Jump to content

Talk:Timor Leste Defence Force

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleTimor Leste Defence Force is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 29, 2012.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 23, 2008WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
February 7, 2008WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
March 26, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on February 1, 2011, and February 1, 2021.
Current status: Featured article

Name

[edit]

The name of the defense forces is given in English and in Tetum, but what language is "Forças de Defesa de Timor Leste"? LordAmeth (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portugese. Is that worth adding to the article? It's the force's common name in English-language publications (almost always abbreviated to F-FDTL). --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Move to East Timor Defence Force

[edit]

Propose that this page be moved to East Timor Defence Force as this is the closest translation of Forças de Defesa de Timor Leste. I have worked in Timor Leste as a government advisor, including with FDTL, and have never heard anybody ever refer to the FDTL as Military of East Timor. Ex nihil (talk) 06:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, 'East Timor Defence Force' is considered outdated. While it was commonly used when the force was established, almost all english-language publications now use 'F-FDTL'. 'Military of East Timor' is a generic name, and I agree that it's rarely used and not a great title. I'd prefer 'Timor Leste Defence Force' as this seems to be the direct translation, but this would be inconsistent with the other Wikipedia articles on the country. Should we be bold and move this article to 'Timor Leste Defence Force'? --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I so totally agree with you. 'Timor Leste Defence Force' is it. The only reason I did not propose that was the failure to change the country page from East Timor to Timor Leste, a decision that I feel was extremely discourteous of Wikipedia considering the government's specific request that it be referred to as Timor Leste. If you have worked there you will know that everybody uses 'Timor Leste', even the ADF but the Australian DFAT uses East Timor although the more enlightened Kiwi embassy call it TL. I suggest we leave it for 48 hours to see if anyone has any strong feelings and then change it to ' Timor Leste Defence Force' with diverts from F-FDTL and FDTL. Ex nihil (talk) 08:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that approach. In the interests of consensus editing, I've posted a note at Talk:East Timor (in lieu of a Wikiproject on the country) to seek other editors' views. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand the argument to list the defence force by it's official name, but this certainly shouldn't be taken as a precedent to change everything else to "Timor Leste" when it is not the name the country is most well recognised by (as required by WP:NAME).--Merbabu (talk) 10:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: that would be an abuse of process. All we're suggesting here is that the article be moved to the military's more common English name, which is clearly 'Timor Leste Defence Force' (as F-FDTL is an unsuitable article title). As there's no consensus on the name of the country, I've thought it proper to consult on the move before making it. 'Military of East Timor' will, of course, redirect to 'Timor Leste Defence Force' and I'll create East Timor Defence Force as a redirect as well. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with some move along these lines; Timor Leste Defence Force is just fine. Just be aware though of the undercurrents in the country between the 'national language', Tetum, and the 'official language', Portugese. There were some references to 'Timor Lorosae Defence Force' or some such, in the early years after 1999. However right now Timor Leste Defence Force is just fine. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As no-one has raised any objections, I've just made the move. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good move, well done Ex nihil (talk) 12:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Is "Naval Component" meant to be a proper noun - ie, an actual name? Or should it be written as "naval component". If it is a proper noun, then we shouldn't be saying "a Naval Component"--Merbabu (talk) 08:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People's Daily Online

[edit]

This story in the Chinese People's Daily Onsite has copied and pasted several paras worth of material from this article without attribution. Nick-D (talk) 23:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For background, original title was 'Conscription in East Timor':

Hi, Do you know if East Timor currently has military conscription in place? This 2008 UNHCR-sponsored report says it was introduced in 2007 but the CIA World Fact Book says that there was no conscription as at 2008. Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer - no. RS: http://navfacpacific.us/Timor%20Leste/.../Timor%20Chief%20Brief%20APR10%20v1.ppt.

I spoke to an official in the UNMIT Security Sector Support Unit in April-May. The force size is ~717 + 579 new recruits from December 2009, minus 11 deceased. 150 of those new recruits are going to the naval component. Those recruits (implied) were volunteers; as you wrote yourself, thousands tried for the few spots in the 2nd Battalion earlier. Much of that should be reflected in the link above, which is a powerpoint briefing from the chief of the U.S. Office of Defence Cooperation at the Embassy in Dili. TMR is now a Major General; Lere An Timor a Brigadier. A third battalion is under consideration and the force size aim is still 3,000 by 2020. Note in your link that there is no confirmation that this legal provision is to be enforced; like the Selective Service System in the United States. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks a lot for that (and for the very useful link). It's proving rather interesting updating the F-FDTL and Australian Defence Force articles at the same time! Nick-D (talk) 09:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done (though it's pretty similar to the US Embassy's report on its engagement with the F-FDTL during 2009 which I've been using as a citation). Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I hope that you don't mind me undoing this edit, but that is the figure the IISS gives for just the 'Army' (with an additional 82 for the Naval Element). Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted your revert. Let me explain why. Effectively there is a single armed service, with two battalions and a whole bunch of company sized units, including the HQ and the logs & comms units, and the navy. The navy has always been roughly company-sized (ie ~120). So separating the 'army' and the 'navy' is a mistake. The IISS data is not very good quality; here it is downright misleading. The U.S. Embassy figures of 719 + 579 for the entire armed forces match almost exactly the UN figures I quoted above of 717 + 579. The difference may be in the way they account for deceased soldiers. Both are 2010. On the other hand, the IISS figure, 1250, is an approximation they may have found from ANYWHERE. They've just released their three armed forces analysts and have just the editor of the MilBal at the moment. I usually use their data as a first rough cut for anywhere, not something to rely on. In this case, 1250 + 82 would put us over 1300, which is well outside the other two figures. Thus I would strongly recommend that in this case, with better data available, we do not quote the IISS figures on the size of the armed forces. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that sounds very sensible. Thanks for the background knowledge! Nick-D (talk) 07:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid ISBN

[edit]

The ISBN given for Patrikainen et al (2011) Jane's Sentinel Country Risk Assessments: Southeast Asia issue 29 is clearly not correct, at only 8 character long. Do these Jane's publications have ISBNs at all? George Ponderevo (talk) 13:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted: it's actually an ISSN. I've just fixed this. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Timor Leste Defence Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Timor Leste Defence Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:07, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Timor Leste Defence Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Timor Leste Defence Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 December 2024

[edit]

Timor Leste Defence ForceTimor-Leste Defence Force – Consistency with its main article Timor-Leste and infobox in this article. Kenneth Kho (talk) 18:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]