Talk:Indonesian occupation of East Timor
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Indonesian occupation of East Timor has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment. | ||||||||||||||||||||
 |
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on February 20, 2008. | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[edit] Major revision
I'm in the process of massively expanding this article (on a page in my userspace). Anyone thinking of contributing here may want to wait until I've implemented the work I've been doing. It shouldn't be later than 24 February. – Scartol • Tok 18:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- I lied. After an intense editing blitz, I finished the first draft of the article today. – Scartol • Tok 01:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Red links
I know there are a number of red links in the article right now. I plan to create these pages over the next week or so. (A task force or WikiProject is also in the works.) – Scartol • Tok 01:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Name
The name should be simplify to as Indonesian occupation of East Timor, doesn't need the year. 96.229.179.106 (talk) 07:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I also wonder the reason for including the year. It implies that it's disambiguating some other occupation, is it? Are there objections to moving it? Rigadoun (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- I put the dates in as I initially started the article (and a few others last week) as sequential 'chapters' in a series to cover East Timor history (see that history template on main page). While I still prefer using the dates, I won't slash my wrists if everyone else wants to lose them. :-) regards --Merbabu (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'd also !vote for losing the dates. It just seems like an unnecessary disambiguation. The current title could (and probably should) stay as a redirect, so it could still be used in a "chapter" type setting. Oh, and while I'm here, good luck on any future Peer Review/FAC you choose to undertake; the article is very impressive, albeit with a few prose problems. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 22:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- I put the dates in as I initially started the article (and a few others last week) as sequential 'chapters' in a series to cover East Timor history (see that history template on main page). While I still prefer using the dates, I won't slash my wrists if everyone else wants to lose them. :-) regards --Merbabu (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I tried moving it, but needs an admin to do it. --Merbabu (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] GA review
- Prose is well-written, layout fine. "Abuses by FRETILIN" is a tad stubby but there's no point in adding text for the sake of it.
- Copiously referenced.
- Covers the subject comprehensively.
- No POV issues.
- No indications of instability.
- Adequately illustrated. I'd prefer more action pix but you can only work with what you have.
- No reservations. Suggest taking it to Milhist for a Class-A review immediately (to give military input) then FAC.
--ROGER DAVIES talk 09:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- PS: I have not proof-read this. I read it for content. Nothing jumped out. --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Australian commentary
I'm fine with removing commentary, but I think the paragraph about Australia's involvement in the Timor Gap needs a transition at the start. Can we find an NPOV way to do this? – Scartol • Tok 15:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Salicine suggestions
Hi, I was asked by Scartol to look over the article and make suggestions. I think the article is excellent as is, but there might be a few points on which it could be improved. Willow (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Did this; hope it's OK. I would move the navigational template, {{History of East Timor}}, upwards into the lead, so that it runs parallel to the Table of Contents. Right now, it interrupts the flow of the writing and I fear wouldn't be found easily by people wanting to navigate. Willow (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm concerned that some readers will be ignorant of geography, and not know who East Timor's neighbours are, nor even where Indonesia is. I would suggest that you replace or augment the present map Image:LocationEastTimor.svg with another that shows Indonesia and Australia and possibly Malaysia as well. Bonus points for Japan, the other Asian country mentioned in the lead, but you might need a second map at larger scale, which might make East Timor tiny; perhaps you could combine them so that the "close-up" on East Timor is an inset? Willow (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- I would also include a close-up map of East Timor proper, one where you can see the major towns, such as this one. Some readers might never have heard of Dili, or might not know it to be the capital. Willow (talk) 15:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm also worried that readers will know little of the history of Portugal, so that the Carnation Revolution in the lead at least might warrant more contextual discussion. I know that it's all covered in other Wikipedia articles and the reader could just follow the links, but I think it'd be helpful to have more context here for the history of Portugal in East Timor and why events in Portugal had such disastrous consequences so far away. Willow (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- It might be helpful if more could be added about the advantages/disadvantages to Indonesia of its invasion and the benefits derived by other nations in turning a blind eye. Such topics can naturally be contentious and may be difficult to source adequately, but I think it would help the article. I'm thinking of something like the discussion of the role of American business interests in the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy. Willow (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- I can add this, but I hesitated, since it's mostly speculation. (As always, occupiers rarely discuss openly the benefits of their occupation.) Things like the Ombai-Wetar straits (which were highly prized by US planners) and resources like sandalwood and coffee were important (not to mention oil, which is in the Australia section), but I worried first about length and second about making the connections. I wanted to stick to the facts as they can be proven. (Scholarship on East Timor often veers into the speculative and I wanted to avoid that.) But encourage me again and I'll add it. – Scartol • Tok 16:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- I would use the "ABRI" abbreviation sparingly. Admittedly, it's slightly shorter than "Indonesia", but it comes at a cost of comprehensibility, especially with all the other abbreviations in the article, such as UDT, FRETILIN, etc. Is there some advantage to using ABRI? Willow (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- No, I just did it because it was easier and is very common in the literature (probably because it's easier). I also like varying my wording as much as possible, and seeing the word "Indonesian" so often gets tedious. (There's also the fairly academic issue of potentially associating, in the mind of the reader, the Indonesian people or even the government with the military. Admittedly there wasn't much difference between government and military during Suharto's reign, but still.) I've gone through and limited the use of ABRI and TNI. – Scartol • Tok 16:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- I foresee that the "US involvement" section will be a flash-point for criticism. You might want to reference every single sentence in the first paragraph, especially since you give Ford's and Kissinger's remarks in quotation marks. The very first sentence might be nicely referenced to some contemporary New York Times article. WillowW (talk • contribs) 16:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- It would be helpful to have more exact figures for Presidents Carter and Clinton. Was Carter's figure $112 million per year, or total from 1977-1981? For Clinton, how many is "several hundred" million? Willow (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- An exact date for Gough Whitlam's comment that East Timor was part of Indonesia? Can we find the exact newspaper article? Willow (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- A discussion of East Timor's role in World War II might be good in the initial Background section, so that it doesn't come out of the blue in the Australian section. It's interesting to me, too, since I'd somehow gotten the impression that officially neutral Portugal favored the Axis powers in WWII. Willow (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Invasion -- NPOV
The section titled as Invasion isnt neutral, the major points are the subsections going into details about countries selling arms in the 1990's to Indonesia, trade agreements signed in 1989. While these may be relevant to the continued occupation they have nothing to do with an invasion that occurred 7th December 1975. Gnangarra 13:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Those sections discuss the ongoing support for Suharto's regime by the governments of Australia, the US, and Britain (among others). We could split discussion of that support into other sections (would that allay your concerns?), but it would get messy. In any case, I don't understand how the placement of this information is POV. – Scartol • Tok 14:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Its NPOV because it implies that the sale of weapons in the 1990's is a cause and contributed to the invasion in 1975. Gnangarra 13:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- That certainly was not my intention – I merely wanted to group the discussion of foreign governments' support for Indonesia in one area, and since the US and Australia began supporting Indonesia's annexation of East Timor before the invasion took place, I originally put that discussion in the invasion section. However, I appreciate your concern, and I have rearranged the article to put that discussion after the section on the 1991 massacre. Hopefully this makes it satisfactorily NPOV. – Scartol • Tok 15:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Its NPOV because it implies that the sale of weapons in the 1990's is a cause and contributed to the invasion in 1975. Gnangarra 13:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Good article reassessment
- Are these still a problem? If so, could you explain? If not, could we remove the POV tag and rescind the reassessment request? – Scartol • Tok 01:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Further Issues
In lead Its limited scope and the small number of sentences delivered by Indonesian courts have caused numerous observers to call for an international tribunal for East Timor., while I not a big fan of citations in lead such a strong generalised statement which reads as the writers POV should have a citation or be removed. Gnangarra 00:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Alas, I did not add this sentence. Could the person who did please add a citation? – Scartol • Tok 01:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- My personal preference is also not to have citations in the lead, but ensure the lead only mentions items in the main body - that are of course cited. As for that particular point, words to that effect are at the end of the article, however, the lead does express it in a somewhat weaselly manner. (PS, it was included in the major expansion). --Merbabu (talk) 01:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Indonesian forces moved hundreds of thousands of people into camps, where they were subject to hunger and forbidden to leave. Hundreds of thousands, in population of 700,000 surely theres a subjective number rather than a generalisation that can be read as in excess of the total population. Gnangarra 01:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- the from CAVR resistance movements were polarised until the 1980's As the Resistance moved away from hardline ideology during the 1980s and embraced a “national unity” strategy, it reached out to all East Timorese who supported self-determination. yet not covered such divides are of importance to overall coverage. Gnangarra 03:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've found a number of issues with the CAVR reference in that information isnt as quoted, or pg numberings are different from both the reports actual page numbers and the PDF page numbering. Gnangarra 03:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] citation 94
From the article section deliberate starvation It concluded that a minimum of 84,000 people starved to death during the occupation.[94] cite 94 ^ CAVR, ch. 7.3, p. 143.
This is ch. 7.3 p143 from http://www.etan.org/etanpdf/2006/CAVR/Chega!-Report-Executive-Summary.pdf as cited
The right to an adequate standard of living Development and government spending Ø Despite the Indonesian Government’s large investment in Timor-Leste and the rapid economic growth that it produced, particularly when compared with the performance of the Portuguese colonial power, government security concerns rather than the interests of the majority of the population guided the distribution of that investment. The contrast between investment and growth in such sectors as transport and communications and government administration, and that in agriculture on which the vast majority of the population depended for its livelihood, strikingly illustrates the occupying power’s distorted priorities. Income and poverty indicators at the end of the Indonesian occupation, which show Timor-Leste lagging behind most other countries and all the provinces of Indonesia itself, provide strong evidence of the harmful effects that this choice of priorities had on the living conditions of the majority of East Timorese. Rights over natural resources Ø The Commission is satisfied that trading companies with direct links to the military and the Indonesian government deliberately and systematically underpaid coffee smallholders, thereby abridging their right to an adequate livelihood. Ø The arrangements that the Indonesian authorities put in place in the coffee industry was one of several instances where Indonesia denied the people of Timor-Leste an essential component of their right to self-determination, namely their right to dispose of their natural wealth and resources freely. The Indonesian authorities committed similar violations by exploiting other resources, including sandalwood and timber, without regard to sustainability and by failing to regulate the exploitation of these resources by others. These forms of exploitation of natural resources were also positively harmful to the well-being of the population and were sometimes used to fund military operations, and as such violated the duties of an occupying power. Ø In a further breach of the people of Timor-Leste’s right to dispose of its natural resources, the Commission finds that Indonesia and Australia concluded the Timor Sea Treaty in 1989 without consulting the people of Timor-Leste or paying due regard to their interests. The right to adequate food Ø The Indonesian government took measures that worsened the food situation of the people of Timor-Leste. Timor-Leste’s climate and the uneven quality of its soils make the food situation precarious at the best of times, and survival dependent on the population’s ability to move freely. The Commission has found that the Indonesian authorities did not just neglect agriculture; they also took security measures that positively worsened the chances of the farming population to make a living, primarily by forcibly settling them in infertile areas under conditions in which their movement was restricted.
In all of this text I see nothing that supports the claim nor any specific numbers that could be generalised to make such a statement that a minimum of 84,000 people starved to death during the occupation Gnangarra 03:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- The Chega report uses the figure 84,200 four times in the report (pp44, 72, 73, 146.) For example: p73
At a minimum, during the period 1975-1999, 84,200 people died due to hunger and illness in excess of the peacetime baseline for these causes of death, and the figure could be as high as 183,000. The overwhelming number of these deaths occurred in the years 1977-1978 and during the period of large-scale Indonesian military attacks on Fretilin bases in the interior where large numbers of civilians were living and in 1979 during the subsequent period of Indonesian military detention camps, and ABRI/TNI-controlled resettlement areas.
. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- My guess, Gnangarra, is that you're reading the Executive Summary of the report, and not Chapter 7.3. (I apologize if my note is confusing. I'll clear it up as soon as I can.) Page 143 of that document, you'll find, reads (502.2):
That I quoted only the minimum number in the report should serve to illustrate the extreme effort I've made to remain NPOV in spite of the supposed conflict of interest inherent in my work on this article. Cheers! – Scartol • Tok 02:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)At a minimum, during the period 1975-1999, 84,200 people died due to hunger and illness in excess of the peacetime baseline for these causes of death, and that the figure could possibly be as high as 183,000.
- My guess, Gnangarra, is that you're reading the Executive Summary of the report, and not Chapter 7.3. (I apologize if my note is confusing. I'll clear it up as soon as I can.) Page 143 of that document, you'll find, reads (502.2):
-
[edit] CAVR citation not matching report as per cited pg
Below is some more example of CAVR Citations quoting pages but corresponding pages in the citation dont match Gnangarra 05:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Indonesian forces moved hundreds of thousands of people into camps, where they were subject to hunger and forbidden to leave.[69] ^ CAVR, ch. 7, p. 50;
-
- It is sourced there at par. 161. --ROGER DAVIES talk 12:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- World Vision Indonesia visited East Timor in October 1978 and claimed that 70,000 East Timorese were at risk of starvation.[89] ^ CAVR, ch. 7.3, p. 72.
-
- It is sourced there at par. 225. --ROGER DAVIES talk 12:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- In 2006 the UN's Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation in East Timor reported that during the occupation large numbers of people were "positively denied access to food and its sources".[92] ^ CAVR, ch. 7.3, pp. 7–8. (unable to find cite section)
-
- It is sourced there at par. 20. --ROGER DAVIES talk 12:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The group's final report cites testimony from individuals who were denied food, and details destruction of crops and livestock by Indonesian troops.[93] ^ CAVR, ch. 7.3, p. 147. -- actually on pg 146
-
- !? Looks fine here. Page 147 is headed "Food crops and livestock destroyed" which covers the second half of the sentence. End of sentence citations are often ambiguous about the part of the sentence covered. I've changed the ref to pp 146-147, nevertheless. --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's very possible that Scartol is using a different version (page numbers often vary between print, PDF and internet versions of exactly the same report. Alternately you could be looking at different report) I'll wait to see Scartol explain. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] COI tag
User:Scartol was Co-ordinator of East Timor Action Network/US, as described here I remember coming close to smashing my set every time a US official took to the podium and talked about how "concerned" they were. I was receiving phone calls and emails from people in East Timor explaining how the paramilitary groups were roaming around on the streets, among dead bodies and burning buildings. I could hear the gunshots in the background. Meanwhile, Sandy Berger was ridiculing the notion of sending in peacekeepers.. you can read his full comment here, Gnangarra 01:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Scartol has always indicated as much on his user page. While he's passionate about the issue it's fairly obvious that he's making a really good faith attempt to write a high quality and NPOV encyclopedia article. He's been open to discussion throughout the entire process, has posted several kind requests on your talk page, has been taking into advisement the thoughts of many different reviewers. Is having been involved in a political advocacy issue a COI for ever writing about the subject? Nobody who's been to a Free Tibet concert can write about China? I've donated to the zoo, should I stop writing about hippos? The point is, he's been upfront about the association, open to feedback all along, and I don't feel that a COI tag on this article, (or a template on his user page!!) is a productive step in resolution. Patient discussion would probably be a more effective resolution. Can I persuade you, Gnangarra, as a gesture of good faith to remove the template from Scartol's talk page and return to discussing your concerns? --JayHenry (talk) 02:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Point of clarification: I was a coordinator for the International Federation for East Timor's Observer Project. I have been involved with ETAN for many years, but the above-quoted comment relates solely to my participation with IFET-OP in 1999. – Scartol • Tok 02:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Considering the comment was made else where two days after I raised concerns about the neutrality of the article and that I didnt find it for another two days, then only after another editor pinged a comment I made to Scartols talk page which referred to a Military history review. My concerns have always been about the way in which the article portrayed the actions of other countries to read a comment that says I remember coming close to smashing my set every time a US official took to the podium.. I had even referred to the way in which the article admonished other countries but still no comment from the editor that about their COI. I have been alone in voicing my concerns about the neutrality and the WP:YESPOV that this article has. I have acted in good faith the whole time unaware of the COI, I'm willing to work towards fixing the issues but as it stands at the moment IMHO an editor(the major contributor) has a COI and the article has serious NPOV issues, until such time that NPOV issues are addressed I see no reason to remove the COI templates. Gnangarra 02:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I mentioned my desire to smash the TV set to refute an editor's claim on the MilHist A-Class review that the US lobbied strenuously for Indonesia to allow peacekeepers in 1999. (I then backed this up with plentiful citations to reliable sources, which I notice you've not mentioned here.) This is not some irrational frustration I have toward US officials, nor is it indicative of my mindset whilst writing the article. It also had nothing to do with any of your comments.
- You write: "I had even referred to the way in which the article admonished other countries but still no comment from the editor that about their COI." I have no idea what this refers to. Between comments on my talk page, the GA reassessment, comments here, and comments on the MilHist A-Class review, I'm having a hard time keeping up with all of the many criticisms you've made of the article so far. Perhaps you could make one central list of complaints, which I could go through and attempt to remedy, one at a time?
- To give just one example of my good-faith efforts to appease your NPOV concerns: As soon as you complained that the inclusion of US- and Australian government relations should not be in the "Invasion" section, I moved it to a section of its own, after the discussion of the Santa Cruz massacre. That was two days ago, and yet the POV tag is still at the top of the Invasion section.
-
-
-
-
-
- I moved the POV tag to the area of concerns which still implies that the US, Australia and others were Involved in the occupation, torture, starvation, genocide of East Timor, yet it was only Indonesia that occupied the country, it was Indonesian military that carried out the events to which this article is dedicated to expose.
Address what I have raised in the GAR, and here on the talk page, the choice of venue wasnt to make life difficult some issues are directly related to whther the article should be assessed as GA while others were issues that should have no bearing on GA like the citations where I was sure that the issue was simply differences in page numbering between the linked report and the one from which you had sourced the information. Gnangarra 14:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I moved the POV tag to the area of concerns which still implies that the US, Australia and others were Involved in the occupation, torture, starvation, genocide of East Timor, yet it was only Indonesia that occupied the country, it was Indonesian military that carried out the events to which this article is dedicated to expose.
-
-
- It's entirely up to you how long the COI tag remains in place but, in the circumstances, it seems inappropriate as this is primarily a content dispute. Furthermore, the editor in question is actively adressing the perceived conflict of interest areas along the lines proposed in the "Action" section of COI.--ROGER DAVIES talk 08:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] International response and Indonesia's perspective
I've heavily edited the section which is now titled "International response". I hope this will alleviate concerns of POV writing. (The original text is still available here in case we need it; one editor has suggested a separate article for a more in-depth discussion.)
The next step is to find areas of the article which need more discussion of Indonesia's perspective. Where do we need to add such a discussion?
I would point out that such discussion already appears:
- at the end of the first section of "Invasion";
- in the "Demography and economy" section (second-to-last paragraph); and
- in the "1999 vote" section (third paragraph)
Thank you all for your work on this article. – Scartol • Tok 18:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- I give an analogy, Fred buys 2 guns from Joes gunmart and then goes and shots a couple of people, he then goes back and buys another 8 guns and goes out and shots more people. Fred gets caught we write an article about Freds activities do we have a section called Joes Gunmart Involvment, Joe Gunmart Response? We dont because this is POV Gnangarra
-
-
- But we do. Look at Darfur_conflict#Criticism_of_international_response and Iran-Iraq_War#The_Tanker_War_and_U.S._support_for_Iraq. Are you saying that you now want the entire section removed? – Scartol • Tok 02:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- in the GAR I raise a point where dates from sourcing compared to dates in the article dont gel, the encirclement and annihilation campaign the article says was in 1977[source book] the aircraft according to the article says they were purchased in 1978[source -- book], the BBC source says the contract was signed in 1980's. Gnangarra
-
- For the international responses with books are saying public opinion was xxx this RSL did yyy so the government did zzz if this is so then there should also be sources from within media and government records, likewise for visits by heads of state. Dont rely one one person interpretation of public opinion. Gnangarra 00:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I have no idea what this means. (What is RSL?) The last sentence, obviously, I agree with; I've provided multiple sources all over the article. – Scartol • Tok 02:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- RSL Returned Services League, last sentence in the Australian response is Australian World War II veterans protested the occupation for similar reasons.[140] there would be extensive media reporting of this, these reports for 1975 are a better source than Free East Timor: Australia's Culpability in East Timor's Genocide. written in 1998 as there is less potential editorial bias. Gnangarra 04:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- To be perfectly honest, I don't see what Gnangarra is getting at. 'International response' or similar sections are contained in pretty much every article on Wikipedia about occupations and invasions. I suggest that removing the international context would be POV, as it would be a move to remove the context surrounding this issue, which loomed large over the relations of the US, UK, Australia, and NZ with Indonesia for 25 years. The response of the international community, both government and non-government is a large part of the story of the occupation.I'm not convinced we've got the tone exactly right yet, but the way to do that is to edit collaboratively, not remove the section.
-
- As for sourcing issues - there are a wealth of sources from academics, and a number from government documents - I'm happy to put any in where things are unreferenced, or it's felt that the source may be 'biased', but given the level of referencing I haven't felt the need so far. If there are sources that are seen as unreliable, then identify them and I'll do what I can to replace the refs with independent sources. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Thanks for this. I agree that removing the international response section would be POV. (Like the caption edit discussed below.) – Scartol • Tok 02:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not saying remove the section, the pre invasion meetings are relevant, the trade over the gap is relevant, the UN resolutions are relevant(was there UN resolution in 75 to not sell arms to Indonesia due to the invasion?, if so that'd make the sales relevant. ATM By saying the UK sold dozens of Aircraft to Indonesia, doesnt mean UK said here Indonesia we agree with the what your doing in East Timor have dozens of planes as a reward, which the article reads like. Gnangarra 03:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for this. I agree that removing the international response section would be POV. (Like the caption edit discussed below.) – Scartol • Tok 02:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- As a point of information, there was a very considerable furore in the UK - both in the media and in Parliament - about the ethics of arms sales to Indonesia. The argument was precisely the same as that used for arms sales in all contentious circumstances: selling arms tacitly supports the government to which they are being sold - and the actions of that government - by helping them continue in power. Turning a blind eye like this is sometimes known as "silent support". Whether this ought to be made clearer in the article is a separate issue.--ROGER DAVIES talk 08:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I agree that this section isn't a NPOV account. It basically presents a narrative of the world's governments never caring about East Timor - this isn't entirely incorrect (as East Timor is a small and possibly marginally viable country a long way from anywhere), but it is an oversimplification. A particular problem with this section is that it doesn't provide a global perspective on the issue. Why are the US, Britain and Australia singled out for special mention when the article states that all of Indonesia's neigbours provided formal or de-facto support for the occupation?
- Because the US, Britain and Australia are three of the most powerful nations in the world, especially with regard to the region. I'm fine with the changes you recommend (I'll see what Merbabu provides before I take another crack at it), but most of the literature available in English focuses on those three countries, discusses Portugal mostly as washing its hands (a complaint which was voiced by the Timorese resistance during most of the occupation), and describes the frustration with ASEAN's passivity. I've tried to represent the literature as I've found it. (Everyone with other sources, step right up.) – Scartol • Tok 21:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- The section also doesn't highlight the fact that many other countries opposed the invasion and occupation. Countries such as Portugal and Mozambique opposed the occupation and I believe that East Timor kept its seat at the UN. The international support for East Timorese self determination in 1999 seems worth mentioning here as well, as it suggests that governmental attitudes changed over time - the Australian government provided fairly strong support for the process which led to independence, including preparing a large peacekeeping force to intervene if things went bad several months ahead of the referendum. At the risk of being controversial, it may also be worth mentioning that there appeared to be some good reasons to support the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in 1975. East Timor was clearly economically marginal and was suffering from a de-facto civil war, so it's wrong to assume that democratic governments were acting without regard for East Timor's people when they supported or ignored the initial invasion. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- It might also be worth mentioning the public opposition to Indonesia's actions in Australia and the US, and the impact this had on governmental policy. The great majority of Australians opposed the occupation, and the governmental support for the Indonesians was always unpopular. The important role played by international human rights bodies and NGOs (including ETAN) should also be mentioned in this section to illustrate the organised international opposition to the occupation. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I agree, but I think it best if someone else adds it. I actually avoided mentioning ETAN except in passing, because I was worried about accusations of COI and POV. Go figure! – Scartol • Tok 21:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'd also like to see the coverage of the Australia's sheltering a number of activist and families particularly in Darwin. Additionally Australia political stability wasnt what it is now, with the sacking of the Whitlam government in November 1975 and the elections on 13th December(6 days after the invasion), if anything it shows that Indonesia was given a unique opportunity to take action when the nearest country considered capable of doing anything wasnt in a position to do anything, nor were any other countries able to as there wasnt a Government to authorise the use of Australian facilities because of the conditions imposed on Fraser until after the election. Then add to that the political legacies on Australia and the US from the Vietnam war which ended only 6 months before, neither country could take any military action. Its just an observation on my part as I dont have sources(though I'll see what I can find) to attribute the domestic situation in Australia and its effect directly on the Invasion. Gnangarra 08:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- If I am to add anything about this, I'll need sources. James Dunn – the most significant Australian historian of the occupation, in my estimation – doesn't spend much time on this upheaval. He paints a picture of the Whitlam and succeeding governments proceeding with full awareness and capability of their actions. – Scartol • Tok 14:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'd also like to see the coverage of the Australia's sheltering a number of activist and families particularly in Darwin. Additionally Australia political stability wasnt what it is now, with the sacking of the Whitlam government in November 1975 and the elections on 13th December(6 days after the invasion), if anything it shows that Indonesia was given a unique opportunity to take action when the nearest country considered capable of doing anything wasnt in a position to do anything, nor were any other countries able to as there wasnt a Government to authorise the use of Australian facilities because of the conditions imposed on Fraser until after the election. Then add to that the political legacies on Australia and the US from the Vietnam war which ended only 6 months before, neither country could take any military action. Its just an observation on my part as I dont have sources(though I'll see what I can find) to attribute the domestic situation in Australia and its effect directly on the Invasion. Gnangarra 08:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, but I think it best if someone else adds it. I actually avoided mentioning ETAN except in passing, because I was worried about accusations of COI and POV. Go figure! – Scartol • Tok 21:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] Integration monument image
I had originally placed the image of the integration monument at the top of the page, since I feel it is a powerful representation of Indonesia's stated goals, and how different those were from the East Timorese reception. I attempted to explain this with a caption cited to a reliable source.
Gnangarra later moved the image and changed its caption, deleting mention of the East Timorese perception of the monument, claiming the original caption was POV.
I'd like to restore the image to the top of the page and use the original caption; Gnangarra is clearly opposed to this. Rather than an edit war, let's discuss. What do other folks think? – Scartol • Tok 18:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's referenced to a reliable source. I think that the image should go into a section on how the Indonesians portrayed their invasion. The difference between the rhetoric and the the opinion of the East Timorese with regards to the occupation (which is well documented, so it's hardly a controversial claim) is worth noting. There definitely needs to be mention of the May 31st 'Popular Assembly' and Act of Integration, and their recognition and 'observation' by a number of external powers. I might work on that this afternoon if I get more work done on my thesis! Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Random comments
The article as it stands doesn't seem to me to have any particularly noticable defects. I note that the claims of POV and COI seem to have been removed, which seems appropriate. God knows I'm kind of strapped for time right now, but will try to add what I can as I can. John Carter (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Without commenting on any POV or COI issue, there is still info to add in my opinion, and other bits to trim - ie, transfer to detailed articles - as I did with the Santa Cruz massacre section. But like John Carter, I won't be able to this immediately - hopefully a little bit in the next few days, then I will have a another good go next week. regards --Merbabu (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Number of casualites
The info mentioning "400 Indonesian paratroopers killed" in the airborne assault on Dili are pure fantasy. There were only 35 soldiers killed during the day-long battle to expel FALINTIL gunmen from the city, while there are 250 dead FALINTIL gunmen recovered by Indonesian soldiers in the city. Also recovered from the dead FALINTIL gunmen was hundreds of NATO-issue weapons that has been abandoned by the Portuguese, looted by the FALINTIL, and later entered the service of Indonesian army.
My source is written by Indonesian journalist who jumped with the paratroopers into Dili on 7th of December 1975. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.124.100.172 (talk) 06:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, your source says one thing and my sources say another. I believe the standard procedure here is to explain both perspectives? – Scartol • Tok 12:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Scartol - assuming that the sources in question have some credibility (ie, credibility doesn't necessarily mean accuracy). I'll get back to you on that one! --Merbabu (talk) 12:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm - from what I can see, the source says 35 green berets died on that particular day, and 122 Fretilin fighters were killed - how did we get 250? Maybe I need to read it all. --Merbabu (talk) 13:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I've adjust the section to include both sources. I guess this is the best way. Please adjust further or advise as you see fit. regards --Merbabu (talk) 13:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
LOL, I don't think Scartol's source has any credibility at all. It does not even make sense. There were only around 641 Indonesian paratroopers who jumped into Dili to take that city on the morning (06:00 am) of December 7, 1975. They engaged in day-long combat against hundreds of FALINTIL gunmen who have looted the well-stocked Portuguese arsenal, in which they managed to expel the FAILINTIL from the city by 12 o'clock of the same day, so the combat took only six hours before Indonesian victory. By three PM, Indonesian armed forces chief General Benny Moerdani can safety tour the city of Dili.
If 400 Indonesian paratroopers were "killed" as alleged by Scartol and his source, then that means two-thirds of the airborne troopers were killed. FALINTIL must be such a hapless bunch of rabble so that a force that supposedly been practically wiped-out managed to throw them out of Dili in only six hours.
It is clear that Scartol's source is most likely just propaganda material by the leftist anti-Indonesian propagandist Carmel Budiardjo (a British she-communist married to an Indonesian communist), material unfit to be displayed in Wikipedia. The truth is there were only 35 Indonesian paratroopers who died on the invasion day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.124.120.37 (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- The threshold for inclusion in wikipedia is not truth but verifiability. Your sources doesn't even have a name on it. Further, its common practise to include both sources. You say yours is the truth, and thus others are lies. There are two sources - prove to us that yours is the only truth. WP:V might help.--Merbabu (talk) 13:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- LOL, calm down buddy. Do what you said you want to do, i.e. read my Angkasa article to find out all the information I wrote. I think I've proven beyond any doubt that Scartol's source is illogical and false. My source is as verified as any article could be verified. There are only 641 Indonesian paratroopers who jumped into Dili on December 7th, 1975, and only 35 died. It is logically impossible that a force that has supposedly been wiped-out (if Scartol's hilarious claim of "400 paratroopers killed" is taken seriously), could defeat hundreds of well-armed gunmen in only six hours.
-
- Now, stop vandalising my verifiable article. Or are you an anti-Indonesian fellow who is trying to force people to believe mythical anti-Indonesian propaganda? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.124.120.37 (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that I have got my point across. We need to give both sets of sources/views a presence. We've established that both sources have significant credibility - but, this does not necessarily equal accuracy/fact. On the other hand, we haven't shown that one or the other is clearly false. I understand your position on the Angkasa article, however, your argument that the others are false is based on the unproven assumption that Angkasa is correct (eg, there were also marines). In light of that uncertainty, we need to list both. Unfortunately, these kind of topics are inherently contentious, and when editing wikipedia, we are not here to judge what is correct or not - rather, we are here to present verifiable view points (but verifiable viewpoints, are not the same as accurate facts). The assumption of one single accurate point of view misses the point wikipedia. We are not here to judge what version is the "truth" and "fact" - you are trying to rationalise another source to discredit it - that's not our job. See WP:OR, WP:SYN. Rather we are here to represent points of view as points of view - not as facts. What matters is that both are (a) verifiable and (b) significant.
- I don't doubt the useability of information from the Angkasa article as another point of view (ie, I included it, but changed it from 250 dead from "pihak" Falintil to 122 as listed in the article). But, there is no case to remove the other source - again, both need to be shown in this case. Perhaps a fix is to alter the wording might help?
- On another note - please don't ask people to "calm down", etc. Nor try to assume that one person is "anti" or pro one side. It's pointless, and shows a lack of WP:AGF. It's also relative - ie, I'm sure Scartol doesn't think I'm "anti-Indonesian". We all need to be WP:CIVIL. I'd also suggest you sign in with an account, rather than continue to use different anonymous IP's, but that's just a suggestion. --Merbabu (talk) 02:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- PS, I also note there is a similar issue on Indonesian invasion of East Timor. Ie, you are replacing one set of credible sources with another. --Merbabu (talk) 02:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- I apologize for my delay in responding to this matter. The number 400 comes from José Ramos-Horta's book Funu. He writes on p. 107: "At least 400 Indonesian paratroopers were shot dead before reaching the ground on the first day of the invasion." Obviously, Mr. Ramos-Horta, as a member of FRETILIN's leadership, cannot be considered an unbiased source – but neither, I believe, is his perspective worthless. (After all, he was there.)
- Since the source currently in the article describes the Indonesian military's actions as "liberating Dili" (among other interesting word choices), I daresay it's not very objective either. So once again, I propose that we include both sources. However, I'd rather not make such an edit, lest I be accused of COI or POV or some such offense. Cheers. – Scartol • Tok 00:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me - unfortunately, independent accounts of such events are hard/impossible to come by, so presenting both, without claiming either as definite truth, is the way to go. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- I agree too. Although obviously both can’t be correct, both sources have at least a degree of credibility and I am happy enough for them both to be presented in the text – at wikipeida, we are not the judges of “the truth”, we can only weed out the obviously and undeniably ridiculous. Although each source may well have their biases, neither has yet been categorically shown to be ridiculous.
- This, however, is not the opinion of the anon IP whose version currently stands – i.e., they’ve used the Angkasa source as the sole piece of information. There’s a similar case over at Indonesian invasion of East Timor. Not sure how we should handle it – perhaps just reinstate the “two-sources” version. --Merbabu (talk) 03:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me - unfortunately, independent accounts of such events are hard/impossible to come by, so presenting both, without claiming either as definite truth, is the way to go. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Now, stop vandalising my verifiable article. Or are you an anti-Indonesian fellow who is trying to force people to believe mythical anti-Indonesian propaganda? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.124.120.37 (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
So, I've put the info back to show both figures. here. However, the 400 dead figure should be cited in-line. I'm presuming it's one of the sources cited in the paragraph. cheers. --Merbabu (talk) 14:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
