Jump to content

Talk:East Timor/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Move Request

See below, this section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Molero (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

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

— 180.189.170.10 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

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

Over a year has past. Timor Leste is the official name. Is is also the commonly used name in many parts of the world. The Olympic team is listed as Timor Leste. During the last Olympics a few weeks ago, they used English wording and used "Timor Leste". There is no consensus to use the colloquial American name of East Timor, so we should not use it. ImproveByQuestioning (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, there was a consensus in the previous discussions (as above), and calling "East Timor" a "colloquial American name" is ridiculous given that it's used widely throughout the English speaking world, including in government and academic works. I personally favour Timor Leste, but not on the grounds you suggest. Nick-D (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I am years late, but Timor Leste is better. This article, Orchestre Symphonique Kimbanguiste is not called the Kimbanguist Symphony Orchestra. The case for Timor Leste is stronger as I heard on English language TV the name of the country as Timor Leste. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 22:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Cite error

We've got a cite error:

  • "The World Factbook -- Field Listing - Population - CIA". Central Intelligence Agency. Retrieved 7 March 2015. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "cia" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).

I fixed it but got reverted. Why? Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong URL by me. [[1] --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 08:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing that, but that's not what I'm asking about. I'm asking why you reverted my fix to "The World Factbook -- Field Listing - Population - CIA", which is currently ref no. 2 and has a cite error. Here's the fix: [2] Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Happen, when reverting this [3] ;-) --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't see anything about the CIA ref in that diff. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

CIA is not insert by me. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out why you reverted my fix to the CIA ref. Do you have some objection to my fix, or was this a mistake? Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Economy

How can the economy be "dependent on government spending and, to a lesser extent, assistance from international donors"? Neither are economic activity at all - one is simply spending, the other outside funding (for that spending). There must be some indigenous economic activity.Royalcourtier (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on East Timor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on East Timor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on East 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

'East-East'

'Timor-Leste (East-East)' should presumably read 'Timor-Leste (East Timor)'.213.127.210.95 (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

GDP figures

The infobox gives the following details for either 2014 or 2015:

  • East Timor's population is 1,167,242
  • East Timor's GDP at party is $2.234 billion, and per-capita at parity is $5,479
  • East Timor's nominal GDP is $1.293 billion, and nominal per-capita is $3,330

These numbers don't make any sense. They are ostensibly sourced, but the GDP per capita figures don't seem to appear in the source. The other figures appear to be correct. I can fix this, but it would be better if someone more familiar with the country would do more research. —Ynhockey (Talk) 17:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Change official name to "Timor-Leste". Article title uses East Timor because of WP:COMMONNAME (contentious). Official name is Timor-Leste (fact).

There is debate regarding the title of the article whether to use East Timor or the Portuguese translation Timor-Leste. The article has been nominated for renaming several times however there was no consensus.

It was disputed whether the country was known by most people still as East Timor (WP:COMMONNAME). Its name from 1975 to 2002 whether in Portuguese, English or Indonesian languages. The policy is "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources."

The official name is "The Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste" and must be used. WP:COMMONNAME acknowledges "official" names.

WP:OFFICIALNAMES policy is:-

"Where an undisputed official name exists:

  • It should always be provided early in an article's introduction, bolded at its first mention and, where appropriate, italicized. (See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section.)
  • If the official name differs from the article name, then there should be a redirect from the official name to the article. (See Wikipedia:Redirect.)"

On 20 March 2002, East Timor was recognised as independent by the United Nations with the newly drafted Constitution coming into force on the day for the "The Democratic Republic of East Timor".[1] The United Nations has an English version of the Constitution.[2]

On 27 September 2002, "The Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste" was admitted by the United Nations as a member state having been renamed from "The Democratic Republic of East Timor".[3]

The constitution was amended.[4][5]

The country previously known as East Timor was now official Timor-Leste (the Portuguese language name was used intentionally for use in English).

Changes to the article:-

The lead sentence will need to be changed from "the Democratic Republic of East Timor" to "the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste".

The conventional_long_name will need to be changed from "Democratic Republic of East Timor" to "Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste".Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

In history, this will need to be changed "East Timor became a member of the UN in 2002".

Suggest or similar "On 22 March 2002, East Timor was recognised as independent by the UN when the constitution came into force. On 27 September 2002, East Timor was renamed to Timor-Leste, using the Portuguese translation, and became a member of the UN." --Melbguy05 (talk) 21:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Melbguy05, once again, you state that the constitution was amended. That doesn't follow from any of the sources you provide for it. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
The name in Portuguese or Tetum never changed. The official name is in those languages, the rest is a matter of how to translate. The way it is transcribed in English is not a matter for Timorese legislation but for what is common in English. The English translation of the constitution is not a legally binding document. The document quoted however consistently uses DR of East Timor, with the exception of the cover page. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
You don't have consensus to change the official name displayed, stop it. --B.Lameira (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Hebel: only the government can decide what the official translation is. Just because some translation is common does not make it official. If everyone started to call you Billy Bob that would not become your official name on your birth certificate or passport. It would be your common name.
Yes, the original constitution used the original transitionary name which has subsequently become archaic. However, the cover page refers to the country using the modern name, as does the official government website which links to the Constitution, which has an updated version of the Constitution's preamble with the modern official translation of the name. TDL (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. This is obviously a controversial proposed change, so it should be supported by clear WP:CONSENSUS through a WP:RFC to override 13 years of community consensus on the matter, rather than trying to force the changes in against consensus via edit warring. TDL (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello TDL. First of all I would like to apologise for the recent frantics on the article and my part in it. Secondly I would like to refer you to the recent discussion above about the same matter. The originator of this particular talk section made (as far as I can gather) a unilateral reverse without any discussion about two weeks ago. The source mentioned in the lead of the article is not at all clear. The translation speaks consistently about the "Democratic Republic of East-Timor" in all articles of the constitution (as translated in English) concerned, except on the cover. Not to be coy but I don't know who made ISO or even the UNO the God of the English language, so better to mention both terms in the lead I think. Specially since the use of the term "Timor-Leste" isn't all that widespread. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Please see WP:CONSENSUS. The burden is on those who wish to change the article to demonstrate consensus for change, not those who oppose the change. As there was no consensus for the change, the unilateral changes were rightly reverted. (Note that the original changes were made unilaterally without discussion and against protestations, so it's a bit disingenuous to now demand discussion for their reversal.) You are welcome to pursue WP:DR if you wish to pursue these proposed changes further.
As you will notice, I actively participated in the discussion above and have refuted all of your arguments presented here. Numerous links are provided showing official modern usage, including a modern translation of the preamble of the constitution. I also explained how the UN is not (in your words) the "God of the English language", but rather that they have established a committee of the word experts on the scientific collection of official usage by others. They do not decide names, they report them. Finally, the widespreadness of the name (or lack thereof) does not make it any less official. TDL (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
That may be your opinion on the matter but someone should explain to me how things that are in use are actually official, whatever that may mean. I do think that both names should be used in the lead as they are both used in the English language in one or another capacity. Also I don't think that the source formerly given for the quote supports the contention very well. It speaks of the "Democratic Republic of East-Timor." The change made on the 1st of September was not discussed and was supported by no one except an inept source!Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
It is official because it is used by the government for official purposes. The unofficial and common name is not used for official purposes, so it is not official. Just because others might not use it does not make it any less official. Snoop Dogg's official name is still Cordozar Calvin Broadus, Jr., even though no one even knows it.
The change made on 1 September merely restored the text from 2003, prior to the unilateral and undiscussed change a few weeks earlier. I've added some more sources at your request. TDL (talk) 00:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
The actual Timorese legislation that you quote TDL, speaks of "the Democratic Republic of East-Timor", now that is the Constitution of the country as translated in English and your prime argument for having "Democratic Reoublic of Timor-Leste" there in the first place. That I can't follow! I'm not saying Timor-Leste has to disappear from the lead, I do say we follow what the source actually says. Remember that it's the actual content of the legislation (or the translation thereof) that matters. Not the text on the cover of a pdf version. Hebel 12:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
1. For Gerard von Hebel to say "The English translation of the constitution is not a legally binding document" is ridiculous. A document is legal binding in what ever language it is in. Especially one that has been officially translated such as one on an official website of a country. Your argument - if a person is charged with a criminal offence and you read them their rights in their own language so they understand - you say that that is not legally binding as it has been translated? Nonsensical 2. Agree with TDL and B.Lameira. --Melbguy05 (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Point taken Melbguy05, the other point however is that the document involved, speaks of the "Democratic Republic of East-Timor" in all the legislative text concerned, so I think there is a problem with that. And that doesn't only go for the version formerly quoted in this article, which by the way is a link from a government website, but also for other versions I have come across, including the one on Wikisource and also one actually cited by you Melbguy05 in a comment above, which also speaks consistently of the "Democratic Republic of East-Timor". Furthermore I think that the only "official" names are the names in the languages of the country involved. Translations in other languages may be "officially" in use, but that is all. Specially in cases where there is a dichotomy like in this one. It is the dichotomy I would like mentioned in the article lead. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
The official name is Timor Leste in English. They chose this and that is their right. Nothing more to discuss. If your not happy with it write to the President/Prime Minister and/or the National Parliament and ask them to change it. --Melbguy05 (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Just stating your opinion won't do Melbguy05. I think I can expect from you as an editor on Wikipedia to actually read what is in the sources given. Either the ones that are or were formerly in the article or the ones you provide here on the talkpage. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

For clarity while this may be further discussed, I have restored the source that I earlier removed as having failed and that has been in the lead for some time, supporting different positions. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Hebel, it appears that it is actually you who has not actually read the website cited in the article and which I linked on 15 September. It does indeed use "Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste" a number of times in the translation of the constitution's preamble, and never "Democratic Republic of East Timor". Note that this translation previously used "Democratic Republic of East Timor", which would suggest that the current version has been updated and corrected. TDL (talk) 00:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
TDL, it appears that you haven't clicked on the link to the text provided in your source. There, all legislative articles of the text speak of the "Democratic Republic of East Timor". The site you cite in your comment above and elsewhere actually refers to that document. You may not have seen that. While the preamble in the text of the site indeed uses Timor Leste, the document it points to as a primary source uses Democratic Republic of East Timor in the legislative articles and in the preamble as provided there. I have tried to explain this to you on your talkpage at some length. It's the same document by the way, now and previously linked in the article, which I have recently restored to the article for the purpose of some insight. It is also the same document that User:Melbguy05 used, to argue that the constitution was at some point "amended", when restoring the present state of the lead on the 1st of September. However, there is no indication whatsoever that the constitution, or the English translation thereof, was ever amended. I'm not saying that there are problems with using the name Timor Leste as such. Not even as a name that is used officially. But there are serious problems with the argumentation and the dismissal of the fact that there is a dichotomy in what is supposed to be regarded as "official". Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
TDL, somewhere above you say: "However, the cover page refers to the country using the modern name", which is true but the rest of the document doesn't. You go on saying: "as does the official government website", which is true, but then you go on saying: "which links to the Constitution", yes it does but, that document (the one it links to) doesn’t have, as you say: "an updated version of the Constitution's preamble with the modern official translation of the name". That is simply not the case. The site does recite the preamble with the "Timor Leste" name, but it links to a preamble that doesn't, and uses that as the source. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Indeed I have clicked the pdf. Many times. In fact, if you read the discussion above you will discover that I've linked to it directly a number of times now. However, as I thought I've made very clear in the current discussion I have been referring to the usage in the constitution translation on the website source itself, and not the pdf linked from the source which is many years old and out of date. You keep misunderstanding this, but I'm glad you've acknowledged this now. Likewise, the updated preamble I refer to in the discussion above is the preamble on the website, not the out of date pdf. Again, hopefully this is clear now. As demonstrated above, the website itself has been updated within the last few months to reflect modern usage. The pdf, not so much.
I would strongly suggest you review the edits you are making to the article because it is not, as you suggest, the pdf document that is cited in the content you restored here, but rather the website, which as explained above uses the modern name, consistent with the usage in the article.
There is no such thing as an English constitution, so clearly there is no English constitution to amend. There is simply a translation of the constitution into English that was made many years ago. Just because no one has bothered to retranslate it does not mean the official name hasn't changed. There is an abundance of sources that demonstrate that the name has indeed changed. Pointing to a single source which predates the change and insisting that until someone produces a new complete translation (because you don't even accept the partial retranslation that I've provided) the change didn't happen is nonsense.
Also, thank you for pointing out that the translation of the constitution is a WP:PRIMARY source. Please read the policy to learn why we the usage of such sources is strongly discouraged. Also note that nowhere is your claim that "East Timor" is the official name every explicitly stated in the constitution. You are attempting to deduce this from usage, which is WP:OR. To date, you have not produced a single source which actually says East Timor is the official name. Conversely, I have provided you a number of reliable, secondary sources which explicitly demonstrate that Timor-Leste is the official name. It is time for you to produce sources which actually say what you are arguing, rather than just telling us what you think sources are trying to say. TDL (talk) 04:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
The idea that the pdf is out of date is simply your contention and as such WP:OR. As for primary sources. Isn't a government website also a primary source? Or wouldn't the preamble as quoted in such a website at least be? I can show you another government website in which it is held that the name "East-Timor" is sometimes used. This is a confusing matter. If the English language constitution doesn't matter, how can we say that there is an English translation of the name of the state "under the Constitution"? And how can any translation into English than be used to argue anything in this matter? In that case I would simply go for diplomatic usage to argue for the use of the name "Democratic Republic of Timor Leste". Gerard von Hebel (talk) 04:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Of course likewise the idea that the pdf has been updated is simply your contention. If you want to cite a source, then the burden is on you to demonstrate that the source actually verifies what you claim. As there is no evidence that the source has been updated since the name change, then it does not support the claim that the name hasn't changed and my speculation with regards to the pdf is as valid as yours. Conversely, there is indisputable evidence that the website has been updated to reflect modern usage, a fact you have not addressed.
With regards to [4], this is not a government website. As per the disclaimer at the bottom: "Under no circumstances do we at easttimorgovernment.com claim to represent the government of East Timor".
And I completely agree with you with regards to the "under the Constitution" language. TDL (talk) 01:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "COUNCIL ENDORSES PROPOSAL TO DECLARE EAST TIMOR'S INDEPENDENCE 20 MAY 2002". United Nations (Press release). Security Council. 31 October 2001.
  2. ^ "Constitution of the Democratic Republic of East Timor". refworld. 20 May 2002.
  3. ^ "UNANIMOUS ASSEMBLY DECISION MAKES TIMOR-LESTE 191ST UNITED NATIONS MEMBER STATE" (Press release). United Nations. 27 September 2002.
  4. ^ "Constitution of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste" (PDF). Government of Timor-Leste. Retrieved 1 September 2016.
  5. ^ "Constitution of Timor-Leste". Government of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste. Archived from the original on 4 August 2007.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on East 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) 06:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Official name

An IP keep changing the article to state that the country's name is "officially the Democratic Republic of East Timor". However, the cited sources are very clear on the matter. For example, here is the official constitution published by the official government on its official website, which is titled "CONSTITUTION OF THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF TIMOR-LESTE". The United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names report here gives the official english language name of "Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste". The only source the IP has provided is this from the BBC, which does not say anything about whether the name is official or not.

The IP has made a number of arguments for the change:

  • East Timor doesn't have an "official English name"
As per the sources above it does. Also, if it doesn't have an official name, then why is the IP inventing one and claiming one exists?
  • the constitution isn't written in English
The cited constitution is indeed in English
This debate revolved around what the common name of the country is, not the official name. Also note that this discussion was formally closed as "no consensus", so it is simply not correct to suggesting that discussion is the basis for any sort of consensus. Wikipedians can debate whether the official name is the common name, but wikipedians cannot debate whether the official name is not the official name and instead an unofficial common name is the official name. Only the government can decide what the official name is. TDL (talk) 16:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Quotes from the source you've provided (bolding is my own).
  • "The Constituent Assembly, meeting in plenary session on the 22nd of March 2002,approves and decrees the following Constitution of the Democratic Republic of East Timor:"
  • Part 1, Section 1, Line 1: "The Democratic Republic of East Timor is a democratic, sovereign, independent and unitary State…"
  • Part 1, Section 1, Line 2: "The 28th of November 1975 is the Day of Proclamation of Independence of the Democratic Republic of East Timor. "
  • Part 1, Section 3, Line 1: "There shall be original citizenship and acquired citizenship in the Democratic Republic of East Timor."
  • Part 1, Section 4, Line 1: "The territory of the Democratic Republic of East Timor comprises the land surface, the maritime zone and the air space demarcated by the national boundaries that historically comprise the eastern part of Timor Island, the enclave of Oecussi, the island of Ataúro and the islet of Jaco."
  • Part 1, Section 8, Line 1: "On matters of international relations, the Democratic Republic of East Timor shall govern itself by the principles of national independence…"
Need I go on? Thank you for providing this source and proving my point. 220.253.147.234 (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
And as you've said, this is the "official constitution published by the official government on its official website". So I guess East Timor does have an official English translation of its full name! 220.253.147.234 (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Strangely you seem to have conveniently missed the big bold letters at the very start of the constitution which state "CONSTITUTION OF THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF TIMOR-LESTE". The problem here is that you have confused the timeline. The constitution was approved in 20 May 2002 using a provisional name. The name was officially changed subsequently to this, hence why modern sources use the current official name to refer to the state/constitution. You can learn more about this history at the following links:
"ISO 3166-1 Newsletter Number V-6 is dated 2002-11-15. It changes the official name of the country from East Timor to Timor-Leste. It explains that the United Nations Secretariat has issued a new terminology bulletin, in which Timor-Leste is given as the official name of the country in English, French, and Spanish. "East Timor" had been described as the provisional name of the country, since its independence.' Here is the ISO Newsletter describing the change in official name.
"On 20 May, the United Nations successfully concluded the transitional administration of East Timor. On that day, East Timor became an independent State and, four months later, it was admitted to the United Nations under the new official name of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste."
"On 27 September 2002, Timor Leste joined the United Nations and changed its name from East Timor to the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste."
"New entry: Timor-Leste Official name: Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste"
Also, you've failed to address the UN source above which gives the official name. The consensus title is overwhelmingly the official title used by the state. Since you are continuing to edit war against consensus, I'll will provide you with even more sources:
Timorese embassy
World Fact book
Britanica
Given that this name has been used in the article for 13 years, and you have not provided any evidence that the official name has ever even been discussed on the talk page previously, it is extremely disingenuous of you to claim that the consensus is in favour of your dubious changes. You are attempting to force dubious changes to the long-term consensus, so the WP:BURDEN is on you to establish a consensus for change. Edit warring by an IP isn't a demonstration of consensus. TDL (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
This is a bit like Burma / Myanmar. I take the view that random countries around the world don't get to decide what words do or do not belong to the English language, even if that's the word for the name of the country in question. If East-Timor is in general use in the English language, and it is, that should be the word we use. Countries decide what their official name is, but they don't get to decide what is or what is not English. What is official doesn't matter. What English language is does. Just like we don't call Germany by it's official name Deutschland, we shouldn't be obliged to call East-Timor by another name, however official it may be. However, If the name Timor Leste is used by some sources I believe it is all right to mention it in the lead as an alternative. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Hebel This isn't a debate on what name we should use. This article has long used East Timor as the name for the country, and will continue to do so unless there is a consensus to change. This is merely what we should list as the official name. So in the case of Myanmar, we can debate how we should refer to the country (Myanmar or Burma) based on common English usage, but we can't debate that the official name is "Republic of the Union of Myanmar". TDL (talk) 22:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment TDL. I wonder why we can't. The thing is that Burma (as we used to call it) hasn't actually changed it's name from Burma to Myanmar. It was always called Myanmar in Burmese. It has just decided that the word for Burma in English is now Myanmar. Which is ..... iffy if you ask me. Who get's to decide what the English word for "Myanmar" is, if it isn't the English speakers? I mean, if we can say that East-Timor is the English word for Timor Leste, why can't we express the official name with an English word, just as we do for Deutschland or España?. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Right I agree, but that goes to common English usage, not the official name. The Burmese can declare their official name, and English speakers can chose to use it or not. If they do, then the official name is the common name. If they don't, then the common differs from the official name. We should use common English usage, but in cases where we are explicitly discussing the official name, we need to use the actually official name, not the unofficial common name.
Snoop Dogg's official name is still Cordozar Calvin Broadus, even if no one uses that in the English language. That article shouldn't start, "Snoop Dogg, officially Snoop Dogg", just because that is his more common name.
The comparison with Germany and Spain isn't valid, because those countries have officially adopted the common english names as their official english names. See the document from United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names here which gives official English language names for all states. TDL (talk) 22:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
My position is that a country only has an official name in its own language(s). --Khajidha (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Well that position simply is not supported by the facts. The United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names has a working group whose mandate is to "establish the official forms of country names". They have compiled a list here of the official English name of every country. That these names exist is an undisputable fact. TDL (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the official names we present should be the official names as used by the country and bodies they are part of. Given that these organisations are by far the most likely place for formal names to be used in, and that they will usually be used in these organisations in the form desired by the country, that is what will be most helpful to readers. Common names are of course a different matter. CMD (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
What sense are we using "official name" in? You will note that the link you gave separates "National official" from "UN official". I always use "official name" to mean "National official" in the sense of the definition that is actually used on that page ("name of the country in the language(s) used in official government business within that country.").--Khajidha (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
An official names is the name of a country as used for official government business. As government business is not restricted within the country, states must have official names for conducting business outside of the country, in particular in their relations with other states. As English is the lingua franca, it's impossible for a state to avoid conducting business in English. TDL (talk) 23:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
As per the source you provided, the government-authorised English translation of the Constitution of East Timor uses "Democratic Republic of East Timor" (in Part 1, Section 1, Line 1, and throughout the rest of the document). I don't know how much more official you can get than that. The UNGEGN is not the arbiter of English-language use, nor of French, Russian or Spanish use (all of which are also listed in the PDF you provided). Out of the French, Russian, and Spanish Wikipedia articles on East Timor, none of them use the UNGEGN "official" name. The English Wikipedia should be no exception. 220.253.147.234 (talk) 07:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
And as for your point about the English Constitution being out of the date, it was uploaded to the government website in 2010, not 2002 as you claimed. 220.253.147.234 (talk) 07:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Please reread what I wrote. I never said it was uploaded in 2002, I said it was written in 2002. It was uploaded in 2010, which is why it is referred to as the "CONSTITUTION OF THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF TIMOR-LESTE".
Of course "UNGEGN is not the arbiter of English-language use", but they are the world experts on collecting and documenting the official names of geographic places.
As for what is done on other language wikis, WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source because any anonymous person change change it, whether it's true or not. And just because WP:Other stuff exists doesn't mean we should replicate their errors. We should follow what reliable, secondary sources, such as the Britanica and World Fact book say, not some unsourced WP:OR that the uncommonness of the official name makes it unofficial, and the commonness of an unofficial name makes it official.
As for your attack here, review your edit here where you claimed that "the constitution isn't written in English" while simultaneously removing a link to the English language constitution. ~~

TDL, The United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names is not the authority that gets to decide these things. As the people from the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia can tell you. It is a none state actor in international law. Neither is ISO and certainly not the cover of the document that doesn't support your position. It's simply disenngenious to push your opinion against other editors while we can simply at least name both options. Hebel 06:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Of course the UNGEGN does not get to decide these things. As explained above, they are merely the world experts who have conduct detailed research and report their findings on what others have decided. The argument you are presenting is as ridiculous as suggesting that since Albert Einstein isn't the authority who gets to decide how the universe works, that therefore the findings of his research are invalid.
I'm not quite certain what you point on Macedonia is. It consented to officially use the name "the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" within the UN system, which is what the UNGEGN reports. Of course it uses other names in other situations, but that just means it has more than one official name. Not sure how that discredits the UNGEGN as you seem to be implying. TDL (talk) 00:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the arguments for and against the use of the official name, may I suggest that the use of the English translation, unofficial name, is damaging in that it simply perpetuates the inaccuracy and further cements the use of an incorrect name in public discourse. Wikipedia is widely sourced by young people, students, the media etc. and should, in the first instance, always use the factual name of something. My views equally apply to countries such as Côte d'Ivoire and a host of others. If I may use a crude analogy, suppose you have a friend named Deborah. In her teens, people started calling her Debbie and she became known as such. Later, she began to insist that this was not her name and asked that all call her Deborah. Would it be appropriate to say "I'll call you what *I* want to call you."? I would also venture that many who insist on using the "common usage" English-language term likely come from unilingual English language nations and who resist having to use non-English terms in their speech. It belies an inflexibilty, an inability to view the world beyond one's own parochial lens. One should not have the right to translate (I don't mean transliterate) a proper name into one's own language simply because one is too lazy to pronounce it correctly 198.103.104.11 (talk) 13:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Your hypothetical "friend named Deborah" is not a nation and Ivory Coast is not a person. The arguments for one are irrelevant to the other. --Khajidha (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on East 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) 07:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Page moved

Jotaguareluaz, as you can see from this talk page, the name has been hotly debated. If you want to reopen a move discussion, see Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Controversial. You cannot move the page before reaching a Wikipedia:Consensus. Uglemat (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Country Name

i prefer use the Country name Timor Leste than use the pronunciation of the leanguae

Based on Google Trends lately Timor Leste has become common name worldwide. The last move discussion is five years ago so it may has higher chance to be moved. Hddty. (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Name

"In Indonesian, the country is called Timor Timur..."

Wrong, Indonesian call East Timor (province) as Timor Timur and the current country as Timor Leste. Hddty. (talk) 04:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:East_Timor/Archive_5&oldid=1136686436"