This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Timor Gap article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I edited this article by copy pasting my studies on the issue. They are truncated however it, i believe, provides a mroe clear insight into the issue regarding the Timor Gap.
This article is absurdly biased, and in its current form, contravenes Wikipedia's NPOV policy. There is absolutely no discussion of Australia's legal position or any presentation of Australia's justification of its actions; Australia is simply demonised. It reads as though an East Timorese activist has written it. The lack of referencing is also telling.
The first paragraph is fine, along with the statements indicated by the first two bullet points. However, everything below that (along with the "facts and figures" section) should be deleted due to blatant POV.
I removed the blatant and completely unreferenced conjecture mentioned in the previous comment and deleted the POV tag.
It seems silly to have four stub templates, and it doesnt really fit in any of them since it is between indonesia and australia. is there a more general stub that could be used? -- Astrokey 44 03:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Are there any objections to the suggested merge from Timor Gap Treaty? It seems that the term "Timor Gap" is a term of convenience, (generally) used in respect of the Treaty and the previous negotiations and issues surrounding the treaty. Having two articles will limit expansion of both and cause confusion over what belongs where. A redirect is appropriate. Moondyne 07:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
The TIMOR GAP company was added to this article in February. The article is on the geographic area.
The introduction is now entirely on this company.
A new article can be created for this company. With the information removed. Inserting an about in the introduction of this article with a link to the company.
Or the information on the geographic area can be merged (incorporated) into the existing Timor Gap Treaty, Timor Sea Treaty and Treaty on Certain Maritime Arrangements in the Timor Sea articles.
There was a proposal in 2008 to merge information.-- Melbguy05 ( talk) 01:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Timor Gap article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I edited this article by copy pasting my studies on the issue. They are truncated however it, i believe, provides a mroe clear insight into the issue regarding the Timor Gap.
This article is absurdly biased, and in its current form, contravenes Wikipedia's NPOV policy. There is absolutely no discussion of Australia's legal position or any presentation of Australia's justification of its actions; Australia is simply demonised. It reads as though an East Timorese activist has written it. The lack of referencing is also telling.
The first paragraph is fine, along with the statements indicated by the first two bullet points. However, everything below that (along with the "facts and figures" section) should be deleted due to blatant POV.
I removed the blatant and completely unreferenced conjecture mentioned in the previous comment and deleted the POV tag.
It seems silly to have four stub templates, and it doesnt really fit in any of them since it is between indonesia and australia. is there a more general stub that could be used? -- Astrokey 44 03:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Are there any objections to the suggested merge from Timor Gap Treaty? It seems that the term "Timor Gap" is a term of convenience, (generally) used in respect of the Treaty and the previous negotiations and issues surrounding the treaty. Having two articles will limit expansion of both and cause confusion over what belongs where. A redirect is appropriate. Moondyne 07:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
The TIMOR GAP company was added to this article in February. The article is on the geographic area.
The introduction is now entirely on this company.
A new article can be created for this company. With the information removed. Inserting an about in the introduction of this article with a link to the company.
Or the information on the geographic area can be merged (incorporated) into the existing Timor Gap Treaty, Timor Sea Treaty and Treaty on Certain Maritime Arrangements in the Timor Sea articles.
There was a proposal in 2008 to merge information.-- Melbguy05 ( talk) 01:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)