View text source at Wikipedia

Talk:1999 East Timorese crisis

organic armour?

[edit]

reference in final paragraph to "organic armour". Couldn't find any reference to this through google.


[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 23:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 1999 East Timorese crisis. 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).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of Indonesia as belligerent in the infobox

[edit]

Eustatius Strijder insist to add Indonesia and its military as part of belligerent. His initial argument are as follows 1 soldier and 1 police officer died, 2 Indonesian UN Soldiers died. That means the Indonesian Police and military participated in this Conflict, albeit most of the military forces have been withdrawn by September 1999. However, refer to the reference [the soldier died due to "undisciplined behaviour" in wandering near the border without uniform and without clearance]. I don't think action of "one rouge soldier" will be sufficient to justify inclusion Indonesia and Indonesian Army as belligerent. Afterall, Indonesia standpoint are "Habibie announced on 12 September that Indonesia would withdraw its soldiers and allow an Australian-led international peacekeeping force to enter East Timor."

Then he said Sources says INTERFET and East Timor pro-independence militia fought both the Indonesian Military and Pro-Integration militias, also Wiranto is an Indonesian military commander, not an East Timorese Pro-Integration militia, but I couldn't find any source that back-up his claim on the article. Since he is the one who add the content, then per WP:BURDEN, The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material.

If we look up other sources, the only clashes between Indonesian military and INTERFET happens at the border due to poor map that used.

Furthermore, paper on INTERFET authored by David Dickens [1], mentioned that how INTERFET successfully developing effective co-operation with senior Indonesian military officers, which is unlikely to happen if Indonesian military and INTERFET are the confronting parties. Therefore, Indonesia and Indonesian Army will be taken out as the belligerent in the infobox, unless any other editor can provide source that explicitly mentioned Indonesian military willingly engage INTERFET (not in the border area).Ckfasdf (talk) 08:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TNI participated in the 1999 East Timorese Crisis. However most have withdrew from East Timor by 12 September 1999 when Habibie called for troops withdrawal. But, TNI still participate in the Suai Church Massacre in which more than 200 people were killed. I believe we should create a special note that the TNI only participated until 12 September 1999. Eustatius Strijder (talk) 15:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Eustatius Strijder: Habibie (as supreme commander of TNI) never order such violence. And the TNI commander involved in the incident are found guilty by human right courts. Again, I don't think action of "rogue" military unit can justify inclusion Indonesia and Indonesian Army as belligerent. Ckfasdf (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusion Indonesia and Indonesian Army as belligerent is acceptable only if there are any source that stated all incident that happens in 1999 East Timor is direct order from higher-ups in Jakarta. Ckfasdf (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Supported by?

[edit]

@Merbabu and Eustatius Strijder: Since there is somewhat heated discussion on "Supported By" issue. If we look up recent conflict (so there are many editors involved) as reference such as 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. On Belligerent parameter of the infobox, there is only the conflicting parties (Russia and Ukraine) and no mentioned of other countries that support (especially) Ukraine. Meanwhile, it was crystal clear that western countries openly support Ukraine by providing funds, aid, even military equipment. Why can we just apply the same standard here? Ckfasdf (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not that interested in infoboxes. I detest the overly long ones full of "support/opposed by" trivia. Who cares if some random country expressed support. One should read WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and WP:INFOBOXBLOAT. I'm here to write, edit and read well-written articles. Not silly boxes of unrelated info...most of which is not even important enough to put in the main article.
If we must have these long lists (note I'm not convinced), then I've added the collapsible lists to at least make the size reasonable (1999 East Timor Crisisbox was longer than the article in some renderings!). And as a minimum info should well referenced (and not misrepresented). (end of rant - sorry)
Re the Ukraine box, it's nicely done...a great standard to emulate. Even I can accept that infobox. haha. What specific standard though are you suggesting will follow? Stripping out all the support? --Merbabu (talk) 10:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Merbabu: My proposal? Removal of all "full list" on combatant parameter. For |combatant1=, only East Timor and INTERFET to be listed, afterall those countries come under INTERFET flags not under their individual countries. For |combatant2=, only pro-Indonesia militias to be listed. List of INTERFET contingent and pro-Indonesia militias can be found on their respective articles. And finally removal of "supported by", Since other article 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine also don't list them. For casualties esp on |casualties1=, we can just create dedicated section for details casualties, so infobox only shows total casualties. Hopefully it'll solved bloated infobox issues. Ckfasdf (talk) 11:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good approach. People can click on INTERFET and see who was part of INTERFET. regards, --Merbabu (talk) 11:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, refused. For the INTERFET and the list of countries being in the UN mission we will let it the way it is, as it is documented before our edits make way through. Eustatius Strijder (talk) 12:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Eustatius Strijder: That list of countries is a problem from beginning, it creates bloated infobox as Merbabu mentioned. I don't see any reasons to keep status quo, afterall Wikipedia is a work in progress and we are all should keep trying to improve article (even by removing things). Please also note that 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article don't have bloated list... Or do you have better suggestion? Ckfasdf (talk) 12:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eustatius, ”nope refused”, etc, is not how Wikipedia works. Nor are we obliged to stick to the status quo. Eustatius, if you want to be involved, then please discuss the actual article issues raised. You may also want to consult WP:OWN. —Merbabu (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that this article is only for 1999 crisis in East Timor per title. So we can remove all events or casualties that happens after 1999, I believe it'll trimdown the infobox length. Ckfasdf (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also majority of countries on |combatant1= are part of UNTAET which active as peacekeeping force after February 2000 (after INTERFET), I believe we can remove them as well and trimdown the bloated infobox even further. Ckfasdf (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update on bloat

[edit]

I commend @Davidelit: on this edit that cuts down on longstanding bloat, and brings the infobox more into line with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. --Merbabu (talk) 07:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also noting that I agree with @Ckfasdf: that - as a maximum - the info box should be limited to Interfet members. here I will also apply collapsible lists to roll up the info we do have. --Merbabu (talk) 08:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The start date was 1999, but it did not end at the same year.

[edit]

This 1999 East Timorese Crisis resembles all UN missions that took control of East Timor from the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET) in 1999-2002, and the UNMISET (United Nations Mission of Support in East Timor) in 2002-2005. This article is based on when this conflict started since 1999, but it did not ended in 1999. The crisis ended in 2005. The same with of 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine where the conflict started in February 2022, but it continues to the present 2023. 2001:448A:2083:A946:2867:5618:E37:E67D (talk) 06:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary refers to "pre-editing fight version". Yet the only person who was fighting, Eustatius, is now blocked from editing wikipedia. Apart from that editor, there is agreement - not "fighting" - about this infobox. The suspicion now is that your anon IP account is just a sock of Eustatius. Check user may be a slow process, but it will find socks and can't be argued with. So, Eustatius and his IP army should please save your time (and that of other editors), and just give up. He won't win.
As with Eustatius' talk page comments, the above makes little sense. --Merbabu (talk) 08:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, it was different. The IP whose first editted [2][3] was actually not me and another account. The latter IP had been editting on articles in 2016 and 2017. Please get into the content and don't accuse. I was one of the editors before the changes of the article had taken place. 2001:448A:2083:A946:2867:5618:E37:E67D (talk) 08:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a check user will confirm. WP:QUACK. In the meantime, don't expect your full massive revert against all other consensus will stand. If you revert again, you've broken the 3RR rule. People get blocked for less. --Merbabu (talk) 08:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked editor or not, such a wholesale broad revert, that undoes a lot of editor's work, with minimal explanation is not right. --Merbabu (talk) 10:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring the fact that the question come from blocked editor, The question is actually quite interesting. I couldn't find any reference that state the end of this crisis. But then again, it doesn't make any sense to put 2005 (the date when all UN mission leave, esp. when this info was not even mentioned in the article itself). I'll be WP:BOLD and assume the crisis over when East Timor independence declared in 2002 (afterall this event was mentioned in the article). Ckfasdf (talk) 10:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's much of the issue - so much endless trivia, that's not in the article, but crammed into the infobox. --Merbabu (talk) 10:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection

[edit]

We've had three IP reverts in the last day. Which are very similar in nature to the indefinitely blocked Eustatius. I propose seeking semi protection of article, but now I will need to spend time trying to work out how. --Merbabu (talk) 08:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. I've semi-protected the article for six months and blocked a relevant IP range where it made sense to do so. Graham87 09:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 December 2024

[edit]

– Following the recent move of East Timor to Timor-Leste, what demonym should be used for this country? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 1999 East Timorese crisis was before independence and the adoption of Timor-Leste as an official name. It's an odd place to start this move. Speaking of official names, the government uses "Timorese" as a demonym (eg), and I don't think there's a third compelling alternative between that and East Timorese. CMD (talk) 04:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LaundryPizza03: I have seen that you have initiated other mass changes. I hence have removed the speedy renaming tag from Category:1989 in East Timor; please self-revert the rest among those that introduce a terminological anachronism.
As for the post-1999 articles, nothing needs to be changed. "East Timorese" still remains generally in use as a demonym for Timor-Leste. "Timorese" without "East" sounds off (and even a bit irredentist) to me, since it can also be applied to the people in the western half of the island. But then, it's common usage that counts (and not what we have personally have grown accustomed to) so I'll be happy to go with whatever the majority of good sources do. But of course, evidence for "Timorese" over "East Timorese" should be at least as strong as the evidence that triggered the page move to Timor-Leste. –Austronesier (talk) 09:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the Time of Madness not a novel

[edit]

In the Time of Madness is non-fiction and shouldn't be labelled a novel in this article Dhcp93 (talk) 15:34, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]