Talk:Portuguese Timor

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Unbalanced periods of history

message: 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 -- Bluedenimtalk 12:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My reasons for removal are in this edit summary which you did not address. thanks. --Merbabu (talk) 14:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: I also vote for restore the infobox. 96.229.126.4 (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Oh and Domleixo, you need to sign your post using ~~~~ thanks. --SGGH speak! 07:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: PS, thanks for actually giving it detailed consideration - i will try to come back later. --Merbabu (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Infobox

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Coat of arms

message: 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)
thread_title: [[WP:CANVASS]]

message: 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)
replies: text: Oh and Domleixo, you need to sign your post using ~~~~ thanks. --SGGH speak! 07:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: PS, thanks for actually giving it detailed consideration - i will try to come back later. --Merbabu (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Discussion

message: 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)
thread_title:  Flags 

message: 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)
thread_title:  End of Portuguese rule 

message: 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)
thread_title:  (More) Problems with "End of Portuguese rule" section