Talk:International Force East Timor

Untitled

Removed 'attention needed' tag - no immediate attention seen as required. Buckshot06 09:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC) Operation Warden was actually a UN Chapter 7 mission (i.e., "peace enforcement", vice peacekeeping). Additonally, Operation Warden only entailed the introduction of coaalition peace enforcement forces into ET. Once that was accomplished, INTERFET transitioned to "Operation Stabilise," which was fundamentally a humantarian relief/peacekeeping effort.

ACOTF

This article was nominated for Australian collaboration. Nobody recorded it here, and its nomination will expire soon if there are no more votes, but just for completeness, I'll report it in the proper category. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Free image

I've uploaded a PD image of INTERFET troops, which may be better than the Fair Use pic currently in use. I leave it up to someone else to make the decision, tho. – Scartol • Tok 22:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Other operations

I do find the VERY short paragraph on OP WARDEN quite funny, but not so funny is the complete lack of mention of the associated operations

1. Operation Faber 19 June – 15 September 1999
2. Operation Spitfire commenced on 6 September 1999 to evacuate UNAMET personnel
3. Operation Stabilise commenced on 20 September 1999 insertion of first UN troops into Dili
4. Operation Tanager commenced on 20 February 2000

They never happened?--124.184.92.15 (talk) 01:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out those omissions. Why don't you register an account and create those articles? Nick-D (talk) 06:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Participating ships and nations

There are no sources confirming several informations in this article. It says, the ships NRP Vasco da Gama, HMS Glasgow and USS Belleau Wood, USS Mobile Bay, and USS Peleliu participated in this mission, but this paper doesn't mention Vasco da Gama or Belleau Wood inside the INTEFET maritme forces. Australians Prime Minister Howard talked about 17 nations participating in INTERFET, which are listed on official INTERFET website of Australian Gov. The article mention 22 countries... --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 10:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

That's confirmed in this paper (see page 14). Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

How did Australia organize it?

I believe it would be informative to include the history on how Australia created this taskforce. Was it passed under any law in the country? Did the country consult the UN in the creation? etc. sentausa (talk) 11:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Scandal

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/un-acts-to-stamp-out-sex-abuse-by-staff-in-east-timor/2006/08/29/1156816899264.html

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/un-acts-at-last-on-sex-crimes-in-timor/2006/08/29/1156816901149.html

http://www.etan.org/et2005/march/20/26hushed.htm

http://books.google.com/books?id=sx1KAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA95#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12655192%5E2703,00.html

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12655192%5E2703,00.html

Rajmaan (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Fairly sure these relate to the UN missions which followed INTERFET so it might be appropriate there. Anotherclown (talk) 09:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

SAS raid West Timor in late 1999

Did it happen? Report of combined Australian and NZ SAS raid on Indonesian unit at Atapupu in West Timor in late 1999 causing around 100 killed.

"SAS Bloodbath in Timor" by Ian Wishart and Ben Vidgen in Investigate Magazine (NZ) June 2000

http://www.investigatemagazine.com/june00sas.htm

Also Mentioned in The NZ Herald too on 28 Aug 2000 "SAS squad hunting killers of NZ soldier" by James Gardiner.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/indonesia-and-east-timor/news/article.cfm?c_id=589&objectid=149233

All seems a bit far fetched but it is fairly much common knowledge that there was covert recon occurring prior to INTERFET actually arriving so makes me wonder if there is some truth to it all. 101.168.127.243 (talk) 11:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Gday. I remember reading about this at the time and being sceptical. To be honest I'm not really sure Investigate Magazine is that reliable, so I would hesitate to include anything unless there was significant corroboration from a number of other reliable sources. From a quick re-read there seems to be quite a number of fairly obvious inaccuracies in that article in relation to other aspects associated with the topic (F-111s brought back into service by the US, details of the capabilities of the Indonesian vs Australian Defence Force etc which is crude at best and seems to use fairly dated research etc). I agree that it has been reported that the Australian and NZ SAS (probably British SF that were attached also) were involved in a range of activities prior to INTERFETs lodgment and that this would have *likely* included some form of covert reconnaissance etc; however, the details of these operations have not been officially confirmed and probably won't be for at least 30 years. That said, such activities are a long way short of the sort of direct action being claimed here, which is obviously far more overt than reconnaissance. According to the NZ Herald article you list above the NZDF denied it occurred (calling it "fiction") and I think that is fairly likely to be correct. I couldn't find any response from the ADF being reported and I haven't seen anything written about this since 2000, so I'd say it was just rumours or someone making something up for a laugh and a journalist believing it. Anotherclown (talk) 03:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Given the tensions at the time, there is simply no way that Australian and NZ forces could have launched a large scale attack on West Timor and it to have not ended in a major shooting war (an incident where an Australian infantry platoon accidentally crossed into West Timor due to problems with their maps and exchanged gunfire with Indonesian forces sparked a major crisis, so imagine what 50 odd SAS troops killing 100 Indonesians would have resulted in). An attack of the size claimed here couldn't be covered up either. As Anotherclown notes, the story also lacks credibility due to obvious inaccuracies. Nick-D (talk) 06:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes I think that is a fair assessment. Timor in 1999 was very different from Borneo in the mid 1960s. Anotherclown (talk) 11:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on International Force for East Timor. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120504054840/http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/operations/deployments/east-timor/default.htm to http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/operations/deployments/east-timor/default.htm

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) 20:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on International Force for East Timor. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090711072415/http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N99/264/81/PDF/N9926481.pdf?OpenElement to http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N99/264/81/PDF/N9926481.pdf?OpenElement
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060510123118/http://www.britains-smallwars.com/RRGP/EastTimor.html to http://www.britains-smallwars.com/RRGP/EastTimor.html

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) 02:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Article name

G'day, a recent change was made in the article changing "International Force for East Timor" to "International Force East Timor", per this diff: [1]. However, the article title remains at International Force for East Timor. There is currently a redirect at International Force East Timor back to this article. Should this be corrected and this article moved? From what I can tell the IP's change was correct (for instance see here), but I do not know if there was consensus for "International Force for East Timor" for some reason. Thoughts? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@Anotherclown, Nick-D, and Peacemaker67: G'day, gentlemen, do you have any opinions on this matter? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

In terms of common name, they appear to have about the same number of Google Books hits, so it would be good if we could locate an official ADF source on it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The change may well be correct. I can't lay my hands on an official source at the moment, but I have a few books on the topic that were written by fairly reliable authorities and / or had some official support. Bob Breen's Mission Accomplished uses "International Force - East Timor" and David Horner's Making the Australian Defence Force presents it as "International Force East Timor". A Kiwi source by John Crawford and Glyn Harper Operation East Timor also uses "International Force East Timor". Anotherclown (talk) 09:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

G'day, this is an official Dept of Defence site (archived version): [2]. Also, the campaign medal presented to soldiers who deployed with INTERFET was called the International Force East Timor Medal, per this: [3]. That said, I have a couple of books here that use "International Force in East Timor" and "International Force for East Timor", but they aren't official ADF sources. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

On that basis I'd be comfortable with moving it to "International Force East Timor". Anotherclown (talk) 09:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@Nick-D and Peacemaker67: G'day, gents, do either of you have any concerns if this is moved? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

No, I think WP:UCN isn't much help here, so the official title is probably best. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree: International Force East Timor seems the best option. Nick-D (talk) 07:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

It is questionable ...

The following line: "Despite relatively short lines of communication, low expenditure of ammunition, fuel and other consumables, and limited personnel and equipment casualties, the operation strained the ADF's limited logistic capability and it was questionable whether it could have sustained a more high intensity deployment" linked to David Horner's book, is not compliant with Wikipedia standards. If it's questionable, who are asking the question? It is just David Horner pondering, or was their an inquiry damning the ADF's logistics? It seems this sentence is more lick click-bait. Given that the issue was raised in the paragraph, this commentary is pointless. Travelmite (talk) 06:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

It's material sourced to Australia's leading military historian. Other military historians have reached similar conclusions - for instance, Bob Breen in his book Struggling for Self Reliance. The Australian National Audit Office also found that the logistical arrangements for the force were inadequate: [4]. Nick-D (talk) 07:26, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Indonesian Militia Causalties

These sources and also reading the body of the page you can conclude that at least 7 were killed and hundreds were captured Germanator 19:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Infobox is off topic...

The infobox is off topic. The article is about The International Force East Timor (INTERFET), "a multinational non-United Nations peacemaking task force". It is not about a military campaign/battle/war/crisis that has two sides.

If it is about a task force, why are we listing two opposing sides listing two lots of "belligerents", "casualties". Such an infobox is fine for 1999 East Timorese crisis or similar. But not here. --Merbabu (talk) 10:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@Merbabu: Totally agree with your rationale. If we look up on other non-UN peacekeeper articles for reference such as International Security Assistance Force, African Union Mission to Somalia and Kosovo Force, none of them using Template:Infobox military conflict, they are using either Template:Infobox militant organization or Template:Infobox military unit. I strongly suggest to replace the infobox to Template:Infobox militant organization as it better suit for INTERFET article, since this article is about the task force not the conflict. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

OK cool. I'm gonna be bold and strip the existing infobox right back, but due to time, leave the template for now. If you or someone else wants to put in a more appropriate box, even better. However, African Union Mission to Somalia suggests that there is plenty of scope or that stupid "Allies - Opponents" infobox bloat/spam (WP:INFOBOXBLOAT). Best to keep watching that! --Merbabu (talk) 01:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Temporary fix done. I feel like the kid who pushed the yucky meal off the table onto the floor. haha --Merbabu (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

No worries, if you look up on my edit history, I replaced infobox all the time.. LOL. Anyway, infobox replaced. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)