is used much more in India than on Timor. Listening to how the native English-speakers in Mumbai use their language is quite different from listening to how second-language English-speakers in Timor use it. (I wouldn't be surprised if most Czechs writing in English call their country "Czechia" but we don't listen to them either.) This isn't really a case of bias but rather a natural effect of this encyclopedia's language—native English-speakers are who define the language. Of course, there are probably native English-speakers in East Timor too, but they aren't that many, are they? —JAO • T • C 06:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
OK Jao, but all the native English speakers in the country, and that is quite a few plus the First Lady herself, also the Portuguese and other nations use Timor Leste. East Timor would never be used by an English speaker in TL, at least not after they'd been there 24hrs. I am there myself now, have been for a year and a half. Ex nihil (talk) 03:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
but from an international level, which is what we are catering for, east timor is still overwhelmingly the most recognised name and that is what our naming policy requires. While it does seem the right feel good thing to do to use the locally requested name, it is not in line with a long held and justified policy. --Merbabu (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
In Australia, it seems that "East Timor" is still the most common spelling seen in the media (and we probably see more stories about Timor than more remote english speaking nations). That said, searches on Google News show that use of "Timor Leste" is increasing. I wouldn't be surprised if it is the common spelling in a few years. When that happens, the article name should definitely change. Before that point, I am not so sure. --James (talk) 03:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Usage should dictate this, pure and simple. According to the article, "The official short form names of countries worldwide are set by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). The ISO 3166-1 official short name in English and all other languages is Timor-Leste. The ISO definition is adopted by the United Nations,[6] the national standards organisations of France (AFNOR), the United States of America (ANSI), Britain (BSI), Germany (DIN) and Sweden (SIS) and is universally used by international NGOs.[citation needed] Timor–Leste is used as a matter of protocol by the departments of foreign affairs of almost all countries for example, the USA Department of State[7] and the European Union,[8] notable exceptions being Australia, which uses 'East Timor." So it makes sense that Wikipedia should officially adopt Timor-Leste as the name of the page, and use East Timor as a redirect. Or am I nuts? Iamvered (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
No, you are not nuts and of course it should be Timor Leste. However, you may be labouring under a misconception of what Wikipedia is; it is not a classical encyclopedia with the authority to discern and disseminate the truth it is merely a concensus of what the majority consider to be the truth at any point in time, that is why there is a vote on the name of the country and external or empirical evidence is disregarded. I have been through this myself, one just has to get over it, more often than not the Wiki modus operandi comes up with a surprisingly balanced truth, if a bit Anglo-Saxon or American, other times it rather falls down like here. Ex nihil (talk) 06:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, and I am quite aware, practically nobody calls the Ivory Coast Côte d'Ivoire. Its popularity in a Google search may be down to the fact that French language articles are quite abundant compared to Portuguese articles. When Côte d'Ivoire played in the FIFA World Cup in 2006, everyone called them Ivory Coast, on TV, in pubs, at home. Only FIFA called them Côte d'Ivoire. So, the argument that Côte d'Ivoire is used because of popularity of usage is flawed. Take a cross-section of English speakers and ask them which name they would use, and they would pick Ivory Coast 9 times out of 10. I guarantee a majority will never have heard it pronounced in the French way. So, Timor-Leste and Côte d'Ivoire are no different. Their governments have both requested that their countries be known in English by different names to the traditional Ivory Coast and East Timor. However, both usages have not really caught on in English, despite the best intents of the UN and FIFA (who both, incidentally use the countries' preferred names), and despite the results of the Google search. Also, Myanmar is over twice as popular as Burma on a Google search, yet Burma is the name used by Wikipedia. Official usage might not dictate Wikipedia's usage, but at least they could be consistent in applying their own rules. 92.4.191.232 (talk) 04:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

In some English speaking countries, the news media almost exclusively use "Timor Leste". In the U.S., many people continue to mistakenly call the U.K. "England". For those people who use the wrong word or less prefered term, a redirect is the best way. One good thing is that there is not a political dispute, such as one political party wanting it one way and another, the other way. Burma is a little different because there are political motivations to use one or the other. Nobody hates Timor Leste. Timior Leste is on the main page of Wikipedia today. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with the first part of this regarding England being used to mean the UK - there is another case with the Netherlands. Most times I've hard people mention the country, at least in the UK, it's with regard to football. And the vast majority of people (and even some of their own fans from the Netherlands) call the country Holland. In fact, I have met a few people who did not realise Holland and the Netherlands were the same country. This does not mean it deserves to become the name of the country simply on popular convention. A redirect is a great idea - it teaches people that the name they are using is outdated or incorrect, and may in some way help the official name become more widespread. Having East Timor as the name of the lead article is misleading - it appears to (unintentionally perhaps) legitimise East Timor as the 'correct' name, offering the fact that Timor-Leste is the official name as a kind of afterthought. Timor-Leste is the name of the country. East Timor is the former name. Why is there even any debate? Of course if a country changes its name, it will take time for it to catch on. When Upper Volta changed to Burkina Faso, when Dahomey changed to Benin, when Rhodesia changed to Zimbabwe - it takes time for people to adjust to new names - it shouldn't take time for encyclopedias to follow suit - as information providers, they should be immediate in their changing of the name to reflect the actual reality of the world and not what some people still mistakenly believe the country to be named. 92.2.97.98 (talk) 03:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Summary

Disclaimer: To summarize, here are excerpts from above. Refer to above for the complete text. Summary made in good faith. This is an attempt to summarize 3 years worth of discussion, which is becoming hard to read. Comments before 16:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC) have been cut and pasted, not put by the original editor. 16:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Timor Leste

  1. Just a note that the US government position (Shocktm | Talk | contribs.) 21:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Timor-Leste should be used regardless. It is time for Wikipedia to make the right decision and rename this article. —Sesel 21--Mistakefinder (talk) 08:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC):30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. You're both damn right ... Hoshie 23:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Absolutely agree. —Nightstallion 19:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. The previous discussion ignores an important fact that it is both official name AND IT IS SPELLED IN ROMAN LETTERS. ... I will second the move to its correct and only correct name -✉ Hello World! 04:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC) Timor-Leste is a ten-letter unbreakable word of the country. We don't break up Côte d'Ivoire as “Côte Ivory” or “d'Ivoire Coast”. Righh? “Timor” is just an Indonesian word which means east. Need we translate? If not, the article should be named Timor-Leste, if yes, PLEASE MOVE IT TO East East (or East Island East, or Eastern East Island, whatever you like). Don't make the name of the country HALF-TRANSLATED.-✉ Hello World! 04:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC) The name East Timor is ambiguous with Portuguese Timor. East Timor is the name of a colony, while Timor-Leste the a name of a country. The naming convention said that it should use a name known by majority English speaker, however, it only applies when more than one name is correct. An incorrect name should not be used, despite doubtfully (Fails in Google tests) “common uses”. Furthermore, the English Wikipedia lacks the article pt:Timor Timur, which mentions Timor-Leste under Indonesian rule. -✉ Hello World! 04:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC) SEEMS TO BE A NEW IDEA ON MULTIPLE ARTICLES (added comment not by Hello World!)
  6. The Australian Government and Australian print media now generally uses 'Timor Leste'. 'East Timor' probably remains more common, but this is changing. Personally, I think that it's time to use the country's correct name - I've been working on the Military of East Timor article and every recent reference I'm quoting calls the country Timor Leste, so it's a bit odd to be changing that back to an obselete name when writing in what's meant to be an encyclopedia... --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  7. That is why we call Taiwan the Republic of China, despite few countries recognising its sovereignty and the fact that that in common conversation we prefer to say Taiwan rather than the longer and potentially confusing alternative. Fact: The Timorese government wanted to be referred to as Timor-Leste; this should trump any argument about Google counts or what journalists who know nothing about the country say. Time for a revote on the issue? Kransky (talk) 12:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. ...ISO 3166-1 [5] states that the long form of the country name in English is D.R. of Timor-Leste. It is worth noting that this is only a usage of the name by the ISO 3166, it is not a prescription that Timor-Leste "should" be used as a standard or official name. ISO 3166 prescribes only codes, not names, and this is very clearly stated in the standard itself: What is ISO 3166 87.198.255.118 (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  9. ...As Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste is the official conventional long form name of the nation, and it is evident that D.R. of Timor-Leste is used 4 times as often as D.R. of East Timor, I have used this as the basis of changing that info. As to changing the name of the article to Timor-Leste, that will come in time, as more and more countries are switching to the ISO 3166-1 name for the country, and its usage will become more prevalent. --Russavia 19:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  10. Article needs renaming now. The article should be Timor-Leste, the official name of the country. It should happen immediately. Then, a re-direct can be put in place so that people who type the old "East Timor" will be redirected to the new article. ...124.168.7.125 21:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  11. Agreed. The country has been known as (and wishes to be known as) "Timor-Leste" from the time it was founded and formally recognized by the international community. The name "East Timor" has a completely different meaning when put in the context of history. (From reading the previous comments, this is perhaps an excellent example of how "common" usage is not necessarily "correct" usage...and I would think that Wikipedia would want to strive for what is "correct", even if what is in "common" use hasn't quite caught up yet.) CiudadanoGlobal (talk) 02:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  12. ... there was a proposed guideline for countries that states that:: Guideline Unless a clear consensus for an alternative name can be established, articles on countries should be named using the official short name in English as defined in ISO 3166-1....87.198.255.118 (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  13. ...It makes Wikipedia look rather silly and ethnocentric when the truth is determined by a vote rather than the facts, reminds me of a school atlas I had which Angicised everything. Very uncool to do that now. Wikipedia also has a responsibility to be factual because it has become the primary source for information and tends to define truth rather than record it; Googling East Timor puts the wikipedia article at the very top of the list, this suggests to me that Wikipedia is leading people to believe that is the real name. We need to be more factual, less parochial and more responsible. Change the name as per ISO 3166-1. Ex nihil (talk) 03:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC) ...Mumbai changed from Bombay because that's what the locals used despite Bombay being in wider general use. In which case don't the conventions demand Timor Leste because just nobody here in TL uses East Timor. Ex nihil (talk) 04:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  14. Optimising for readers is a usability issue that does need to be addressed. Equally important is the issue of factual correctness. Given that Wikipedia is designed to educate, it seems that a redirect from East Timor to Timor-Leste meets the criteria of usability, while at the same time asserting the proper usage. ... The contention that common usage is the only factor at issue ignores obvious exceptions like US and USA, which are also unambiguous, far more common than the correct name, and which redirect to a page titled United States of America, a term used by virtually noone in common conversation. Dan McGarry 202.80.46.123 (talk) 03:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC) Pardon me, I should have written United States above, not United States of America. My point stands. Dan McGarry 202.80.46.123 (talk) 03:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  15. I read the previous discussion on the name and it is simply stupid. The official name of the country is Timor-Leste. ... (many examples were given)... Let's all grow up and change the name of this article. Otherwise, this tyranny by consensus once against proves why many teachers do not accept Wikipedia as a source for term papers. ludahai 魯大海 (talk) 11:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  16. Actually, I doubt very many random people on the street would recognize EITHER name. I'm not sure when the last time I heard the country mentioned on the news (the Tsunami?), but I seem to recall it being called Timor Leste. I vote for changing the name to the official name, with East Timor as a redirect.Khajidha (talk) 16:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  17. It's not a question of "translate all" vs. "translate nothing". San Francisco is (overwhelmingly) most commonly known as "San Francisco" in English writing. That's what counts. Remember, we have Côte d'Ivoire because—and only because—it has been shown that the desired, untranslated, form has become prevalent in English usage. The same evidence for "Myanmar" and "Timor-Leste", when available, will get them moved too. —JAO • T • C 16:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Indeed. Timor-Leste not sounding English is certainly not a good argument for not moving this article. East Timor being used more often than Timor-Leste in English is a good argument for not moving this article. Whether or not Timor-Leste not sounding English is a good argument for East Timor being used more often than Timor-Leste in English, is beside the point, as we're not here to change English usage. —JAO • T • C 16:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  18. Wait, so are we supposed to move "San Francisco" to "Saint Francis"? It's not English so... –Howard the Duck 16:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC) My point is that "Timor-Leste" is as English as "East Timor". With the IOC, FIFA and several organizations using "Timor-Leste" I dunno how someone can argue it's not English. And like, it's a noun. What's next, Rudy Fernandez being called Rudolph Ferdinand? –Howard the Duck 08:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  19. ... So it makes sense that Wikipedia should officially adopt Timor-Leste as the name of the page, and use East Timor as a redirect. Or am I nuts? Iamvered (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  20. In some English speaking countries, the news media almost exclusively use "Timor Leste". In the U.S., many people continue to mistakenly call the U.K. "England". For those people who use the wrong word or less prefered term, a redirect is the best way. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
  21. I vote for changing to Timor Leste also. Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, and as such, to be educational, i.e. correct incorrect information or make known new names. Particularly it can be be offensive to a country to not call it by its preferred name. What's the big deal about WP policy? It may be misguided or just inappropriate in the case of countries. Just move the page to Timor Leste to match the first name used in the article. Be done with it. Once journalists or others read the correct name on Wikipedia, Britannica, and other respectable sources, they'll start writing English articles with the correct name, and maybe parenthetically use "East Timor" next to the first reference of "Timor Leste" then the readers will all be educated at that point.--Mistakefinder (talk) 08:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  22. Just as the first word says, Timor Leste. The Australian election 2010 article points here so wikpedia should get it right.

East Timor

  1. This might help. --Merbabu 02:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC) East Timor is still the common name, the sole criteria according WP:NAME. That it may officially be Timor Leste is irrelevant. ...-Merbabu (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC) (very short excerpt of long explanation) Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making --Merbabu (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC) That is not quite correct - you have stated that google recognises "Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste" more than it "Democratic Republic of East Timor". That may be the case (even if we excuse the weaknesses of google tests). But, neither of these names are the common English name. ... -Merbabu 12:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia policy is straight forward. ...The use of “East Timor” far outweighs the use, or even the knowledge, of “Timor-Leste”. ...The use of “East Timor” far outweighs the use, or even the knowledge, of “Timor-Leste”. You have said you are located in East Timor – but outside of the country, the officially requested version is rarely known, let alone used. ...Also, as I’ve said before, English Language usage is determined by, well, usage. Not by decree, request, nor politically correct and frankly over the top attempts to link the issue to notions of “neo-colonialism”. --Merbabu (talk) 04:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC) also, please refrain from words such as "grow up" and "tyranny" when talking about wikipedians. Some might take offence, even suggesting you consult WP:CIVIL be why that is so important to fostering community and consensus. Merbabu (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  2. In my opinion the correct name for this article on Wikipedia is East Timor, as per our naming policy. Do a search on news.google.com for both terms and you'll see that East Timor is still overwhelmingly used. (Caniago (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC))
  3. From doing a straw poll of atlases and almanacs at my local bookstore, it's clear East Timor (E.T.) is the current preferred name over Timor Leste (T.L.) for the country... Hoshie 09:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. In Australia, it seems that "East Timor" is still the most common spelling seen in the media (and we probably see more stories about Timor than more remote english speaking nations). That said, searches on Google News show that use of "Timor Leste" is increasing. I wouldn't be surprised if it is the common spelling in a few years. When that happens, the article name should definitely change. Before that point, I am not so sure. --James (talk) 03:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  5. So, Timor-Leste and Côte d'Ivoire are no different. ...However, both usages have not really caught on in English, despite the best intents of the UN and FIFA (who both, incidentally use the countries' preferred names), and despite the results of the Google search. Also, Myanmar is over twice as popular as Burma on a Google search, yet Burma is the name used by Wikipedia. Official usage might not dictate Wikipedia's usage, but at least they could be consistent in applying their own rules. 92.4.191.232 (talk) 04:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Neutral or unclear

  1. Ultimately most country's most common names in English are English speakers following the lead of the country itself. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. The article as it is still does not answer what "Leste" means. — Hellerick (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  3. That assumes that EITHER name is "commonly recognized". I seriously doubt that the man-on-the-street would recognize either name.Khajidha (talk) 12:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Moving the page 9/6/10?

If no strong and new rejections other than those listed over the 3 year discussion listed above, I'll move it on Sun 9/6/10. --Mistakefinder (talk) 08:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, that would be to wikipedia's detriment. However, I accept that the majority above (as opposed to consensus) believe it should be done. Particularly that it is extremely rare to hear it called Timor Leste (indeed, few people know the term), whereas East Timor is what the overwhelming majority of English speakers use - including the media. But, this is an example of where wikipedia gets things wrong. Move away. --Merbabu (talk) 10:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I support a move to Timor Leste (as it's the country's official name and is used by English language speaking governments, even if not yet by most people in the countries), but setting an arbitrary deadline isn't the way to do it given that this has been discussed many times and the overall view has been to remain at East Timor. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it's right to say that you're going to move it unless new arguments are brought up. Starting an official debate would be good, but forcing a move without discussion is not what should be done. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
This is absolutely ridiculous. Your justification for moving the page is that the community decision to keep it here happened a few years ago? So I guess all we have to do to get around consensus is wait a little while and say "welp, if nobody minds!" Hermione is a dude (talk) 17:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

While accept that community decisions can go the wrong way (ie, not mine - lol), what is completely inexplicable in this case, however, is trying to suggets that East TImor is not conclusively more common than Timor Leste. here. Is that what this editor is suggesting? --Merbabu (talk) 10:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I note that the longstanding version of this opener was changed here in July. My edit tonight on the page (and my acceptance of the apparent majority vote for a move) was in response to me noticing this for the first time today. I think move of the page is acceptable (i don't really agree though), but it needs to be acknowledged that East Timor remains the most common name. --Merbabu (talk) 11:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Take attention when moving!

I read several times in your discussion "Timor Leste". Please be aware, the correct spelling is "Timor-Leste"! source --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be a very parochial attitude to demand the use of the term "East Timor" because that is what is in common use where the poster(s) live(s). Where I live nobody uses East Timor, not even when speaking in english. Considering that Wikipedia aspires to international recognition and that it is viewed by people from all over the world I can only consider logical for the article (or any article of the same type) to use an internationally accepted and official title, not what a few vocal people consider right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.175.73.90 (talk) 07:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Oecusse and Indonesian Claims

When did East Timor gain Oecusse exclave? I'm pretty sure it didn't have Oecusse at independance. And when did Indonesia jab into western East Timor like it does? I'm pretty that wasn't there at independance, either. 98.244.221.85 (talk) 12:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

To answer your first question - it's always been part of East Timor - or if that's a bit too simplistic, read the "History" section of Oecusse. Your second question is not so clear, but maybe these links can help: Timor and West Timor, in addition to East Timor. --Merbabu (talk) 03:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. I'm in the process of making a list of geographical changes that have happened since I was born (nations, dependencies, islands I am older than, etc.), and this will really help. Thanks again! 97.96.65.108 (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

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.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

East Timor → Timor-Leste — Discussed many times above. Consensus is to move. Fmph (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose - no-one except us wikipedia nerds seems to know what Timor Leste even means - and the odd university professer perhaps. English Language is determined by usage and not by the decree of a government. Wikipedia policy is to use common names. I don't think I've ever seen a media report use Timor Leste - it's all East Timor - and I do take quite an interest in what happens in that country. Further, it's not wikipedia's job to promote new things. We are not part of a campaign to set "correct" things. We reflect what is, not what we think they should be. Sure, provide full explanation (as article currently does) but it’s not going to help wikipedia to ultimately have, I presume, every mention of “East Timor” across wikipedia changed to “Timor Leste”.
Anyway, I will get back to improving the article now - there is a little more to this article (and a country for that matter) than the first sentence on this page. --Merbabu (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:UCN (use common names) and WP:UE (use English). Wikipedia doesn't do official names. Damn this "let's use the native names"-approach. This isn't the international wiki, this is the English-wiki. Flamarande (talk) 22:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose "East Timor" is still by a long way the most common name of the nation in English. Flamarande above sums up the relevant policy arguments succinctly. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 10:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose "East Timor" is most common name and the proposed name is unheard to the most of readers.Penom (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support 'East Timor' is the most common-English language name in the media and general publications, but the country's official name is 'Timor Leste' and this is now consistently used by English-speaking governments (except for politicians aiming messages at their general public) and normally used in non-Government publications which are focused on the country. There seems to me to be no excuse to use an outdated and somewhat colloquial name for the country just because people who don't know what they're talking about still use it. I note that WP:ON is only an essay and while I generally support using common names for things, this is a case where doing so doesn't make any sense. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment You say that East Timor isn't used "except for politicians aiming messages at their general public" Seems quite clear that when speakers want to be understood by English-speaking people, they call the country "East Timor". Wikipedia should follow common practice, not try and lead it. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 11:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Notice that Nick-D first admits that "'East Timor' is the most common-English language name in the media and general publications" but then argues that we shouldn't use East Timor "just because people who don't know what they're talking about still use it" (i.e.: the average English-speaking person). He also argues that "this is a case where doing so doesn't make any sense". IMHO Nick-D's arguments follow an extremely illogical reasoning. Flamarande (talk) 13:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Precisely. Wikipedia is a place for "people who don't know what they're talking about" to go and find out more. It is a general reference and not a work of or for specialists. If I'm an average person and interested in finding out more about East Timor, I can find the article where I would most expect it and then find out that the Portuguese name of the country is Timor-Leste. — AjaxSmack 21:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Flamarande, I explicitly stated that while I normally support using the common name for things (which in this case is 'East Timor') in this case I don't think that it makes sense. Seems fairly logical to me (though I'm obviously biased!) - WP:IAR and all that. Nick-D (talk) 08:29, 21 October 2010 (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.

Department of Redundancy Department

Under the History section: "...with minimal investment in infrastructure, health, and education was minimal." Should have one 'minimal' removed (probably the latter). I'd edit myself, except the page is locked. — 65.189.233.116 (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I fixed it. Cheers. --Merbabu (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Page is locked

Hi, can anyone tell me why this page is locked? Apart from the naming issue, obviously. 203.219.241.110 (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected most likely due to pointless vandalism by anon IP editors. Only established editors can edit it for the time being. If there is a particular change you want to make, perhaps you'd like to suggest it here for someone else to make on your behalf? cheers --Merbabu (talk) 04:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't edit much, but have some personal connection here. In 2001, I personally interviewed "refugees" who had spent over a year in West Timor and recently returned to East Timor. They, along with the majority of the 260,000 cited were forcibly removed by pro-Indonesia militia and Indonesian military. Thus I propose the following alteration:

Instead of:

about 70% of the economic infrastructure of East Timor was destroyed by Indonesian troops [ citation needed] and anti-independence militias, and 260,000 people fled westward.

replace with:

about 70% of the economic infrastructure of East Timor was destroyed by Indonesian troops [ citation needed] and anti-independence militias, and 260,000 left East Timor. Most were forcibly displaced, though some, including many families of militias, left voluntarily.

Citation for my info: http://www.icwa.org/articles/CG-6.pdf "US Responsibility in West Timor Crisis" Curt Gabrielson, Institute for Current World Affairs Newsletter, June 1, 2001,

Citation requested earlier in the paragraph: http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/wtimor 

^ "Indonesia/East Timor: Forced Expulsions to West Timor and the Refugee Crisis". Human Rights Watch. December 1999. Retrieved on 17 February 2008.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trucwatsonville (talk • contribs) 04:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Emblem of ASEAN.svg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Emblem of ASEAN.svg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

HDI Index

Hi, Just before the contents section, East Timor is shown as being ranked 120th in HDI Index. In fact it should be 147th according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.224.177 (talk) 09:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

http://www.foralcplp.org/files/foral/2009/div/timor-leste_divAdmi.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.43.228.138 (talk) 13:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It is 147. This is the figure officially calculated by the UNDP's Human Development Index. It's definitive. Their methodology is transparent and accepted. Any other figure is bogus, especially one several years out of date. (Who locked this page from editing anyway, and who insists on naming Timor-Leste as East Timor?) 116.90.173.30 (talk) 08:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Education Section

Can whoever added content to this section review it and add citations?

  • "Indonesian plays a considerable role within education" has no citation, I can't find any support for this sentence and I find it hard to believe it's true. Also did not understand whether it was Indonesian as language or people or government who plays the considerable role in education...
  • "Illiteracy was at 90% at the end of Portuguese rule" unless a citation is given this should be removed.
  • The entire paragraph needs restructuring as it is presently a poor amalgamation of isolated sentences with no inter-connected ideas.
  • "Since the departure of the Portuguese, schools have increased from 50 to more than 800. " again if no citation given this should be removed. It is also politically incorrect and I'm sure highly arguable; dates are preferred or a little more integration with history because the Portuguese departure in 1974 meant the Indonesian occupation in 1975 and only recently, post-UN intervention, the number of schools boomed. I also couldn't find any support for this anywhere...
  • "There are also 4 colleges." yet another sentence without context. What exactly are 'colleges'??? There is no point saying this if we can't understand what they are or what does it mean in terms of education system. The use of word college varies between English-speaking countries! I also can't get to the source....

-JH 86.143.116.218 (talk) 09:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation conflict

The Portuguese pronunciation in the lead conflicts with the one offered in the Name section ([tiˈmɔr ˈlɛʃteɪ] versus [tiˈmoɾ ˈlɛʃtɨ]. I suggest that the pronunciation in the lead be removed or replaced by the correct one (with the {{IPA-pt|pron}} template). Thanks! 109.149.73.110 (talk) 11:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

  • the first pronunciation must be in English and not of any Portuguese dialect that I know, not even Timorese Potuguese. The second pronunciation [tiˈmoɾ ˈlɛʃtɨ] is standard Portuguese. I think there are many problems concerning Portuguese pronunciation on various wikipedia articles, but that doesnt seem the case in this. --Pedro (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I understand. Maybe use a clarifying IPA template? 109.149.73.110 (talk) 15:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mdann52 (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 09:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


East Timor → Timor-Leste – as discussed in Timor-Leste#Name, Timor-Leste is now the official short form of the name in all languages including English. It is the more commonly used and recognized name in every country except Australia. miracleworker5263 (talk) 04:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Again? No - per WP:COMMONNAME. This was discussed most recently last year and there was no consensus to move - resoundingly so. Here I'd be interested to know how you might verify your notion that only in Australia is it called East Timor. --Merbabu (talk) 08:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose based on my reasonings above and below. Also, remember “correct” language is determined by usage, not by a government telling what we need to call something. And “recognised” is not limited to recognition by official entities such as government departments or media outlets. Rather, it’s what people use and know something by. Indeed, this is what wikipedia’s naming policy is about – we don’t use official names (whether officially recognised or not), rather we use what things are most widely known by. WP:COMMONNAME -- Merbabu (talk) 04:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
PS - a table used last year. I'd be interested to see if these figures have shifted by a significant amount:
  Google hits for "East Timor" Google hits for "Timor-Leste"
New York Times 8750 49
Washington Post 8260 5720
Wall Street Journal 314 38
The Guardian 50,900 1290
The Daily Telegraph 1080 36
The Independent 2930 26
The Globe and Mail 220 14
The Age 43,900 845
The Australian 3000 152
Sydney Morning Herald 9010 789
New Zealand Herald 8580 870
The Economist 1760 508
More widely recognized: "Timor-Leste" is officially recognized by US, UK, Canada, Ireland and New Zealand. "East Timor" is recognized by Australia. ("East Timor" also still seems to be used in official capacity by UK.) I know this isn't by any means a comprehensive list of English-speaking countries.
I must admit that the table above is a strong argument that "East Timor" is more widely used in the press. The numbers are shifting, but not decisively. Current search results:
  Google hits for "East Timor" Google hits for "Timor-Leste"
New York Times 28700 586
Washington Post 6560 6780
Wall Street Journal 1580 256
The Guardian 191,000 4110
The Daily Telegraph 2660 403
The Independent 2430 8
The Globe and Mail 579 40
The Age 9870 398
The Australian 8130 198
Sydney Morning Herald 9110 378
New Zealand Herald 7400 4040
The Economist 16400 20700
miracleworker5263 (talk) 03:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Your request to be civil puzzled me, as the thing I could see that was uncivil here was perhaps your later removed comment “The chart Merbabu posted is a crock”. I then read through the previous discussion and was reminded of your attempt to associate those supporting “East Timor” with what you called “Muslim savagery”. Yes, it would be nice to see you be civil and refrain from NPA's. Please discuss the issue at hand. It does not require framing within any political, ethnic or religious grudges you may have. --Merbabu (talk) 04:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
All your old grievances back on the table, topped off by an accusation of political, ethnic, religious grudges. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.[11] Kauffner (talk) 05:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Hey, I wasn't the one trying to justify a "muslim savagery" remark or calling your posts a "crock". --Merbabu (talk) 05:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
So take it to ANI. Or call me a "bigot" again. Or vandalize my homepage from an IP and leave insulting messages in Arabic. Whatever. I'll grill some pork and pop open a beer. Kauffner (talk) 06:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
lol - that's a fantastic remark. I've never been a Muslim, or am I related to any. Clearly your Arabic is better than mine if you understood the messages. I suggest you retract or take it to ANI, but I expect you'll do neither. Where does this urge to offend Muslims come from? --Merbabu (talk) 04:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment The Economist is one of the sources listed in the above table, but at least in recent usage it seems to have been using Timor-Leste (e.g., http://www.economist.com/node/21554255 ). It is also generally the case that when a country announces a name change, and there is no significant internal opposition to the change (e.g., Burma/Myanmar), by and large the world comes to accept the new usage. For instance, our article is at Côte d'Ivoire, not Ivory Coast. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
    For Google News, I get 18,100 mentions of "Timor-Leste" in the last month, 41,900 for "East Timor." That's 30 percent usage for "Timor Leste." Insights shows a 25 percent usage for "Timor Leste" as a search term in the U.S., 57 percent worldwide. No diacritic has a usage rate anywhere near that high, but we usually put them in the title anyway. The Economist has been using "Timor-Leste" for several years now. The "East Timor" hits that show up are usually ten years old, compare east-timor site:www.economist.com to timor-leste site:www.economist.com. Kauffner (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. For reasons provided by Kauffner (above). danielkueh (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It is unfortunate that we have to do Côte d'Ivoire (maybe) and Iran (certainly), but in this case we don't have to move yet. Srnec (talk) 23:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
    Iran? — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 00:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
    duplicate post? Off the top of my head I think he might prefer Persia. Agathoclea (talk) 06:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
    Duplicate posts were introduced by an errant edit, it is fixed now. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
    I can still remember when I was a kid and I first realised that Iran and Persia were the same thing. Ditto for Myanmar/Burma. We certainly can't go back now, but it's a shame that most folks have heard of Persia and probably think it doesn't exist anymore. We could maybe go with "Ivory Coast", which makes more sense (after all, we don't say "Guinea Ecuatorial"), but at least the French isn't as opaque as the Persian. My main point is that we should avoid arbitrary translation (no map of Europe uses native names) when we have a choice. Srnec (talk) 01:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
    "Timor-Leste" isn't the native name anyway. Look at the list of UN member names. In almost every other case, the UN name is also the Wiki name. Exceptions are Burma/Myanmar, Vietnam/Viet Nam, Democratic People's Republic of Korea/North Korea, and Republic of Korea/South Korea. Wiki uses "Republic of Ireland," although just plain "Ireland" is official. Aside from ROI, these names can be found the in the World Factbook, so they are officially sourced as well. The nearest analogy I can find to this situation is Côte D'Ivoire/Ivory Coast. In that case, we've gone with official usage "Côte D'Ivoire", although the major news organizations still use "Ivory Coast". Kauffner (talk) 02:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
    The reason major news organisations use "Ivory Coast" as it reflects the common name in the English language, which as for any other language, is determined by usage. Language is not determined by government or UN decree even if these bodies decide to call it the "official name" or similar. There's also a misonception over the "recognition" notion. In comparison to actual usage, it is irrelevant how many bodies or agencies "recognise" the "official" term. For wikipedia, it is quite clear that we use the common name; the name that is most easily recognised and known to readers. --Merbabu (talk) 03:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:East_Timor/Archive_3&oldid=1136686416"