Talk:Australian troops land in East Timor

Related artciles

Regarding the "Related article" "Australia accused of bullying East Timor over oil field treaty". I'm not sure whether you would classify it as being related? (Apart from the fact that it deals with East Timor and Australia). R2b2 01:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

In the other article opne of the refs is totled "Diggers rush to calm East Timor". Australian attitude to it's northern neighbours is very colonial.--Irate 01:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the article Australia accused of bullying East Timor over oil field treaty from the Related Wikinews section because it doesn't relate to the contents of this article in any way, except that both articles involve Australia and East Timor. If this is the standard we are applying, then we would need to include every article that has been written about Australia and East Timor. - Borofkin 01:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Bias these set of articles seem to being used as puff pieces for Aussie nationalism. What is going on in east timor is partly down to Austrlias ambitions to be a reginal power, and the machinations that go with that.--Irate 13:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Borofkin and R2b2. The wikinews article "Australia accused of bullying East Timor over oil field treaty", which deals with negotiations/dispute over Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) is unrelated to a multinational peacekeeping task force that aims to bring peace to a major internal military revolt in East Timor. Opiniastrous 13:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Biased?

Irate, the article I wrote was not biased. Every sentence was based on facts compiled from numerous sources. So far you have removed the information about all three other nations' commitments and actions, as well as some of the activities being taken by the australian taskforce in the area. How can a report of Australian tactics (e.g. using the Blackhawks to patrol the area) be jingoistic pro-australian bias? Finally, you have removed numerous reliable sources that report on the situation and were used to write the article; removing them can expose wikinews to copyright infringement claims. I will revert the article back and I am sure others will support this. Opiniastrous 13:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is. As the person that wrote it you probabley cannot see the bias. Why did you remove the references, why is the objectioon of the PM so low down. It just simple Aussie bias. --Irate 15:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree. The reason that the paragraph on the East Timorese PM came fifth was simply because having it there added to readability, form and flow (as opposed to wedging it in between two paragraphs providing information on the deployment itself, which is obviously central to the article). Either way, it was still in the article, so you can't say that I didn't account for it. Secondly, that paragraph isn't about the PM objecting to the deployment, but rather about him wanting a chain of command that involved the East Timorese government more. Now, as I mentioned before, reports of actual activities (e.g. blackhawk movements) are not in any way biased - they are simply facts showing how the situation is progressing. Perhaps most importantly, you keep inserting 'Despite there being no clear manadate', which is highly opposed to the actual situation. So far, the East Timorese government, the East Timorese people and the international community (including the UN) have been very supportive of the peacekeeping mission, which can be seen in the fact that the East Timorese government requested military assistance and that it has allowed strong rules of engagement for Australian troops. Finally, I only removed two sources, and that was because they were either irrelevant (as discussed above) or unused, and therefore not making it a source. You on the other hand, have removed maybe 5 or more used articles, which is a massive problem on Wikinews as mentioned above. Finally, I might just point out that sentences like "Malaysia, New Zealand and Portugal have also begun their deployments; Despite there being no clear manadate." are not correct in punctuation, that you keep duplicating the Wikinews article "Multinational force sent to East Timor", and that you keep spelling the title of that (unneccessary) BBC article incorrectly. Opiniastrous 07:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Bias

This article is biased. The BBC story was removed, links to other stories which relate to Australias relationship with East Timor have been removed. The entire thing reads like a jingoistic PR piece from, very pro Australian POV. This type of article may be fit for a rabid Aussie press but it is not a peice of journalism ut propoganda.--Irate 23:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV objections to an article need to be actionable. In other words, you need to tell us specifically what needs to be changed about this article so that it is neutral. Do you think that there is a point-of-view that isn't represented in the article, and if so, what is that point of view? Because this article has been published for five days, I'm removing the tag. - Borofkin 02:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)