Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Indonesian occupation of East Timor/1

Indonesian occupation of East Timor[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result: No action. The article has improved significantly, and there is no consensus to delist. Geometry guy 12:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:GAC number 4 It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, this article does not met this requirement, and is not likely to met it via a single bold edit. Also fails point three in that stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style). there is more content on the invasion mostly NPOV and none which is part of the main article about the invasion Indonesian invasion of East Timor as its not relevant. Statements like;

A significant trading partner with Indonesia, Canada has invested billions of dollars in Indonesian mining infrastructure
Japan provided hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to Indonesia during the 1990s

These type statements have next to nothing to do with the occupation of East Timor, even less to with the invasion in 1975. besdies these two there a similar statements about Australia, UK, US. Additional to this subsections of the Invasion are title US Involvement, Australian Involvement neither country was involved with the invasion that was Indonesia alone. Gnan garra 13:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The political and commercial context, which is what this discusses, is entirely relevant. I did not read "US involvement" and "Australian involvement" as accusations of complicity, incidentally, simply convenient shorthand for a summary of their respective diplomatic positions. Would changing the headings to "[Country] stance" or "[Country] diplomatic position" etc satisfy your objections? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involvement as define by wiktionary is the state of being involved, thus the titling is saying that US, Australia and other countries were involved in the occupation of East Timor. I say more "[Country] response" then explain the relevance of the response to the event. Gnan garra 15:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it does but that's a rather simplistic definition. The Shorter Oxford gives several meanings, including "entanglement" or a "confused or complicated state of affairs". However, your proposal of "response" is much better as is your idea of specifically contextualising each section :)--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the offending references to Canadian and Japanese non-military relations with Indonesia. (Although I feel they're relevant, I'm willing to negotiate for the sake of NPOV matters.) I've also rearranged the discussion of international involvement to after the Santa Cruz massacre. Hopefully this will alleviate concerns of POV prose. – Scartol • Tok 15:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Australia or The United States of America where involved in the invasion or occupation of East Timor. Arms sales to Indonesia by UK, Trade with Canada is still there, Even the article Title is NPOV. Statements like ...Many accepted media stories blaming the supervising United Nations and Australia... at best its a weasel, why only accepted stories are there other stories that dispute this. Gnan garra 00:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't say that they were involved in the invasion or occupation. What it says is that they continued to support the regime. That doesn't seem to me to be POV. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further Issues the template East Timor History has

Portuguese Timor (1515–1975)

Indonesian invasion (1975)

Indonesian occupation (1975 - 1999)

Vote for independence (1999)

Why is have Portuguese Timor(werent they also occupying) and Indonesian Occupation, the article should be at Indonesian East Timor. Gnan garra 00:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this point. Could you clarify it please?--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article content says ...In 1978 Indonesia purchased eight BAE Hawk jets, which were used during the "encirclement and annihilation" campaign. Britain sold dozens of additional jets to Indonesia in the 1990s image caption says Britain sold dozens of BAE Hawk jets to Indonesia during the occupation, some of which were used in the "encirclement and annihilation" campaign. this is reflective of the POV tone of the article and the use of poor wording to admonish countries that didnt oppose Indonesia' action. Gnan garra 01:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this POV? Surely, it's a matter of fact? Either the aircraft were used in the campaign or they weren't. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing the editors of this article of "using poor wording to admonish countries that didn't oppose Indonesia" is scarcely NPOV and hardly assuming good faith .... --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the article says Indonesia purchased eight BAE Hawk jets the image caption say Britain sold dozens of BAE Hawk please explain how 8 can be written as dozens, implying multiple lots of 12 even taking the smallest 2 lots of 12 thus 24 is 3 times the actual number used in the article text, is neutral commentary. Gnan garra 07:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the statements? The eight in 1978 were clearly part of the dozens sold overall. (See this BBC article for further info.) Why is this POV? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly that reference says the contract was sign in the 1980's not 1978. Secondly it was a political issue asking why the planes were being sold to Indonesia given the event in East Timor in 1999. Next how does the UK selling planes to Indonesia have anything to do with the occupation of East Timor. From the sources, the eight planes weren't sold to Indonesia in 1978 it was later in the 1980's, this raises the question which ever date is used how they can used as part of a campaign that occurred in 1977.
The issue with WP:NPOV is from the section WP:YESPOV that says It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions. This article fails to do that Gnan garra 14:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, with great regret. This is a competently crafted, detail-laden article. However, there are entire sections which fail to present one iota of the Indonesian perspective. The section "UN response and international law" is an example. There's no material in it supporting the Indonesian case. I find it hard to believe that there aren't RS which present a counter-argument. In its current form the article isn't NPOV due to such omissions. Please don't interpret my comments as supportive of what Indonesia did in East Timor. Just understand that a broad, balanced article should include a tad bit more on the Indonesian government's avowed reasons for its actions. Majoreditor (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment we should only be editing in a neutral point of view and that discussions on article content just that. There should be no need to make such statements to have your opinion considered. Gnan garra 04:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but we are all human and neutrality is exceedingly difficult to achieve. I appreciated Majoreditor's honesty. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:YESPOV is descriptive of the current article. Gnan garra 04:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what specific balancing points need to be incorporated into the article to fix it? What should they say and where should they go? And can you help with supplying appropriate reliable sources? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose de-listing. This well-written well-researched article can easily have extra material added to report Indonesia's view point though identifying precisely which bits need balancing is another matter. For example, does each well-sourced statement of atrocity require a balancing denial or justification? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not necessary for each point to have an opposing counterpoint. However, the article needs further coverage of the Indonesian viewpoint. As it currently stands the reader is presented with scant information on the Indonesian political, military and legal reckoning for its actions. The article won't require much additional material to acheive this end. The best way to sort out specifics will be through the article's talk page. Majoreditor (talk) 13:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much my feelings as well :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mine too, to have an Indonesian position/explanation/justification for every event would give undue weight, but that also doesnt mean that the information should be excluded. My issue is with the way other countries are presented as being participants in the invasion/occupation, and the relevance of Indonesian trade during the period. This IMHO comes from the sources being used who were playing on particular political POVs and scandals to sell the books, and in some cases bring the publics attention to events in the country. Gnan garra 15:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if the Indonesian trade is a POV-construct. I see from The Times digital archive that this was raised in the British press at the time. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent) As many of the perceived POV issues have been addressed, is it still appropriate to re-assess the GA status of this well-researched, well-written and well-scrutinised article? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mot all of the POV issues have been addressed, The article still has many issues, but I ceased listing to enable the editors to address those already made, there is still a lack of balance to the article content. Gnan garra 14:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to take a second look at the article in a few days. Majoreditor (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Much of this article is GA standard or arguably higher - certainly outstanding effort has been put into it. But there are still issues in terms of POV, its focus and extent coverage, in fact all three are related and can be fixed together. I've been addressing some of these and will continue to do so. On balance, it is my opinion that theoretically it should be delisted, but I would rather devote my energies to fixing the problems as I see them, rather than debating whether it's a GA or not. I won't be on wikipedia until maybe Thursday though. --Merbabu (talk) 01:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. One of my favourite NPOV principles is that in a neutrally written article, it should be impossible to tell what the point of view of the editors is. This is extremely difficult to achieve in an article such as this, where most editors are naturally sympathetic to the plight suffered by East Timor, and are hostile to the breaches of human rights that occurred under Suharto. The solution, in my view, is to let the facts speak for themselves, and describe them in cool encyclopedic language. I agree with previous comments that this article is extremely good, and in many ways ready for FAC, but I think it needs a rewrite for encyclopedic tone. Also, and I think this is related, the prose style needs some work.

This is already apparent in the lead. Long noun phrases are not good encyclopedic style, and the second and third sentences both feature them: "Condemned by numerous resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council, the occupation..." and "A Portuguese colony for hundreds of years, East Timor..." The problem is that these phrases are hard to digest, and they suggest connections without making them explicit. At best this produces difficult prose, at worst it results in leading sentences. I recommend a thorough copyedit. Geometry guy 21:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's some citation request tags which have appeared in the article. Majoreditor (talk) 03:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]