Talk:Portuguese Timor

Merger
should be merged with East Timor. --Menchi 19:25, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * or History_of_East_Timor which already has more content about Portuguese Timor than is here. Kmusser 14:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I second the motion to merge it with History of East Timor. FilipeS 12:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Of course, East Timor as an article need only concentrate on the period from 2002, or from the 1970s when atleast it declared its independence as we see it now. Concise details of every period should appear on History of east Timor but this page needs to give the deeper facts about Portuguese Timor for what it was; and people's struggles within it. Evlekis 14:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. There are many articles like this one in Wikipedia. There´s "Dutch East Indies", "Portuguese Guinea", "Korea under Japanese Occupation", and they all being part of the series about their respective countries. We should maintain this same pattern with Timor.

Emerson

Unbalanced periods of history
There is 1 thing really weird, and it also happens in other national histories. That is the historical eras are not balance. Portuguese Timor was fomred in 1515, but the second paragraph already discussed about the 20th century. How can it pass so far like that. What about the events in the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th century. This artical also never discussed about how Portugal claimed the territory. We need to search and add the missing earlier events. 96.229.179.106 (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The article article is not complete - it's a very general summary. There is too much to do on wikipedia, and will take years to complete. Please feel free to find the sources, but the article should convey the fact that after the 16th century Portuguese decreased (except in East Timor), however, it does mention the remaining impact (I presume that is why you mention the 20th century). --Merbabu (talk) 04:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Infobox
I see no reason for the Former Country Infobox not be included in this article, every other former colony of Portugal has it, this one it's not different. That infobox was created precisely for these kind of articles. The infobox should be put back in the article. I also suggest that the Template:WikiProject Portugal be put in this talk page, it's within scope. Best regards -- Bluedenim talk 12:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My reasons for removal are in this edit summary which you did not address. thanks. --Merbabu (talk) 14:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Further, like most info boxes, it over-simplifies otherwise complicated and nuanced info to the point of being misleading. THere are many false assumptions that can be gathered from the info presented in the info box. Wikipedia is in the business of improving knowledge, not jingo-fying it into info-boxes. --Merbabu (talk) 14:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I also vote for restore the infobox. 96.229.126.4 (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but why? You've restored in before without any explanation. Wikipedia is based on discussion, not votes. --Merbabu (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

RESTORE THE INFOBOX. I agree with Bluedenim and the anonymous user. I AM IN FAVOR OF MAINTAINING THE INFOBOX. Why so other many other articles in Wikipedia have it, and this one must be deprived of it? Emerson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domaleixo (talk • contribs)

Inclusions in articles are not based on what other articles do. WIkipedia does not work by precedent. Please address the issues relating to this article;
 * Flag and arms are not for whole period – this info box suggests they are.
 * Info box is ugly, large and provides very little important information – ie, governors at the time are irrelevant.
 * Ie, all important info is already in the article.
 * The info box begins with first Portuguese settlement in the 16th century, but it wasn’t an official colony over the borders until the 18th century – that’s 200 years difference. Info box implies that the colony with the “full” border began in 16th century. --Merbabu (talk) 04:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Coat of arms
Could the following info please be restored into the article: "Portuguese Timor Arms (1935-1975)http://www.fotw.net/flags/tl!1967.html Flags of the World]" Other wise, i will remove the arms from the info box. --Merbabu (talk) 04:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I made the change with references. THe info was removed without reason or discussion by Domaleixo. here. --Merbabu (talk) 04:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * PS, i should have said, I am happy to hear how Domaleixo or other users suggest we incorporate the deleted info. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 04:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS
I notice "Emerson" (aka Domalexio) is canvassing Portuguese users for there opinion on this issue. I've suggest this is disruptive, and not aimed at article improvement, but at getting his point of view. He has posted at the Portuguese Project too - I advise for balance he should also post at the Indonesia Project and the East Timor project. --Merbabu (talk) 04:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
A section to discuss the whole infobox. I don't know the whole history between these users, and it appears that Merbabu (while perhaps removing an infobox without prior discussion) did summarise his/her reasons in an edit summary and is willing to discuss it now. Other users may want to be a bit more diplomatic in their discussion, but anyway.... as for Merbabu's reasons, I personally don't think it is ugly, and almost every article (bar a sports person article, and then not even then) the infobox contains information that the article contains. As far as I am aware, the infobox serves as a brief summary for those not willing to read the entire article. I therefore submit that the arguments of "the infobox is ugly" and "info is in the article anyway" are invalid. However the arguments about the flag, and the time line (see above points by Merbabu) I am not knowledgeable enough on the topic to comment, they may be valid reasons, though I haven't come across such an issue before. Why not footnote the infobox somehow explaining that timeline issues? SGGH speak! 07:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh and Domleixo, you need to sign your post using ~ thanks. --SGGH speak! 07:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, another issue is the actual info in there. Is a King of Portugal important in 1512? Why that king? I'm tending to see a lot of that info is coincidental and not critical. I guess I just don't like the "one size fits all" approach of a info box, that removes any nuance, and indeed justification for info in the user box is often simply that the template has the parameters without actually considering whether the info is worthwhile. Like I mentioned above, user boxes remove subtly and over-simplify important complexity and nuance. If this box is to stay, then it needs to handle the nuance. And in this case, it seems (as normal for Domaleixo) that excess Portuguese nationalism is clouding his judgment (and hence his WP:CANVASS of Portugal editors - why not canvass say Australians, Indonesia, or East Timor editors? --Merbabu (talk) 08:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you entirely that infoboxes are unable to handle the slight variation in topic (I see it a lot myself with infoboxes for police forces and the like) I will read the article and the other related topics to understand the topic a bit, but as an initial suggestion/recommendation, perhaps a stylised infobox could be created? SGGH speak! 15:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I understand now the arguement as to why you ought not to include the king in the infobox, but there was a Portuguese prescence in the area at that time, so does that possibly justify the inclusion of the king there? Even though it was not an official colony was the king not the king of the friars who went there? I would appreciate your thoughts on this. SGGH speak! 15:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You could also add complex dates like: 1556 first settled, 1702 incorporated. Or whatever is suitable, and you can remove names of governors and kings etc. I do not believe that removing the infobox is an option, however I believe it can be heavily customised. If there is a flag issue, you could create a new image with multiple flags and explain them in the caption, etc. SGGH speak! 15:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added (gah!) info to the user box to cater for the one size fits all blunt approach. I have also tried removing the more trivial and coincidental info with no luck. I also have attempted to add captions to the flag and arms info. Again, it's time for someone else to do this - I'm tired of being told what to do with no-one else actually doing anything. --Merbabu (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * PS, thanks for actually giving it detailed consideration - i will try to come back later. --Merbabu (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Tell you what I will try to find someone who good template/infobox know-how and get him/her to message you. SGGH speak! 22:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've asked here for someone to take a look. I'll stop watching this page now so if there is anything further you can message me, but hopefully that will help you out. Regards, SGGH speak! 21:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Flags
The Governor had his own flag, but Portuguese Timor just used the flag of Portugal. While Lisbon proposed giving overseas provinces, like Timor, their own flags with the flag of Portugal defaced with the province's coat of arms, none of these were ever adopted.

As regards Indonesian practice, I don't think the flag of Timor Timur was widely used if at all. Indonesian provinces had their own coats of arms, but not their own flags, as the country is a unitary state, not a federation. Even if East Timor had voted to become the Special Autonomous Region of East Timor (SARET) it would only have had its own coat of arms, no flag, according to Article 20 of the Constitutional Framework for a Special Autonomy for East Timor:

Chapter III Symbols of Identity

Article 20 The SARET may adopt its own coat of arms. The Indonesian national flag and Indonesian national anthem "Indonesia Raya" shall be flown and performed at such places and occasions as required by the existing laws and practices. Quiensabe (talk) 12:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

End of Portuguese rule
The sentence in this section that follows is confusing, perhaps misleading????

"The United Nations, allowed, recognise the annexation united Nations in order to create hatred between Timor and Indonesia." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.102.234 (talk) 13:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

(More) Problems with "End of Portuguese rule" section
It appears to me that the final section of this article is filled with problems. It seems to be politically biased, translated word-for-word, and even seems to espouse anti-Freemasonry. For example, the sentence, "Fretilin Party was no more than western Freemason tools used for establishing Australia and Its western allies base in East Timor in order to keep a close watch on Indonesia and Asia at large especially China" has all of these traits. Could somebody who is knowledgeable in the history of East Timor please rewrite it? (202.159.155.111 (talk) 07:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC))