Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian Involvement in the East Timor Invasion


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is for article retention. Discussion about a potential name change can continue on the article talk page if desired. North America1000 21:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Australian Involvement in the East Timor Invasion

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

By the creator's own omission, this article was created as a WP:POVFORK from the Paul Keating article after badly sourced and biased material concerning the former Australian Prime Minister was rejected there (the discussion of this is at Talk:Paul Keating). This material has been included in this article instead, along with other material providing a highly biased account of history (eg, a strong implication that the Fraser Government's focus "was ignoring the issue of human rights"). While the topic of Australia's relations with Indonesia concerning East Timor is notable, this article is fundamentally biased and was created in bad faith to repeat slurs against a living person which had been rejected from their article and should be deleted per WP:TNT and WP:BLP. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC) Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, cleanup and rename. This is a massive subject that is well-covered in all sorts of sources going back to the 1970s, and one that we should have had an article on a long time ago. The article needs some serious work, and I definitely agree that the author is way too biased to helpfully contribute here, but WP:TNT is massive overkill and the fifty reliable sources in this article is well and truly enough to sketch out the basis of a decent treatment of this topic. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 11:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge The content of this article should be merged with the Australia East Timor relations article since it covers very similar territory. (Pardon the pun.)Knobbly (talk) 11:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * KeepThe article has changed and improved since it's nomination for deletion and I recognise that the content is focused on the historical aspects of Australi's involvement rather than it's current relationship with East Timor.Knobbly (talk) 10:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree: this is much more about Australian relations with Indonesia than East Timor, and stuff about interactions with different governments before East Timorese independence would be wildly off-topic for that article - which has more than enough material on its actual subject. Not only do they not cover similar territory, they shouldn't even particularly overlap, except to the extent that that article covers the aftermath of this one. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 11:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I also disagree (talk)This is more about Australian relations with Indonesia, the differences between internal governments, and in fact how the public saw the issue. It's really only related to Australia - East Timor relations to a minor degree.Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. There is a great deal of writing on this topic, and frankly I am sort of surprised there is not an article already (considering there are at least 5 books and 3 government reports on this topic). Apart from that, I am the author, and in countering Nick-D, of course I did create the article as a partial fork, because to put any more content about East Timor in the Paul Keating page, would have been a WP:UW issue, so it was more appropriate in a general article on the topic, and in fact I was warned *against* including any East Timor material in the Keating article here in this pleasantry because of WP:UW. However, as is obvious, the article has equal covereage to all the prime ministers involved during this period, in fact Keating's section is one of the smallest. As for the article "created in bad faith to repeat slurs against a living person" ??? what the?????Nick-D if there is something that is in there you think is unfair or untrue about Paul Keating, simply feel free to take it out. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep No evidence to support the nom's assertions that "this article is fundamentally biased and was created in bad faith to repeat slurs against a living person", namely Paul Keating. Article is very well-sourced to academic texts, reports and other documents. Seems to me like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT AusLondonder (talk) 06:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as article is well referenced to reliable sources so WP:GNG is passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I am submitting this to WP:GA and working on the Australian public's reaction to the Timor Invasion section, if anyone knows about that, please feel free to add to that part. The content for the rest is pretty good, now. Cheers! To be honest, I don't think there is any reason for this article to be nominated for AfD and I think it's probably a waste of people's time being here... but anyways....Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete unless POV and article title issues can be resolved. StAnselm (talk) 23:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * CommentSt - actually the title was discussed by a number of users, and a new title was agreed on, it will be changed if the article gets through AFD - you can see the discussion and the new title here In terms of the NPOV, I've now removed the section (about Fraser) mentioned above by the nominator for the AfD. There's been quite a few changes made to the article since it was submitted here - I think it would be great if people could identify if there are still any particular outstanding NPOV issues?, they can easily be removed Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I (not the author) proposed Australia and the Indonesian occupation of East Timor because it needs to encompass a lot more than about the original invasion (this needs to and does cover events more than twenty years after!), and more than just government policy towards it (for instance, I've just been reading some books about Australian activists' interactions with the resistance movement). The amended title has been agreed to on the talk page and I can move it as soon as this is done. It needs a solid cleanup but it's hardly WP:TNT-worthy and there's no point doing a prose rewrite with an AfD tag hanging over its head because it's a fairly long article. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 02:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The Drover&#39;s Wife If you do find some more content on the Australian public involvement with East Timor groups, please feel free to add it to that section ...  I haven't been able to find much. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The lead seems to have been written by someone who thinks the invasion was a Bad Thing. This is precisely what we mean by POV - not the opinion of the editor, but that it shows through in the writing. In particular, the sentence "Australia assisted the Indonesian military with training and materiel, even while human rights abuses were occurring and the Indonesian military was implicated in massacres". This sounds like original synthesis - it is linking the assistance with the abuse in a way that suggests complicity. This may well have been the case - but it will need to be properly cited and discussed. The lead is a very poor one - it does not actually summarise what's in the article, and nothing in the sentence I quoted seems to be in the article body. (I have no idea how anyone can think this is even coming to close to GA!) This is related to the title problem - it sounds like there was military assistance in the invasion itself. StAnselm (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this feedback, StAnselm (talk). As mentioned already, the Title change was discussed on the talk page, and the title will be changed after the AfD proceess. The Drover&#39;s Wife suggesting Australia and the Indonesian occupation of East Timor. In terms of the NPOV material, I have gone through now and removed anything that appeared to be NPOV, and made sure everything has references. If you spot any unreferenced material that is a concern, or can point out any specific NPOV issues, please mention them and they can be dealt with. Once again, thanks so much for all your feedback. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Yes, that's a lot better. In light of that, I am happy to change my !vote keep. StAnselm (talk) 00:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * (The only remaining issue is the mention of Australian assistance; on what basis do we say this is relevant to the occupation?) StAnselm (talk) 00:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ahh, ok the Australian assistance in the lead para? Ok, I can see how this may be seen as an improper synthesis, and in any case, not sure the lead para is the place for detail on it - I take your point, I've removed it. It possibly belongs in more detail and an explanation of proper context in the body of the article rather than the lead in any case. Thanks once again StAnselm (talk), I think all the NPOV issued anyone can see are dealt with now. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * StAnselm (talk If the NPOV issues are addressed now, do you mind if I remove the NPOV tag? Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Almost. Last point: Did East Timor "gain" or "regain" its sovereignty in 2002? Maybe we should just say "gain its independence". StAnselm (talk) 04:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Gain its independence" works for me - it dodges an issue about the recognition of the 1974 government. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 04:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... "I would have said regains its independance". I'm not 100% sure of the legal definition of an independant nation, but Portugal had lost interest in East Timor and moved to decolonise it's colonies, and after Fretilin defeated the UDT coup (who mostly fled), they made a unilateral declaration of independence on 28 November 1975, of the Democratic Republic of East Timor. 6 Countries recognised them as independent. Indonesia invaded soon after on the 7th of December. So only independent for 10 days...but still independant! Deathlibrarian (talk)
 * Which means a lot did not. And Australia was the only one to recognise the annexation, so for 25 years most countries still officially regarded it as Portuguese. StAnselm (talk) 09:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * True, most didn't, and Portugal actually didn't either I think. However, as I said, I don't know actually what legally/technically qualifies a country to be an independent nation?? Is there some sort of conditions a country has to meet? Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Neither of those rationales you have put forward are grounds for deletion - see WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP AusLondonder (talk) 07:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * But if consensus cannot be obtained at either of these points, WP:TNT may be the best option. (That is, start a new article about Australia and the Indonesian occupation of East Timor.) StAnselm (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a WP:ESSAY! MPS1992 (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. The article seems to be badly named, and may suffer from NPOV issues, but Australian involvement in and reactions to Indonesian invasion of East Timor is probably a notable topic. Unless an argument is made that there are no sources (if so ping me) I don't think TNT is needed here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep (but renamed) -- This is a notable subject. I would suggest Australian policy on the Indonesian annexation of East Timor.  I am looking for a NPOV name.  If there is inaccurate content, the solution is to correct it by editing and referencing it.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.