Wikipedia

Talk:East Timor/Archive 6

< Talk:East Timor
Latest comment: 4 years ago by J. Patrick Fischer in topic Clean up
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Requested move 29 September 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago91 comments27 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Obviously the country should have its article at the English name, but there is no current consensus here as to which name is the common name in English. Newspapers are split. TV is split. Government agencies are split. This is an open question still. I do not think that we have any reason to bar this request in the future, since without a crystal ball I have no idea whether or not Timor-Leste will surge in usage over the next year or so. But for now? No consensus here, mes amis. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 00:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

East Timor → Timor-Leste – The country is known by the international community as Timor-Leste. See for example the United Nations Mission in Timor-Leste, UNESCO, the US State Department's Office of the Historian, and the Australian Government's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Te Karere (talk) 07:27, 29 September 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 09:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. Te Karere (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • In the past the page didn't immediately get moved to "Timor-Leste" because many countries, organizations, etc including CIA The World Factbook still use "East Timor" (2005 discussion, name change and independence happen in 2002). What if the official usage actually influences the general usage? Hddty. (talk) 05:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Here's a list of all the other requested moves of this page (the most recent being 5 years ago):
Mentioned in one of the previous Requested moves, here are a whole bunch of credible sources referring to the nation as "Timor-Leste":
etc. While I'm not sure what would be the best course of action, here's my thought process: if usage is evenly split between the two names, why not go with the official one? Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
My thought is "if the official one can't do any better than parity, why bother with it?" --Khajidha (talk) 17:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
The guidelines say that we should use the official name, if there is no widely used common name: "When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. ... If neither of these English names exist, the modern official name ... should be used." TDL (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
But a widely accepted English name does exist, so that doesn't apply here. --Khajidha (talk) 09:29, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Khajidha: Google Trends (see Hddty above) show that "Timor Leste" (no hyphen) is the widely accepted English name. The inclusion of the hyphen is in respect to the official name. Are you in support of the proposal? Or do you prefer to exclude the hyphen? Te Karere (talk) 10:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
The widely accepted English name is East Timor. --Khajidha (talk) 10:29, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia use popular name, even if the name is not in English. See Coup d'état, De jure, Schadenfreude, etc. Hddty. (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, and your own link shows that East Timor is more common in the UK, Ireland, the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Basically anywhere that English is the native language of the majority of the population. And it is the native speaking population that set usage norms. --Khajidha (talk) 15:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
That's because the data is from 2004 until present. In the past one year "Timor Leste" is most used in some English-speaking countries. Hddty. (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
And in the past 90 days the usage in several of them shifted back. Such short time periods (a year or less) are unlikely to have many mentions of the country in the English press.--Khajidha (talk) 11:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
If we sum the percentage of "Timor-Leste" and "Timor Leste" as one then English-speaking country that shifted the usage to Timor Leste is New Zealand and the country that shifted back is Ireland (check "Include low search volume regions"). Nonetheless, if usage is split between the two names, why not use the official name, adding that the usage of Timor Leste is increasing and the usage of East Timor is decreasing, even in most English-speaking country? Hddty. (talk) 12:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
@Paintspot: Thank you for your contribution. Te Karere (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is the English language Wikipedia, the most common name in English is East Timor.XavierGreen (talk) 14:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Khajidha and XavierGreen: Can you please provide evidence of "East Timor" as the widely accepted English name per WP:NCGN? Evidence-based discussions ensure civil interactions based on good faith and a robust outcome that is more easily defended from vandalism. The history of Requested Moves on this page appear to show a lack of previous consensus due to (1) discussions based on political or personal positioning, and (2) a lack of evidence supporting "Timor Leste" (or "Timor-Leste") as the widely accepted name. You both suggest the current article title concurs with current majority usage in English. Evidence has been presented that contradicts your argument. Provision of evidence that supports your reasoning will allow the community to compare evidential sources and assess the validity of arguments. It will also help us avoid the problems raised in previous discussions. Your contributions to the debate are respected. Te Karere (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:UE (see, e.g., Ivory Coast) and WP:RECENTISM (see, e.g. this ngram). Timor-Leste may be more common now in some contexts, but it is overwhelmingly less common until very recently. Srnec (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Srnec : Thank you for your contribution.
(1) WP:UE requires consideration of differences between spellings. Can you please explain its relevance to this discussion?
(2) WP:RECENTISM provides guidance regarding editing in response to recent events. Although the naming of the nation-state in question is not a recent event, the recommended policy does help editors think about articles over the long-term. The requested move conforms with international community conventions. How does the requested move work against the long-term?
(3) The ngram is a book-based source that provides data to 2006. Can you please provide other limits to the ngram?Te Karere (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
(1) "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources". Official sources have no special standing. Neither the UN nor the US State Department are authorities on the English language.
(2) The term Timor-Leste is less inclusive than East Timor. Nobody would say that the Japanese occupied Timor-Leste during World War II, but you could say that they occupied East Timor. Because it is a geographical expression in plain English, it is more versatile. If 2002 saw the creation of something wholly new, this wouldn't apply. But in fact 2002 saw the independence of a territory that had had a political identity in some form for over 100 years. For many of them it was known universally in English as East Timor. I'll note also that Timor-Leste was not even the East Timorese resistance's only name for the country prior to 2002. There was also Timor-Dili.
(3) Why? The period 1900–2006 is a lot longer than 2006–18 and neither phrase was in use much before 1900. Perhaps I am not understanding your question. Srnec (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
(1) Your quote is not from WP:UE, but WP:NCUE. I accept your withdrawal from the spelling argument.
(2) Your point regarding WP:RECENTISM is unclear. The response (though numbered 2) appears to relate to your quote at 1. No evidence supporting your statements is provided. There is no dispute that we all seek WP:NCGN. Can you please clarify?
(3) Like the Google Trends data, the ngram has limitations. I seek only your objective analysis of the source.
Thank you. My intent in requesting the move is a title that is neutral and verifiable. Your continued engagement is appreciated.Te Karere (talk) 00:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Further to point (1) of @Srnec:
Official sources have an identified standing when considering "a place whose name has changed over time" (WP:MODERNPLACENAME). This article concerns such a place. Te Karere (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Soft support. Since independence, the country has increasingly preferred to use the local language "Timor-Leste". Reliable sources, especially news, have been increasingly following suit, and google news for "Timor Lests" is about 2:1 for "East Timor". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your support (soft or otherwise). Te Karere (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It seems like it would be best to split this article so that we would have two articles, "East Timor" for before independence and "Timor-Leste" for after. --Caorongjin (talk) 10:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
    Before independence the article is East Timor (province). Hddty. (talk) 11:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. Google Trends show an interesting split in the usage between East Timor and Timor-Leste. The former tends to be used by native English speaking countries while the latter is popular in continent Europe, Latin America and Southeast Asia. Gizza (t)(c) 21:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. Updated table (3 October 2018) from previous move requests. Amended to search "Timor Leste" (no hyphen) and include row of "stuff.co.nz" (the other mainstream NZ news site). Results should be received with caution.
  Google hits for "East Timor" (22,332) Google hits for "Timor Leste" (81,930)
New York Times 2,690 84
Washington Post 1,300 423
Wall Street Journal 470 78,600
The Guardian 1,060 525
The Daily Telegraph 451 279
The Independent 1,960 62
The Globe and Mail 245 27
The Age 3,010 220
The Australian 1,430 175
Sydney Morning Herald 5,660 448
New Zealand Herald 1,710 251
stuff.co.nz 866 271
The Economist 1,480 565
Te Karere (talk) 10:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I think this data doesn't reflect the current popularity because the date range isn't set ("all time" results). Hddty. (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Picking a couple at random: The New York times has 4 pages of results for East Timor in the last year, but only 1 page for Timor Leste; The Sydney Morning Herald has 2 pages of results for East Timor in the last year, but only 1 page for Timor Leste. Usage doesn't seem to have changed too much. --Khajidha (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I doubt it because the samples are too few. Based on Google Trends usage has changed. Hddty. (talk) 17:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
And much of the usage of Timor-Leste shown on Google Trends is from non-English speaking countries. Totally irrelevant. --Khajidha (talk) 18:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
English-speaking country in the past one year that mostly used East Timor is: Australia & Canada and Timor Leste is New Zealand, UK & US. Hddty. (talk) 00:11, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Khajidha and Hddty.: Thank you both for your continued engagement. Assessment of evidence for article title is based on source's reliability (see WP:SOURCE). The source's country of origin is most relevant where it is an official publication (see Comment on WP:MPN below).Te Karere (talk) 09:40, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
The question is about the common English name, so sources from Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc carry no weight. --Khajidha (talk) 16:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
(1) English language sources are not ranked by country of origin in WP:UCRN nor WP:IRS. That said, "official publications of major English-speaking countries" (in the example used, the US) is privileged in WP:MPN.
(2) When debating the move, it would be useful to offer evidence that (a) follows policy and (b) supports your argument. Te Karere (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
WP:UCRN explicitly states that "For cases where usage differs among English-speaking countries, see also National varieties of English, below. ", which implies that names are determined by native speaking usage. This should not have to be spelled out as it is a basic principle of language that the native speakers decide on what words (including names) mean. WP:IRS is about citing facts, naming an article is about presentation of those facts and falls under the category of English usage. --Khajidha (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello B dash. Thank you for joining this discussion.
(1) The assertion that "East Timor" is more common in English newspapers contradicts evidence already supplied in this debate. Can you please provide additional sources?
(2) In addition to spelling (see Srnec section above table), WP:UE concerns anglicisation. The article states that "East", "Leste", and "Timor" (alphabetically-ordered) are equivalent terms. To anglicise would render the title as "East East". I am unsure if this would be helpful. It is likely I have misunderstood your intent. Can you please explain? Te Karere (talk) 00:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Timor is the English name for the island, thus there is no reason to translate the Timor in Timor-Leste. --Khajidha (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi Khajidha: You have used "Timor-Leste". Do you now support a change in article title? Te Karere (talk) 19:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
@Khajidha: You have the floor. Te Karere (talk) 09:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I am struggling to understand how you misunderstood my point as badly as your previous question indicates that you do. --Khajidha (talk) 12:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
If Timor is accepted as the English name, then "Timor-Leste" is feasible as the English name. I took your use as a supportive comment, but obviously misunderstood. Thank you for the correction. Te Karere (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Per WP:MPN, "For an article about a place whose name has changed over time, context is important. For articles discussing the present, use the modern English name (or local name, if there is no established English name), rather than an older one.... Per Wikipedia's naming policy, our choice of name does not automatically follow the official or local form, but depends on that change having become predominant in common global usage. That can be assessed by reviewing up-to-date references to the place in a modern context in reliable, authoritative sources such as news media, other encyclopedias, atlases and academic publications as well as the official publications of major English-speaking countries, for example the CIA World Factbook." Te Karere (talk) 00:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The common English name is East Timor, so per WP:COMMONNAME that is what the article title should be. The Britannica article on this country also uses the title "East Timor". Rreagan007 (talk) 19:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to this discussion @Rreagan007:
Per the debate above, we seek an evidenced conclusion. Can you please provide new evidence that "East Timor" is the common English name? (It is recommended that you read previous examples to avoid negation of your arguments by evidence that has already been presented.)Te Karere (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I've read over the above arguments on both sides, and based on English-language newspaper usage, "East Timor" is more commonly used by English speakers. Regardless, the burden of proof is on the side trying to change the current status quo, and I see no proof that "Timor-Leste" is the most common English-language name, merely that it is the official name and that it is widely used by non-English speakers. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
(1) Please read the English-language newspaper usage evidence again. Some caution is strongly recommended, but the overall usage does not support your conclusion.
(2) Can you please indicate a "burden of proof" policy? Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Your contributions are welcome should you choose to be actively involved.
(3) You offer no evidence for any of your statements.Te Karere (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
The burden of proof is implicit in the fact that if there is no consensus reached, the article remains where it is. And I see no evidence presented here that proves that ""Timor-Leste" is the most commonly used English name. Until such evidence is presented, my oppose stands. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Specifically: Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Three_possible_outcomes. A page is moved if, and only if, the consensus is to move it. A complete lack of consensus (either in favor of moving or not moving) means that the article remains at the old name. --Khajidha (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Based on HighBeam, which has been used in similar move discussion, "Timor Leste" is popular in the recent years. Note that results from past two years cannot be linked directly.
All dates Past two years
East Timor 14,007 352
Timor Leste 5,812 851
--Hddty. (talk) 01:19, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Official country name that has been adopted by many sources, name of article would be more accurate and if it doesn't move now this will just be an annual discussion Nice4What (talk) 07:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your support. Te Karere (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
There is nothing inaccurate about the current title. Srnec (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your support. Te Karere (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I deny it. Srnec (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Looks like the Lonely Planet guide book now calls it Timor-Leste if the new name has reached that level of saturation then I think it good of WP:COMMONNAME. (p.s. Its not necessary to thank me for the support, replying to every comment gives an impression of ownership of the debate). --Salix alba (talk): 23:15, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Having read the above, it is clear that "Timor-Leste" has not become the WP:COMMONNAME for the country in English.
The table of newspaper counts makes interesting reading. What I see is that for every source quoted but one the numbers clearly favour "East Timor", and that the one exception mostly includes links to stories that are not about the country in question. Which probably indicates nothing more than that "Timor-Leste" is on a navigation template, which is hardly a good argument for overriding the numbers for every other publication listed.
In any case, style guides, not instances of usage or Google searches, are the correct way to establish a given organisation's style preferences. Kahastok talk 18:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your contribution. Can you please indicate which style guides you are referring to and how they support your argument? If WP:COMMONNAME, can you please quote the section that is applicable? Te Karere (talk) 23:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
The point is that if you think usage has changed, then the proper place to look for that is the style guides of the various news agencies and not random articles. As you are the one advocating for change it is up to you to find the supporting evidence. --Khajidha (talk) 23:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your engagement. Per WP:TALKDONTREVERT, I elect to "limit article talk page discussions to discussion of sources, article focus, and policy." Te Karere (talk) 08:13, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
And as per policy, as the person advocating a change, you need to provide evidence that supports that change. In fact, as I note above, the evidence provided so far (such as it is) suggests that the more common usage remains "East Timor". Kahastok talk 17:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
The N-gram view only goes upto 2008. It seems that the trend is towards the Portuguese name since then.--Salix alba (talk): 15:15, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Why do people act like a country only exists in the present moment. East Timor has a history. Srnec (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Because common name is not based on how long the name used, it based on recent usage. That's the reason why we don't use "Gold Coast" (which has been used for 90 years (1867–1957)) for "Ghana" (which has been used for 61 years (1957–present)). Hddty. (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
The site you linked to is not in English though, so I respectfully suggest is not relevant to this discussion. Regards Davidelit (Talk) 03:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
No consensus to move means that the article will not be moved. --Khajidha (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Official country name, and usually used by English-speaking governments. It's also almost always used by expert writers, and increasingly by the general media. Nick-D (talk) 04:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
"almost always used by expert writers" is a gross overstatement. Srnec (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Because there's no English-language media and organization use it. For this country some English-language media and organization such as The Guardian use "Timor-Leste". On the other hand BBC use "East Timor" but instead claim that the full name is "Democratic Republic of East Timor", not "Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste". Hddty. (talk) 05:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I haven't heard 'East Timor' used for a long time. In my experience 'Timor-Leste' is the current commonly used name for the country. --John B123 (talk) 15:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. Almost all the actual evidence provided so far (by myself, by User:Hddty. and by the nominator) shows that East Timor is still the common name in English-language sources. The exceptions (official sources, non-English sources) are not especially relevant. Srnec (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Not sure why 'Official Sources' are not relevant, WP:WIAN would indicate otherwise.--John B123 (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Their relevance is limited in cases such as this because they tend to reflect diplomatic usage, which is not always the same as common English usage. Kahastok talk 17:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Diplomatic use??? WP:WIAN doesn't seem to share your view in cases such as this, in fact it goes as far as saying that the terms used by the United States Board on Geographic Names are "most often, actual American usage." --John B123 (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Most often, they are. Particularly when they're naming places in the United States.
One of the exceptions is when the name in question is the name of a country, and that the country says they want to be called something that isn't in common usage. Governments tend to go for what the country wants to be called, in most cases, because it costs them nothing and gains them goodwill. But that doesn't necessarily make any difference to the common usage.
Out of the all the place names the US Board on Geographic Names deals with - towns, cities, rivers, lakes and countries throughout the world - the proportion where you have to worry about diplomatic issues is tiny. But they do exist, and we're dealing with one of them here. Kahastok talk 18:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
That simply is the case, or we'd be referring to 'Republic of Korea', 'Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China', ' Kingdom of Eswatini', 'Espania' and so forth. Going back to my original point, the guidelines are clear, 'official sources' are relevant. --John B123 (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Actually it has difference to the common usage. See Google Trends for US and UK. Hddty. (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - it is clear from the evidence presented above that, unlike Swaziland/eSwatini, the sources have not predominantly moved over to use the Portuguese name yet, and the WP:COMMONNAME remains "East Timor". At best it's 50/50, in which case WP:UE and [[WP:RECOGNIZE] applies as well as the principle that we shouldn't change just for the sake of it. I regard the "official" usage as essentially unimportant in this case, as it is the classic case of a foreign government in a non-English-speaking territory trying to dictate what English speakers should say. We don't follow such edicts unless and until the new usage predominates in sources.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Its common name is clearly East Timor. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2018 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

page request

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Where might a passage like this go? I will begin looking appropriate subtopics that might work better, too, as here I'm not sure entirely that it isn't too detailed or specific. 98.207.1.47 (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2019 (UTC) 

In March 2019, a small research team from Australia visited the country to look into why crocodile attacks had greatly increased on the island in the prior decade. It was reported that officials worried that crocodile attacks were not being reported due to the local [[Lafaek Diak|reverence afforded the species]], and a disbelief at large that they were aggressive towards humans. It had taken "years of bureaucratic wrangling between the researchers and the governments in both Australia and East Timor" for the research to be permitted.<ref>https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/06/world/asia/east-timor-crocodile-attacks.html</ref>

Note that I added it to the Crocodile attack page. 98.207.1.47 (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Move moratorium proposal

Latest comment: 5 years ago28 comments14 people in discussion

Given that this article has already proposed the same RM a few times, I propose that a moratorium on move requests should be implemented on this article for a minimum of six months. --B dash (talk) 03:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Noting that there is nothing "wrong" with a the current title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:30, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you on that. But if this is about resolving the behavioural issues of a single editor, would it not be better to target those issues with that editor more specifically? Kahastok talk 18:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I generally oppose moratoriums on discussions (including discussion of proposals) because I see little harm and much potential benefit in discussion. This is especially true in a democratic setting like WP where consensus is reached through discussion. In this particular case we have a no consensus situation. I see no reason to limit discussion for 6 much less 12 months, or any amount of time. Those most interested should be encouraged, not discouraged, to dig up the evidence supporting their respective positions. Moratoriums do the opposite. Moratoriums are also a tactic used by those seeking to "protect" the status quo in a given situation. See also: Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling#Imposing a moratorium on proposals for change. --В²C ☎ 19:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per this morning's copy of The Guardian. It's pretty clear where quality sources have been headed, we can't prevent Wikipedia following sooner or later. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
    • It is indeed pretty clear that quality sources are changing, and that was strongly shown in the discussion. In six months, if the rate of change has not changed, what will be different? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Six months more means the move to the Guardian / BBC name will become clearer perhaps. In any case, apart from that issue, the fact that this was a non-admin close speaks against a moratorium. Personally I would say 2-3 months. Even if a formal moratorium isn't agreed on a talk page, discretion usually indicates a couple of months. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
FTR, the survey above suggests that the Guardian prefers "East Timor" at a ratio of 2:1. What their house style is I don't know - as I said in the RM, if we're ascribing house styles to publishers, we should do it based on their style guides, not counts of individual usages. But this is not a discussion of whether the article should be moved, it's about whether there should be a moratorium.
Per the move review, there is no significant dispute that the close was correct (i.e. except for the filer, we all accept that there was no consensus). It is difficult to see why the fact that it was a non-admin makes any difference.
There shouldn't be a moratorium because - given that this is a single RM with a "no consensus" close - we should be open to the possibility of a consensus (in either direction) emerging in the future given new and better arguments. There are cases where a case is made repetitiously and acts as a barrier to other improvement to the article, but this is not (yet) one of them. That applies regardless of the admin status of the closer. Kahastok talk 23:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
That survey table above about the usage in the news is misleading, some numbers taken even before Timor-Leste changed its name. The Guardian itself has used Timor-Leste since around 2010, the difference can be seen here. Hddty. (talk) 01:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
That's as may be. Hence the second part of my point - don't rely on counting usages to infer a style preference because it can be misleading, rely on the publisher's style guide to tell you. But that is not for this discussion. Kahastok talk 18:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. Even if the usage changed, some users would still objected the name because its not in English. User:Timrollpickering describes this situation perfectly in this discussion. Hddty. (talk) 01:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is absolutely absurd that Wikipedia insists on imposing an English name to a country that has an official name that's used in all official documents worldwide and is also used in the UN - you can't just decide to call a country whatever you like, that's not how names work. WP:USEENGLISH does not apply to names - you call a spade a spade. I absolutely do not support a moratorium on another move request. --Pavithran (talk) 15:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
"you can't just decide to call a country whatever you like" Actually, we can. That's how languages work. Japan is called Japan at the UN not because the Japanese want it that way, but because the Japanese saw no reason to fight the previously decided upon English name. --Khajidha (talk) 17:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
But the name of the country used by the UN is Timor-Leste, not East Timor... If you're bringing the UN into this, then the country is called Timor-Leste in every way possible. --Zeraien (talk) 22:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
I didn't bring the UN into this, Pavithran did. And my argument holds whether we are discussing the UN or not. --Khajidha (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 00:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose This discussion is not over - the country has recently gained independence from centuries of oppression, it deserves to have it's legal and official name properly represented. --Zeraien (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose This discussion is certainly not over. It's remarkable to me that Macedonia was changed so quickly to North Macedonia, regardless of common usage but because of a sort of political correctness, while renaming Timor Leste, with far less news about it in general in english media has the pendulum of common usage move ever so slowly. At what point do we ask ourselves if Wikipedia has become a force for giving credibility and promoting the term "East Timor" above "Timor-Leste" simply because of the influence and prominence of this site. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 16:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
An unmodified "Macedonia" is not used for the country anymore, all new references are to "North Macedonia", so that there has actually been a change in usage. --Khajidha (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
I still don't understand WHY the East Timorese care what other languages call their country. I certainly don't care how other languages translate my country's name. I don't even consider myself to have the right to care. --Khajidha (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

NOTE: All of y'all people who have voted "Oppose" in the last few days do realize that the one-year moratorium was proposed... almost a year ago. Even if we started it from the day it was proposed, it would run out at the end of next month.--Khajidha (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Airport

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

There is no mention of the Presidente Nicolau Lobato International Airport in the article. It appears to have direct scheduled service by multiple carriers to (at least) Denpasar and Darwin. This came up because Dili Sea Port claims, in the lead sentence, to be the "only source for international access to the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste". —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:43, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@AlanM1: You can easily add a reference to the airport rather than bring it to the talk page.. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm aware. As the only airport (international, at least), I think it deserves more than a reference, and thought it better to leave it up to people familiar with the country and/or writing about airports. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Move Request

Latest comment: 4 years ago20 comments8 people in discussion

I wish to thank the editors who have contributed constructively thus far to move request discussions. It is possible that we may have concluded that consensus was not to be reached. Or we may have come to a decision together to consider a move request at a later date. Or (my hope) we may have agreed to move. In any case, the NAC decision has intervened in our engagements. As WP:TIND and all interactions have been civil (indeed, sometimes humorous), I am considering WP:MR. A post has been made on the Closer's Talk page. You are welcome to follow or contribute as you see fit (which may include agreeing with the NAC decision). If this is the last of it, I wish you well. Your generosity of time and thought is appreciated! Te Karere (talk) 09:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

@Te Karere: Have reopened and relisted. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 09:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
@Dreamy Jazz: Thank you.Te Karere (talk) 09:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I think this can be closed as "no consensus". (I've voted in favor of the move, so I can't close it myself). There is a tension between WP:USEENGLISH and WP:COMMONNAME; organizations using English names of countries (i.e. ones that use Germany, not Deutschland) do often use Timor-Leste (the UN, the Olympics, etc.). Those groups use Cote d'Ivoire as well, and that move has no consensus for similar reasons. The other countries with directional monikers are of no help; North/South Korea don't have the direction in the country name, and Western Sahara is too complicated to discuss here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

(1) Given the five previous Move Requests, a durable outcome here would be useful for the projects that monitor this article. Taking time to achieve this outcome is not an issue. WP:TIND applies; there is no time limit on discussions. Nevertheless, I take your point. It would be useful to have an idea when (or if) this round will end.
(2) Per WP:CON, "consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), neither is it the result of a vote." "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy" (WP:CONLEVEL). A summary of the various arguments may be useful, so that their quality can be ascertained.
- If the quality and adherence to policy favours a Move, that Move would occur.
- If the quality and adherence to policy is against a Move or balanced, the result would be "No Consensus".
(3) I propose a table agreed to be representative of the various arguments. In the event of a "No Consensus " outcome, a table would ease administration of future Move Requests. Projects could assess to what extent the arguments had changed and decision-making would hopefully be more evidence-based. I will attempt such a table if it is supported. Te Karere (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I think it would be much better if we just do what we do with every other WP:RM. Which is to say, let an uninvolved editor close it (with consenesus to move, no consensus, or consensus not to move) based on their assessment of the consensus of the discussion. We seem to be able to manage to close discussions that are far more complicated than this in every part of Wikipedia without needing the kind of spoon-feeding you describe.
If a move is requested in the future, the user requesting the move can make their case based on the available evidence and on the applicable policies at that time. Again, this is what we do in every other case - including articles that have seen plenty more requests than this one - and there doesn't seem to be any reason for this article to be an exception. Kahastok talk 22:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinion. As with your comments in the Move Request discussion, I welcome evidence to support your statements. Te Karere (talk) 08:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
You first. Kahastok talk 08:58, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

A WP:MR is being considered for the NAC, so a post has been made on the Closer's Talk page. As requested, please find below a summary of the policies and evidence provided for and against the move. Please note: arguments that offer no sources have been excluded. Editors who have supplied evidence have been noted to allow them opportunity to provide correction should they so choose.

Wikipedia Policy Evidence For Move Evidence Against Move Editor/s
WP:COMMONNAME
New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, The Globe and Mail, The Age, The Australian, Sydney Morning Herald, New Zealand Herald, stuff.co.nz, The Economist
  • Ngrams
  • Google hits for "East Timor" (22,332):
New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, The Globe and Mail, The Age, The Australian,Sydney Morning Herald, New Zealand Herald,stuff.co.nz, The Economist
 @Hddty.:, @Number 57:, @Juxlos:
WP:RECENTISM this ngram @Srnec:
WP:MPN
@Paintspot:

Should no relisting occur, the final summary will be useful for future Move Requests. Other policies considered during the debate include WP:NCGN, WP:NCUE, WP:SOURCE, WP:UCRN (and hence WP:TITLEVAR), and WP:WIAN. Te Karere (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd strongly advise against a WP:MR as it would just appear to be sour grapes; the discussion was roughly balanced in terms of numbers and use of policy/evidence in arguments. A close one way or the other (moved/not moved) would require one side to have had some kind of killer argument, which clearly wasn't the case here. Number 57 21:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Disagree, but noted.Te Karere (talk) 21:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Even though you're heavily invested in wanting the move, I don't see how you can reasonably disagree with the assessment (a move supporter power~enwiki also made a similar assessment above); it was an evenly split vote and both sides presented reasonable evidence/policy arguments. I've been closing RMs for a decade and this is a clear cut no consensus outcome. If you take it to MR, you'll just be told this isn't RM v2. Number 57 21:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Number 57. While consensus is not a majority vote, there is clearly no consensus in the above for a move.
I also think it worth noting that I believe that the above table is biased to the point of actually misrepresenting the discussion above, being full of debunked statistics and irrelevances. Any editor wanting this change in the future will make a more persuasive case IMO if they entirely ignore the above table and instead rely their own arguments and their own evidence, and trust that if the evidence is compelling then people will change their minds. (And they will. If the evidence is compelling.) Kahastok talk 21:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. There is some attempt at stacking the deck here. There is no need to list multiple agencies of the UN, just make a note anout UN usage. --Khajidha (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
The intent is to develop a resource that is agreed to be representative of the arguments presented during this Move Request. The resulting table follows Wikipedia's practice of favouring references. Further, it follows WP:CONSENSUS in its requirement for assessment of argument quality. Arguments without references were judged lower quality and thus omitted. I have searched the discussion for cited arguments, but may have missed some, so am happy for others to add evidence from the discussion to the table. Te Karere (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
It isn't representative of the arguments. It's representative of your opinions. If someone in the future requests another move based on the the above table, all the same criticisms of the case made will be repeated and the result will be the same.
We are required by policy to evaluate the reliability of our sources and their suitability for a given purpose per WP:RS. You've just dismissed all the evaluations of the reliability of your sources as "lower quality and thus omitted". Turns out, policy doesn't let you just do that, as the result of this WP:RM demonstrates. Kahastok talk 19:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Closer statement

I saw no silver bullet in the arguments for or against. I saw no real consensus among those who were citing sources and policies. I see no reason to revisit this and I will remain fully disinterested (though perhaps not uninterested) in any move review. I came in with only one bias or agenda, which was to close a request that had been open for an absurd amount of time, so I have no desire whatsoever to relitigate this. I think that Wikipedia should be holding off on redoing this move till next year. I acknowledge and appreciate the timely notice on my talk page. Red Slash 21:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)


Closer statement rebuttal rant (sorry)

I'm not sure why this was ever even up for debate... so please explain to me if East Timor (ET) was ever even a country for more than 9 days and that was back in 1975? and after finally truly gaining independence and writing and adopting a Constitution in 2002 and Timor Leste (TL) being a member of the UN and a variety of other organizations, some people are debating what it's called based on what? not even google searces?!! East Timor is and was a subjugated Indonesian province while the independent country of Timor Leste is something new and different unique and distinct and consequently using the same "name" for both is not very specific or consequential! and that is why I'm flabbergasted that people would insist in grandfathering and continuing to use the same old and obsolete name regardless and in the face of everything else. (So any arguments for WP:RECENTISM were originally nonsensical as it would imply some continuity not revolutions). Meanwhile this page just a summary of the last failed WP:MR devoid of the substantive discussion? Because loaded Ngrams and google hits don't mean anything if you include every place it has both terms like any history book or most news coverage which references history or last 50 years rather than last 20 years, at that rate nothing would ever be allowed to change it's name. Tymes (talk) 03:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
ultimately the effect is simply this... so I started going through the "list stuff" by arbitrary nation (no bias)... to started to try to go though various list of counties by size, population, meat eating, beer drink, beer drink (sorry) etc.. there are 2-300 of these different pages and they are unbiased not TP/TL centric and obviously those Wiki pages actually seem to defer to CIA and the UN etc (so current references are TE)... so the majority the CURRENT references in wiki (not historic unrelated references to 1993 or 2004 whatever previous year)... anyways sorry (again) but while I didn't finish although I wanted to waste 5 or 6 hours and provide some definitive proof and a consensus I stopped after a couple of dozen annoying clicks... simply... here is the data I collected before I released I should start over and be far more detailed write a paper.. Tymes (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC) (continuing)

TL: Irrigated Land.2012 (cia), Coffee.2019 (wa), Meat.Eat.2009 (cb/fao), electricity.2014(cia), Oil.2011, WHSites.2019(WHS), IncomEq.2007(UN/WB/CIA), EcoFreedom.2020 (HF), EaseDoBiz.2020(DBiz), MinWage.2012(.US/.MO), Debt.2017(CIA) ET: Forest.2010 (cia), Milk.2013(fao-rw), Corruption.2010(Tp-rw), Airports.2020 so 11 references to 4 references... (again we could go through the 2-300 list of countries) plus half a dozen where ET/TL perhaps weren't listed as they weren't in the top 100 or otherwise in the list so for instance wasn't in the list of Uranium producers or in a list of snowfall (obviously not).

(continued) see.. so lists of countries by coffee the country is listed TL...or if we looked at list of countries by corruption it is ET... but as you continue you see the majority of references which are again unbiased (aka aren't specifically talking mainly about TP/TL or any other country do I think continue to refer to it as TL because those sources are CIA or UN etc) of course they are all biased by the source (just as Wiki is now biased bit itself aka old edits) actually I remember ending when as I went off on a tangent and started looked at like travel sites and airports (see the final ET entry) where I looked at what AA said or Quanta's or Lufthansa or Expedia or then looked at airports and moved on to ship apps etc... (I had that info somewhere, but someone can repeat that too) and to basically confirm despite whatever Wiki editors want, disparent (actually not) and unbiased ET/TL references are usually TL references... Meanwhile main ET/TL sites like the main "East Timor" article is EDITED and cohearsted with whatever we agree here and prejudiced by properly refering to the pre-country/occupied territory as East Timor. Meanwhile Newspapers who talk about the modern country of ET/TL talk historically about ET as to inform readers they mention Indonesia or Portugal, not the exclusively the new nation where articles talk TE... Anyways, blah blah... why don't we all look at this thing a 7th time. Gather some stats, and based on logic not on what you're were told when Timor-Leste never even existed. Sorry I went off on this rant not about ET/TL but about wiki editor blindness. I should just stick to the facts... again was TP country for even 9 days I would argue they never even had the opportunity to adopt that name before invaded and becoming a province or reverting to a colony. Meanwhile while the major unbiased lists that outnumber specific ET/TL articles which are required to refer to East Timor for historical reasons are silly to continue to refer to that defunct name of an Indonesian Province and an occupied territory (again perhaps never a named country) because WIKI editors are deferring to historical precedence when there isn't any. It's a new country... look at the last 5 or 10 new countries or the last 20 years... if someone reopens this I'll try to listen and let you all argue this yourselves even though I don't see _any_ arguments in previous discussion to merits but instead focusing rather on procedure and argument... Look at a map already and change the name, don't perpetuate the name of formerly subjugated colony and sites of genocide. Tymes (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Clean up

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article needs a fundamental clean up. It looks like a patchwork and not like an article for an overview about the country. Beside important facts, are minor relevant informations. Other informations are missing (compare to German article). East Timor/Timor-Leste are used both in the text; several minor spelling mistakes occur, (Tukudede, Oetcusse,...); the photo of the coffee plantation in Aileu seem to show a rice field (the photograph didn't wrote an information about in the discription); generally the photos should be checked on relevance for the article (I know, I like to put a lot of photos in my articles, too, but here...),... --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:East_Timor/Archive_6&oldid=1003482541"