Talk:Sabah/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Grammars

I read through this article and found some grammar mistakes in it. I would like to rectify it, but my English isn't that good yet. Can a pro look through the article, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.54.24.115 (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

POV check pls

From article: "Today most naturalized Filipinos here are even proud citizens of Sabah and Malaysia. They contribute to society, speak Malay, and even support the local football team (Sabah Rhinos). ... President Ferdinand E. Marcos has ordered in the past that all Philippine maps should include Sabah but this clearly is just a political statement".

Needs some refinement on these parts, its possible to do away with the italicized portions since these are more of rebuttals, better to be placed in the Sabah dispute page - Meynardtengco 04:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

sure. but the non-italicized portion above also might create false impression on people. marcos' actions shouldnt be there imo as it is indeed just a political statement, plus he was even disowned by philippines ppl. dunno.. --Kawaputra 10:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

or is this better?:

President Ferdinand E. Marcos has ordered in the past that all Philippine maps should include Sabah, but this may just merely be a political statement --Kawaputra 10:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Sabah would have been part of island group of Mindanao had the Sultanate of Sulu continuously exercised its sovereignty until today

i deleted this sentence cos i think the first half of the sentence dont make sense. sabah is part of the island borneo. i have been guilty of making a biased POV in this article, sorry. but thats mainly in response to other biased POV, obviously from filipino contributors. i hope we can try make this article as neutral as possible, in line with wikipedia's official policy on neutrality.--kawaputra 12:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Philipines Retaking of Sabah

"12. As an international entity, the Sultanate of Sulu,Tawi tawi and Sabah continues ,Spain did not succeeded in conquering the Sultanate. It remains as a political entity within the Philippines up to present day. It remained as an entity of any kind whatever even the United States wanted to abolished the Sultanate entirely in 1936. Thereafter the private law heirs of the private property of the Sultan accepted money which had previously been paid to the Sultan by the British company and then later by the Malaysian Federation up to the present day.

The Philippines since its independence from Spain, recognizes the Sultanates of Sulu and Sabah and joined the Philipine Republic including the North Borneo.

After WW2,the Philipines gained its independence from United States, identifired its teritory as Luzon , Visayas and Mindanao, including Sulu, Tawi Tawi and North Borneo,Since the British company is not existing anymore during that time.British assumed as the protectorate of Borneo,

Until 12 September 1962 The Sultanate formally surrendered the Sovereignty of North Borneo to the Philippine Republic.The British upon giving independence to Malaysia on 16 September 1963,they included North Borneo to the Federation.

The Philipines and Indonesia refused to recognized Malaysia.Since then up to the present day ,the disputes between the two nation continues over North Borneo.

International Court of Justice in 2003 nevertheless observes that, undisputedly, the Sultan of Sulu relinquished the sovereign rights over all his possessions in favour of Spain, based on Bases of Peace and Capitulation signed by Sultan of Sulu and Spain in Jolo on the 22 July 1878.

--Danazach (talk) 10:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Revert?

After looking at the history, IMOH, I think a revert is in order. The philipines claim stink of POV and distorted facts. Unless you want to debunk all the claims made? --C2Sane 00:50, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Basing information from a Malaysian government website appears to me to be highly inappropriate as a source for presenting "facts" about the territory dispute. I would say the same if the information came from a Filipino website. I think the best bet would be to present all the "facts" and to clearly indicate the political source of those facts. Otherwise, this article would be in danger of becoming a revert war territory. The Philippines has not formally renounced its claim, so presenting the Philippine Government's basis for the claim is an integral part of that section of that article, no matter how much Malaysia thinks that the basis is full of distorted facts.

Disclaimer: I'm a Filipino. FWIW, my personal opinion is that Sabah should be part of Malaysia. The Philippines has enough problems in its own internationally-recognized territory.

--seav 16:38, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Agreed that both view must be presented. But the article edit by the anon did distort a few of its fact and by looking at the history edit, the original was a better place to start back. As for the facts, I'm no lawyer by trade but even I understand that a high court of a state doesn't have the power to judge what sovereignity of a nation (Talking about the 1938 court judgement by Chief Justice CFC Makaskie of the High Court of Borneo). I think that falls under the jurisdiction of a higher court like the supreme court or the international court of justice(but during that era I dont think the international court of justice exist)? So how can one imply a high court of North Borneo at that time give sovereignity rights to the heir of the Sultanate of Sulu? Yes I took the information out of the Malaysian government website but it was a letter address to the International Court of Justice during the Ligitan and Sipidan case. To actually lie about a court judgement while presenting a case is consider a contempt to the court. I have yet to read all the court proceedings of that case. Links are [1], [2] and [3]. I'll find any information that supports either claim and post it up. I'm sure an international court of justice's proceeding is independent and NPOV enough? The Cobold Commission is an independent entity to state otherwise is dubios which the article state. What British influence? I find no indication that the Great Britain would gain anything from letting Sabah be part of Philipines or Malaysia. My father was one of those who voted Sabah to join Malaysia so I have an inkling on how much this British influence presented by the anon. But thats just original work so I wont put in the article. And for the latest development, the Sultanate of Sulu, which is a private entity and not a government is pursuing the case, at least thats what they told the papers. The Philipine government shelve that claim but did not drop it. Am I correct? So there should be a distinction between the Sultanate of Sulu claims and the Philipine government's claim. IMHO, one is a government who have rights of sovereignity but the Sultanate of Sulu is consider a private entity who have not that claim. However, thats up to the ICJ though. --C2Sane 21:55, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion. Maybe we should move most of the information, particularly the claims and counter-claims to a separate article (like Philippine-Malaysian dispute on Sabah?) and leave a short introduction and link on the Sabah article itself? That way the article won't be swamped with info about the dispute. --seav 12:59, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Come to think of it, Yeah. I guess the dispute article should be moved elsewhere. --C2Sane 03:12, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Agree somewhat. But I think a more general article called Sabah dispute would be enough. The heirs of the Sultan of Sulu can be crowned Sultan of Sabah even now, and declare independence. Malaysia and the Philippines won't be able to stop that. --Noypi380 05:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Hear hear. Lots of dispute regarding the state. OT: They could declare independence but I doubt many people would actually care to make such a declaration significant. Whodhellknew 03:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Given all the budgetary discrimination, Sabah given only 8% of the natioanal budget for its 13% population and 25 % area, because it is not economical to spend in Sabah. With all those Petroleum, timber and oil given to Malaya so that it will develop first and forever leaving Sabah the poorest in the whole world, in the same league as Acheh and Myanmar, and certainly without dispute the poorest in Malaysia.

Malaysia is a disaster for Sabah. Othmanskn (talk)

Recently following the Sulu invasion into Sabah there has been heightened cybertrooper activity so we should be extra careful to ensure that nationalistic propaganda/fiction isnt inserted into the article under the pretense of "history" or "fact".

The territorial dispute should first be a minor mention within the context of the Sabah article (since it is a minor or non-issue) and should only link to a separate territorial claim article with a short description. In addition there is a need to mention territorial disputes with Indonesia as well if we are to include Philippines claimsBaronVonchesto (talk) 17:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Miscellaneous Edits, here and there

Just changed some things that didn't sound right and added what may be a slightly subjective mention of our immigrant Filipino issue, which is not supported by any kind of empirical data and which will probably forever be swept under the rug by our government but is one of those things that you just can't deny, coming from and living in Sabah. Cheers! --Infin 18:46, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the last national census gave some data on the amount of illegal immigrants (of which some putt the sum to nearly a third of the state's population)

Whodhellknew 01:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The census mentioned that there are 20% non-Malaysians. It didn't mention that they are all illegals. Most should be legal immigrants, otherwise they should have been deported a long time ago, or many employers would be arrested.

Which part did you change? 60.50.165.185 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Portuguese links?

The part about Brazilian like festivities or the links to the Portuguese (who have never had much of a colonial presence there) seems to be a wee bit strong. Most of the Portuguese sounding names are held by people of Eurasian or Indian descent and most of them had those names before coming to Sabah anyway. Seems an not too significant part of Sabahan culture but written like its the core of it.

Whodhellknew 01:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Errors, Bias, and Copyright Violations

This article seems to me heavily biased against the BN government. While a lot of what is said is probably true, it is said in unnecessarily biased language. The article needs cleaning up to present a more balanced picture. The claim in the opening para that Sabah 'used to be part of the Philippines' is at best misleading, at worst simply wrong. Finally, sections of this article are taken directly from my article in Aliran Monthly at http://www.aliran.com/oldsite/monthly/2005a/4g.html.

Agreed. This article is biased. 60.48.92.81 12:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

How can the truth be biased? It is the false that is biased. I read the article above. It is asserted that the 20 points to the Malaysian agreement are not constitutional.

Read the Malaysian agreement, especially the declaration of Malaysia which I'd uploaded here. It specifically stated that the constitution of Malaysia must be amended so as to comply with the Malaysia Agreement.

Tell me. Who is biased now.Othmanskn (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Revert

Just to inform that I did a revert due to vandalism by 199.212.26.244. Sometimes the banality of people's actions amazes me. Cheers.

--Bukhrin 17:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Demographic

Dusun-Kadazan people are known as the Latin lovers of the East, famous in the state for love and passion for music. Their traditional dances appear erotic yet innocent making the Dusun-Kadazan culture a popular one.

Even though Dusun-Kadazans are known for their peaceful nature, they are also well known for their bravery and defiant nature towards oppression and foreign rule. Monsopiad the legendary warrior who lived in the 1700s-1800s took 48 heads in the heat of battle before being overwhelmed. During World War 2, the British and Australian armies liberated North Borneo from the Japanese and released 280 Japanese prisoners of war, knowing that the vengeful natives would not show mercy. Those POW's skulls, line the roof of Dusun-Kadazan 'skull houses'.

the above written in the article do not seem appropriate here. so many peacock and weasel words. plus some seem more suitable in Kadazandusun article.kawaputra 12:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Demographic: Immigration in Sabah

hi guys. i intend to write a separate article about this topic, or something related to this. can also include and relate with the "20-point Agreement" (which i havent really read about, yet), and also highlite about internal migration rules. most importantly, to highlight why Sabah is the most fucked-up state in malaysia, and how certain leaders deserve to be fed to the pigs. some of my main points:

• non-citizens make up 25% of total population. ridiculous.
• the number above does not include hidden illegals, probably add another 5%.
• number also does not include naturalized migrants. probly accounting for another 10%. normally the naturalized ppl are classified as other bumis, or malays.
• best of all, these migrant was not really desperate to enter our country. our beloved leaders actually INVITED these migrants into the country promising ICs and even Bumiputra status; mainly for two reasons:1) phantom votes; 2) to shift demography in favour of muslims.
• it gets better. these monkeys didnt even deny these demographic strategies. in fact some proudly acknowledge what they've done.

reading:

• "When States Prefer Non-Citizens Over Citizens: Conflict Over Illegal Immigration into Malaysia" must read!
• Malaysia Today article MT has many other Sabah related articles.
• "Demographic implosion in Sabah?"
• "A Study of the Kadazan Dusun, Sabah, Malaysia"

any comment? kawaputra 03:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of these comments are lies. They may be immigrants but they are mostly legalised. Many illegals had been deported.

It is not just leaders who invite migrants to be legalised, employers and citizens who want cheap labour also invite them to come.

Phantom voters do not need illegal immigrants. Even ordinary citizens can become Phantom voters. This is due to the practise in Malaysia of allowing letters certifying lost Identification Cards be used for voting purposes. These letters can be forged just before an election booth closes in order to choose IC numbers of voters that had not voted yet.

That is why in Trengganu the voting attendance is 98%, when the highest in history so far had been 80%.

Illegal immigrants are good candidates for Phantom Voters because they are easily intimidated or bribed by the powers that be.

Even in 1967, the Muslims make up 47% of the population and they live in the larger Eastern part of Sabah. Muslims don't need to change the demography. It was the minority Christian PBS party, who started the illegal demography with the concent of the Federal Government, by allocating more representations to much smaller areas and population to Christian representatives.

Othmanskn 17:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Othmanskn, where did you get info about Sabahan demographics for 1967? It would be an invaluable resource if you can cite a source.

Furthermore, your allegations against PBS control of delineation is pretty baseless. First of all, delineation is a federal responsibility (via the EC, which by law is under the jurisdiction of the federal government). Secondly, the federal government would not likely have consented to this (imagine UMNO politicians saying "it's alright to have more Christian representatives").

Perhaps you're confusing this with the US federation, where state governments do have the authority to delineate state seats.

Whodhellknew (talk) 12:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sabah's official religion is not Islam. Refer to point 1 of the 20-point agreement signed just before Malaysia was formed. __earth ^(Talk) 13:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Talking about WP:A, you might want to back up your assertion. Kawaputra's backed his but you haven't. Given the circumstances, as a third person, I'm more inclined to believe Kawaputra at the moment. __earth ^(Talk) 03:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Othmanskn, where did you get info about Sabahan demographics for 1967? It would be an invaluable resource if you can cite a source.

Towaru, i didnt live during Tun Mustapha's era, but im aware of his contributions (eg sponsoring mass conversion drives). So, it seems now u support what i said earlier: some leaders are trying to shift the demography in favour of Muslims? Thanks.

However, when u said "big conversion" i have to disagree. Harris and Mustapha claim to have converted only 50,000+ villagers from 1970-1985 (see reading (2) below). Which is not much, and too slow a process. thats why they need project IC to quicken the process. We should have made a big deal about these conversion drives. Maybe caputure Mustapha and burn him alive. Perhaps send him back to Philippines, where he was actually born. Imagine some christian came to a Malay village in peninsula, and try to convert Malays into christians. For sure there would be an uproar, and ppl using words like "murtad" or "kafir".

And please dont accuse me of violating wiki guidelines and simply throw random guidelines at me like as if ure so good. At least point me to the right guideline which says no using "malaysia-today". And how is it not proper to use malaysiakini but proper to use new straits times? bcos malaysiakini won international awards?

btw, i didnt ask u to read the malaysia-today articles above. those i recommend reading are:

• (1) "When States Prefer Non-Citizens Over Citizens: Conflict Over Illegal Immigration into Malaysia"
• (2) "A Study of the Kadazan Dusun, Sabah, Malaysia" kawaputra^tok2me 05:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I said 25% of population are "Non-malaysian citizens". dont get mixed up. i got it from "Buletin Perangkaan Bulanan, Sabah, Januari 2007", Jabatan Perangkaan Malaysia, Negeri Sabah.

I was just being sarcastic when i said malaysiakini won awards. but since u say "spam", see here:[4] kawaputra^tok2me 07:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

i didnt says its a spam, but the site clearly ask for money to read. according to wp:spam, its a spam. I dnt see wikipedia as a reliable source for homeworks and much more, and wikipedia says so, so what make malaysiakini as a reliable source? just because the founder says they are / or they have a credible news? where are their reporter? journalist? and etc, in sabah,perhaps? wheres their headquater in sabah? how did they get the news?, perhaps its not a news, its an article or a story.--Towaru 08:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

So is Berita Harian, NST, etc reliable source for you? kawaputra^tok2me 08:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Towaru, the New York Times requires "money" if one is to read certain section, so would you categorize NYT as spam? Further, the very respectable The Economist requires "money" if one wants to read most of its section. Would you consider The Economists as spam too? __earth ^(Talk) 09:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Towaru, you quote WP:SPAM, "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam". However, adding malaysiakini article isn't done for the purpose of promoting malaysiakini. Instead, it is done for the value of the information. Further, in WP:SPAM, it doesn't say a news source has to be in print to be reliable - that's purely your words. Moreover, the difference between malaysiakini and you site is that the former has reputation while the latter doesn't.

Regardless, even if we removed malaysiakini off the equation, Kawaputra still have academic sources. But where is your source to back your allegation? __earth ^(Talk) 12:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

According to the academic paper, it's possible albeit illegally. __earth ^(Talk) 12:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Malaysiakini would qualify as a mainstream established website, proven by awards and recognition they have obtained. So it should qualify as a reliable source. But if u Towaru create your own website write stuff in it, thats not reliable source, because nobody knows you, you never win awards, nobody cares to check if your website contains truth or bullshit. see also Wikipedia:Reliable Sources, WP:AFAQ. Btw would u consider Berita Harian reliable?

Also, i never say non-citizens can vote. Please dont get confused because u also end up getting us confused. Those who can vote are citizens who have been naturalized and given ICs. Normally after naturalization these immigrants are classified in the banci either as "other bumis", "malays", "bajau" or "indonesian". kawaputra^tok2me 15:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The immigration problem in Sabah is twofold. 1)there are too many non-citizens, amounting to at least 25% of the population or 800,000+. 2)many immigrants have been naturalized n given IC. probably amounting to atleast 400,000. kawaputra^tok2me 15:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

wow. so u are also involved in Project IC? please answer. kawaputra^tok2me 16:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• (1) "When States Prefer Non-Citizens Over Citizens: Conflict Over Illegal Immigration into Malaysia"

There are 2 facts that are not considered: 1) Sulu had ruled over Sabah even before the Spanish conquest 2) In 1967, 47% of Sabah's population are Muslims. Many of the Dusuns and Muruts are Muslims and will vote accordingly. They don't support the Christian led UPKO/PBS Dusun-majority party, but will vote USNO, a multi-racial Islamic based party.

This makes all the conclusions false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Othmanskn (talk • contribs) 03:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

How does it make all conclusions false? There are no logical connections between your statements and the resulting nullification of the conclusions. And again, your speculations about where the votes would swing is just that: speculations. That and your uncited reference to the 47% demographics. Whodhellknew 00:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• (2) "A Study of the Kadazan Dusun, Sabah, Malaysia" these articles are in a different category to newspapers or online newspapers. They are articles or journals published by universities or written by scholars and can be considered reliable sources.WP:AFAQ#What_kinds_of_sources_are_generally_regarded_as_reliable.3F

kawaputra^tok2me 16:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

---

obiously you ppl dont know anything, its just dangerous to write something you people not so sure. i wont care u people just write about, but dont be bald if i joinning editting the article too. afterall its wikipedia, everything goes wheres its should. and wikipedia is not soapbox and not even a forum. what a waste of my time.--Towaru 18:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

ooh, im sorry to waste your precious time, please forgive me. now u can go back and proceed with your project IC. u obviously work for the government - why is it "dangerous"? u threathening me? dangerous because its true??

"sorry, coz i talks alot, sorry again, i wont bother here again. its because im a muslim im proud that theres many relative come here. but i oso sad that the muslim theres is decressing."

And dont say "sorry" if u dont mean it. Muslims should not LIE, right? And u just admitted that u support giving ICs to muslim filipino, and even laughed about it. Why dont let the public know of this and dont CHEAT us. why keep it a secret?? Muslims should not CHEAT, right? Its sad to see Malaysian like you who considers a muslim filipino his "relative" and a non-muslim Malaysian his enemy.

"obiously you ppl dont know anything"

what a joker. how did u come to this conclusion after that lengthy discussion. and then say i waste your time??? U just talk crap. I cant believe i wasted my time on ppl like you. u lost, thats why u say this. keep throwing irrelevant guidelines at me. cheh.

And why did u delete your posts? scared of what? kawaputra^tok2me 02:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Othmanskn, u have any source to back up your comments? I have already provided sources above for the "lies" u claim i am writing. And pls be specific which points u are disputing. Otherwise your comments are only bare denials. Thanks. kawaputra^torque 06:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

My sources are from my old Geography text book in 1970. I cannot recover that book but I believed the data was taken from Sabah census of 1967. My figure of 47% Muslims is still very clear to my mind. Nowadays it show be more than 55% but it does not.

It only proves that immigration is not only by Muslims but by non-Muslims only, most probably from chinese from West-Malaysia, Toraju and Timur from Indonesia Visaya and Ilokano from the Philippines.

As for PBS winning the election as a result of the unfair distribution of seats in 1985, in favour of christians, the data can be recovered from the voting list distributed by PBS members. These data probably come from the election commission which is always distributed at every election.

As for the history of Sabah/Brunei/Sulu, you may like to refer to A school history book of SAbah by Buckley, and BAla's Thallosocracy.

What are your references? If these references are not complete, then they are faulty. No matter where they publish it.Othmanskn 06:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I may not need to show references since u yourself say in 1967: 47% Muslims. 2007:?? Maybe 60%? Maybe even 70%. How do u explain the sharp increase?? U can read this article written by a Muslim professor from Uni of California-Irvine. The fact that Sulu Sultanate once ruled the Eastern portion if Sabah is ancient history and irrelevant. Please read up before u accuse others of lying.

• "When States Prefer Non-Citizens Over Citizens: Conflict Over Illegal Immigration into Malaysia" kawaputra^torque 07:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe all the old Geography textbooks would've been purged. While I am unable to retrieve it, you can and should before considering it even a cited source. And your extrapolation to 55% is not based on any calculation is it? So as long as the 47% remains unproven, most of your conclusions about immigration cannot be validated.

As for PBS winning only because of gerrymandering, is must be noted that PBS wasn't in power when it first form and would thus have no access to the powers needed for gerrymandering. Add to that the fact that this relies on the assumption that the Electoral Commission is not independent of the state government, an allegation unproved and one those who staffed the commission back then may or may not agree with. Whodhellknew 00:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

As for proof of gerrymandering by PBS, just look at their campaign analysia. They actually point out these things. Just look at Kiulu . With such as small area, with so small number of voters, it was given a state assembly seat. As for proving that the Election Commission is biased, just study the voting results. How can the number of poster voters exceed the number of registered poster voters. How can the attendance be 98% when earlier, the highest recorded was only 80%? How can Sabah MPs be increased from 16 to 24, while at the same time Kedah increases from 12 to 24???? Whereas the population of SAbah has increaded from 0.5 million to 3.4 million while Kedah only increases by 100%, similarly for votgers, an increase of 0.2 to 0.8 million, i.e. 400%, and yet given only 50% increase??? These facts prove that the Election commission is completely biased and unconstitutional. Facts don't lie.

As to how PBS managed to do it, was not because of their actions but because of Berjaya. Berjaya was supported by non-Muslims so these Berjaya Strongholds were given larger priority by the ignorant Federal Government.

Then come back to the figure of 47% for Muslims in 1967. The statistics may not be freely available, but the election figures which gave USNO 8 MP seats out of 16 should be a good indicator. USNO cannot an absolute majority but it was certainly larger than UPKO and SCA. USNO represents the Muslims.

Othmanskn (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Sign your comments please. 4 tildes. I am not denying outright that the PBS committed gerrymandering, but unless you can show that it was done, then it is just an allegation, and any reference to it must state that it's just an allegation. The main problem hinges on the whole way gerrymandering is performed in Malaysia, that is via unofficial means. That's why while we can clearly trace the perpetrators of gerrymandering in American states (their state legislature controls boundary drawing), we can't do so in Malaysia, since the SPR is nominally independent.

The number of USNO does not reflect Muslim number at all. Take the Malaysian parliament composition for example. BN controls 90% of seats on the back of only 64% of the total votes. Therefore, if you still stand by your 47% argument, you must produce the source as an explicit confirmation of it.

As for postal voters, show your statistics please. Which election had too many postal voters? Your reference to Kedah is confusing, but I take it you mean to say that Kedah is overrepresented in Parliament. That's not exactly the case, since Kedah actually has 15 MPs, not 24 as you claim. The percentage of increases is irrelevant, but the per capita representation is.

In this sense, the SPR is not unconstitutional, since the constitution does not stipulate in exact terms how representation should be divided. Whodhellknew (talk) 02:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If you ignore facts and call it irrelevant, then your judgment is irrelevant. Without even quoting the figure for 2007, and comparing it with the figure in 1967, of 47%, how dare you make any comment as saying that most of the illegal immigrants were Muslims. The last time I read(2001), the % of Muslims in Sabah is less than 60%, and that article that you quote without quoting the true statistics of SAbah and making false accusations that it is the Muslims who misappropriate the election boundaries, is utterly stupid and baseless. It is only now that the boundaries reflect the constitutional distribution of boundaries, i.e. taking into account area and voters. Earlier, since 1985, it was heavily in favour of the non-Muslim, so ridiculous as to be preposterous. Without any analysis of the election boundary area and the number of voters and their distributions. that article is malicious in intent and purposes. Don't tell me that FACTS are irrelevant again. Just because the author was a Muslim, does not mean that he was right. It was the Muslims from Malaya that had created the preposterous election boundaries in SAbah heavily in favour of non-Muslims, in 1985. Why are you so scared of the FACTS. Just dig any of the election boundaries in 1985 and their voter registration distribution.

As to the abundance of Suluks and other BAjau races in the east coast of SAbah had a lot to do with the administaration of the Sulu sultans. By ignoring this FACT, you ignore the reason why there are many Suluks and Bajaus in Sabah, even prior to 1970s. Mat Salleh, was a Suluk-Bajau, and so is Tun-Mustapha. All the hereditary datuks in Sabah are Suluks although they may have BAjau bloods as well, because only Suluks were confered by the Sultan of Sulu the title of Datuk. Ignoring this fact again, makes the article completely false and in fact lying. Just as the articles suggesting that Sabah because independent on the 31st of August, 1963, depite what the documents easily available and published, such as in School Texts books and history books, which declare that Sabah was only free from British sovereign on the 16th of September. Do you want to ignore these facts as irrelevant again.

Don't ever hide behind irrelevancy in ignoring FACTS.Othmanskn 14:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Im not ignoring that there are Suluks/Bajaus in Sabah. Or that they have been here since time immemorial. Even the author of the article above mentioned that Suluks have in Sabah even since the 15th century or even longer. But how many Suluks are there in Sabah now? Out this number, how many actually only arrived after 1970s. Illegally/Legally/Invited. Is it since Sabah was once ruled by Sultanate of Sulu, the Suluks from Philippines may come here as they wish?

I dont know what FACTS u say i am ignoring, but u are also ignoring FACTS that some leaders e.g Tun Mustapha, Harris Salleh, and other ministers from Malaya are/were trying to increase the proportion of Muslims in Sabah. kawaputra^torque 15:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, your whole argument hinges on memory. 47% or not, I don't believe there are no longer any old history texts are even old census data in the archives.

Further to that, so what if the proportion of Muslims don't increase? Birthrates are volatile things, and add to that the factor of mortality and you can't simply draw any conclusions from rough observations of demographic changes Whodhellknew 00:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

These are not facts. Just your statements. Facts don't support this. The % of Muslims don't increase much over 47% in 1967. You ignore migration by West Malaysians to Sabah. Sabahan Suluks also don't like the Filipino Suluks. Our cultures are different, but we tolerate them just as we tolerate the other races. In my personal experience, I don't see many Filipino Suluks who got Malaysian citizenship. Most of them are Bajaus. The BAjaus are much harder for us to detect because they can merge easily with east coast bajaus, but we can still detect them. One way is their preference to use "West Malaysian" Accented Malay.

You also ignore migration from Muslim Indonesians, as well as non-Muslim immigrants. Just look at Felix's face, then you should understand. It is just that our neighbour's are predominantly Muslims, so naturally there are more Muslims than non-Muslims. So you cannot blame these leaders for deliberately breaking the law in trying to increase the number of Muslims in Sabah. Many factors contribute to this. Most important is our low salaries and lack of immigration control, making employers resort to illegal labour in order to be competitive in order to survive.Othmanskn 04:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Download this document from UN: http://www.undp.org.my/uploads/files/SabahHumanDevp.pdf

25% are non-citizens, who may not necessarily be all Filipinos. Total Bumiputras is 60.7% Kadazan-Dusuns only 17.5%, and even here many are Muslims.

Total voters in Sabah: 75%. % of Kadazan dusun among voters: 17.5/75=23.3% % of Chinese among voters: 9.7/75=12.9% % of Bajau among voters: 13/75= 17.3% % of others= 100-23.3-12.9=46.5%

So the percentage of hardly increase from the 47% to about 60% in 2004. The % of Muslims is high because they are made up of all races and many are being converted even now. The demography among the indigenous groups hardly change that much. The Suluks are under the other indigenous which also include the Orang Sungai, Kedayan, Bisaya etc. also Bugis that had become Malaysians,and only 14.6%. How can the Suluk % be increased so much?

The Malays have gone up to 12.2 % when in 1967 there was very few. These are mostly West Malaysian Malays. Sabahan Brunei's call themselves Brunei. Some may call themselves Brunei-Malay.

By ignoring the West Malaysian immigration, your facts are already faulty. The reduction in% of Dusun in Sabah can be easily explained by the large influx of West Malaysian Malays.

The % of non-Malaysians may appear large, but why don't you compare with those in other states of Malaysia. Many states certainly have more than 15%.

Othmanskn 06:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

http://books.google.com.my/books?id=R1ME01zxL98C&pg=PA481&lpg=PA481&dq=population+religion+sabah&source=web&ots=QVUfbAqNbW&sig=d4aa31S7M5fLLm0D6mszUcmA4Co&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA482,M1 In 1960,

Christians 16.6, Muslims, 37.9

Data taken from the book: Page 482 Religions and Societies, Asia and the Middle East: Asia and the Middle East By Carlo Caldarola Published by Walter de Gruyter, 1982 ISBN 902793259X, 9789027932594 688 pages

Othmanskn (talk) 14:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, you choose to assume that no one would change their ethnic identification to 'Malay' in official documentation. You also provide no statistics on West Malaysian immigration, especially in the midst of tight immigration controls by state authorities.

I see too much guesswork and too little informed calculations. You can't rely too much on conjecture. Whodhellknew 00:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Funnily you ignore all the facts and calculations, calling them conjectures, while you absense of any fact at all, let alone any calculation, you don't call it conjecture.

Also funny that you make a blatantly stupid and contradictory statement: "tight immigration controls", and yet, claim that there are so many ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.

There is NO IMMIGRATIOIN CONTROL OVER West Malaysians AT ALL. They can just fly via Labuan. And you call that "strict" immigration control over West Malaysians???

You are just bloody dishonest idiot not to notice this at ALL.

Do you think it is that easy to label yourself Malay when it is much easier to call oneself Bajau???

Every data has some discrepancies. I mean every data. The job of the compiler is only to minimise, but never to remove them completely.

That is why I say most although I have never met anyone who managed to call himself a Malay although they told me that they try to do so.

I've a friend who was my high school classmate. He like to call himself a Tausug, but his wife(Minangkabau Malay) told me, in front of him, that in his birth certificate, his race was stated as Malay. And yet, he represents Tausugs, speaking Sulu. I believe his parents may have registered him as a Malay. His father migrated to SAbah in 1970s but his mother is in Sabah for generations.

I the early days, pre 2000, these Filipino recent migrants, would choose BAjau in order to hide their identities. After 2000, many of them have started working in West Malaysia and learn how to speak West Malaysian dialects but are not able to converse in Sabahan Malay dialects. That is how we detect who they are, but their numbers are not that many, based on our exposure to them,in comparison with the much larger number of West Malaysian Malays.

The statistics may be faulty but so was the whole data. Why do you ignore the Malay data, while accepting the other data??? Which are also full of inconsistencies.

Also taking into account of the NON EXISTENCE OF ANY IMMIGRATION CONTROL over West Malaysian Malays. They can just enter Sabah anytime they like.

You are just bloody dishonest, that is all. Or just too stupid.

Othmanskn (talk) 14:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You seem to understand that I was talking about "tight immigration control" on West Malaysians, yet you say this contradicts the illegal immigrant argument. It doesn't. Tight immigration controls on West Malaysians DOES NOT EQUAL tight immigration control over Filipino or Indonesian immigration. Get your delineation right.

There IS tight immigration control over the Westerners, or at least there was. Yes they can fly to Labuan, BUT LABUAN IS NOT A PART OF THE SABAHAN STATE.

Yes, it is easy to label oneself Malay when one can say Bajau. How do you think I've got "Malay" cousins, when I'm a Sino-Kadazan? The same can be said of Bajau parents registering their children as Malay. There are no verification processes, and a Muslim name is all the persuasion one needs.

Hell, you've given an example yourself, of a Tausug dude registered as Malay. This is EXACTLY my argument, that the increase in "Malay" populations can be attributed not to West Malaysian immigration (which IS TIGHTLY CONTROLLED, Labuan NOT being a part of Sabah).

In effect, you've just supported my argument.

Also, as said, you've failed to provide stats. Also note that census stats will clearly tell you whether a Malay is of West Malaysian origin or not, since they are registered by state.

Finally of course, let me summarise my points:-

---There ARE immigration controls over West Malaysians

---Entry into Sabah does NOT mean they become Sabahans and thus part of the census on SABAHAN populations

---Tight immigration controls on West Malaysians DOES NOT equal tight immigration controls on illegal immigrants

---You have bolstered my arguments

You lack logical skills. I advise you to google "ad hominem", "hasty generalisations", "red herring" and "logic". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.71.110 (talk) 13:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Whodhellknew (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The Experts should monitor the Sabah's wiki-page.

The Sabah's page seems to be edited without proper reference, especially the indigenous ethnics in Malaysia. Where is the important resources that can prove the ethnics from Philipines can be the Malaysia's ethnics?

These groups: Tagalog, Suluk and more; they may have been living here in Sabah since long ago, but these indigenous people are not originally from the land of Sabah itself but from the country of Philipines! If in that case, then why is the Chinese ethnic not declared as Malaysia's “indigenous” people since they also live in Malaysia for more than a century!

I feel doubt if this is rather political rather than being the concrete information! mr_xmlv 10:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the Suluk once owned Sabah as part of the Sultanate of Sulu, besides geographic proximity is another reason why both share ethnic groups.23prootie 04:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

i noticed you said Malaysia's ethnics, in the case of this article it is only indigenous ethnic groups of Sabah or even Borneo. West Malaysians cannot freely travel to Sabah without a Visa unlike vice versa. Secondly not that i agree but Tagalog, and Suluks have been here and around here in Sabah for thousands of years. Chinese are indigenous to China, not this region. The word indigenous is the key. If i had it my way being a kadazan the only people declared bumiputra of Sabah should be the Kadazans and other native groups of Borneo, not even malays.

indeed i know chinese are descendants from land of china, but what i have known is that the philipines ethnics like suluk & tagalog are indeginous races to both malaysia's sabah & to philipines. our country seems not firm enough to protect the real malaysian ethnics like people of kadazandusun, murut, bajau & so on. that way the people like suluks, tagalog & bisaya may come freely to sabah in any ways. even willing to be illegal immigrants, this is a threat to the people socially & politically. this is a very pressuring issue to the government of sabah when taking care of sabah's immigration, and not forget to mention to the sabahans civilians who live here in sabah long ago.

take an example: during the time of USNO, mustapha brought a lot of suluk immigrants so he could be elected the Sultan of Sabah. Now im saying Sultan of Sabah, not Yang Di-Pertuan Negeri Sabah. but during our parents time, because no one could resist him, the powerful politicians could be playing & ruling political games. too sad for the others who feel like being put to aside. ohya, please put tildes signs to show your identity. mr_xmlv 05:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It can't be help. Throughout history, migration has been a key part of human population. Throw in cross-cultural assimilation and we'll see that the term indigenous is in all practicality, useless. Whodhellknew 15:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

To dear:Troller, Please dont troll and spread the uncertainty or false of information with proper prooves and reference. How come u ppl says that suluk is not part of sabah, sabah suppose to be in part of sulu region, look at the map, if its tagalog there are in northern philipine but suluk/tausug in sauthern part of philipine, which maybe the reason why suluk is indigenous etnic on sabah and phinilipine, lets think something if sabah is part of philipine, u might as well think that suluk is part of sabah too but sabah is not part of philipine, its part of malaysia, just like finnish of finland, theres genetic make-up is not the same of those of european decensant but they are the indegenous ppl of finlad and europe.

Please sign your comments or risk being identified as a troller. In any case, as I've said, indigenous is an impractical term, unless you can have anthropological evidence to back it up. And even then, we can never be sure whether there were previous human habitation, since there are limitations as to how far back science can look (lack of ancient samples bearing DNA being the biggest impediment). So arguments about being indigenous can hardly be verified, even by written sources (there are too few about Sabah)

As for being part of the Suluk region, what justification do you have that this is a region? Is it part of one single tectonic plate? This 'region' of yours is merely your own arbitrary designation.]

As for the genetic makeup of the Finns, I'm not sure about that. What they have is merely a language not related to the dominant Indo-European one, but that doesn't mean a different genetic makeup. Take for example the prevalence of Mongol haplogroups in European DNA. Are we to say they're from Central Asia?Whodhellknew 00:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

what if we can proves that kadazan is not part of sabah, my teacher tells that kadazan language can be found in northern/southern part of china, so they are suppose to be not an indegenous ppl of sabah. and theres only one truly indeginous ppl of sabah its not kadazan or anything, i forgot its name, but they are minority, contrary to kadazan murut and bajau who are majority etnic, and the suluk population are about 100k ppl in sabah.

ppl dont spread lies, why would tun mustapha want to be a sultan??? this thing doesnt make any sense. i donno wheather or not we suluk migrant fro philipine because of tun mutapha, but for generation we had serve this nation well, even in british era, some suluk works for them and become a leader...... and now u ppl saying that we are not part of sabah???? LOL--203.106.39.252 01:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Ya, there are many common ethnic groups around this region (borneo + philippines). eg: there are Dusun people in Kalimantan. But they are Indonesian citizens now. Likewise the Dusun in Sabah are Malaysian citizens now. It doesnt mean these ppl can simply migrate across borders and live wherever they like, there are laws today which must be obeyed. Similarly, there have been Suluks in Sabah since the 15th century. Probably some are even indigeneous to Sabah. But this doesnt mean Suluks from Philippines today may simply come here as they wish, or Suluks from Sabah going to live in Philippines whenever they like. kawaputra^tok2me 03:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Having a related language elsewhere simply means you migrated from there or migrated to there. However, this does not affect teh argument of being indigenous, since whichever theory you subscribe to (Evolution of Creationism), most of the world wasn't populated when the first humans appeared anyway. Thus, everyone would inevitably be immigrants of some sort, and only the first to arrive may be called indigenous

This brings up the whole point of science not being able to look that far in the past and find out who came first. Whodhellknew 00:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The Dusuns like to claim that they are the indigenous people of the whole of Sabah, but they are present only in some parts of the interior of Sabah, i.e. in Ranau and Tambunan. They only migrate to the coastal regions such as Kota Kinabalu recently. They are absent in Sandakan(Orang Sungai are not Dusuns but many Dusuns like to categorise them as Dusun as well), Tawau, Kudat(Rungus are not strictly Dusun but for policital reasons they claim them to be Dusuns as well).Othmanskn 17:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of these claims, and in any case, it's irrelevant to anything right now. Whodhellknew 00:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The best way of determining if a tribe is indigenous or not is whether they are the first to inhabit an area. In this respect, the Suluks are indigenous of Sabah because they are among the first inhabiting some parts of the eastern region of Sabah.

Another is the adjacency test. The group of Island in Sabah is part of the Sulu archipelago. It is natural that the Suluks slowly migrate and develop these areas and therefore considered as indigenous of the Eastern Part of Sabah.

What is clear is the the Suluks are not indigenous of the Western part of Sabah until recently.

Similarly for the Dusuns, who are not indigenous of the Eastern part of Sabah until recently. Othmanskn 17:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, there's the issue of what you may call 'indigenous'. Must you be the first to arrive? Can it not be hypothesised that there were others here before the Suluks arrived (the South China Sea was after all, passable during the last Ice Age). Adjacency is not a foolproof test either. You could argue that the Chinese are indigenous to the whole of modern-day China that way, whereas there are significant anthropological evidence that they displaced or assimilated local populations. The Malays can be said to be a product of this displacement as well. Whodhellknew 00:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

from what i read the malaysians history book, the information is conveying that the sulu sultanate was granted to have the sabah's land by the brunei sultanate for the sulu's contribution in helping brunei's interest like repeling the rebellions in sabah. so in this information, it tells me that since then the sulu became the indigeous ethnic in sabah as a whole, not from a particular place, like maybe tawau, semporna etc... as for like some other wikipedians in this talk page saying that the sulu ethnic have been living in sabah for thousands of years ago. in this part, i actually just know it through wikipedia web site for the 1st time. i must say i never read any other books that relates to it so far. these are the matters that seems to concern to some of us.

so, lets talk about the current events. the sulus who migrate to sabah BY ANY MEANS in the current time, in the land of Sabah Malaysia. will they still be considered the bumiputera of sabah? despite their nationality is the Republic of The Phillipines? even until they got PR or citizenship?

anyone can be malaysians, but become the bumiputera? im not convinced. thats why i am confused & doubt about the immigrations law and its related to residency laws... to consider about it in the long term, government may want to allocate some funds to developments to the bumis. then, at the same time, our already very educated & talented sabahans choose to go overseas & not coming back. economy development becomes dampened since the government focus on only certain interests that benefits themselves, say in racial distribution. the talented & educated people i talked about, they have PhDs, Masters, rich working experiences... they are the "assets" of sabah, key for sabahans economy without depending on west malaysia.

this particular political policy; as long as it still happens, how many decades more will it continue? how much more money spent from especially the tax payers? they are inter-related, and gives impacts to each other. so, from what i write here, i can say at least i did do some homeworks, looking for books, witnessing the current states's news through media. i believe anyone might know something like what i wrote... mr_xmlv 13:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Joined or Formed

I've started changing the words joined Malaysia to Formed Malaysia because it is ridiculous. How can you join something that has not been established officially but I did mention that for all purposes the Malayan leaders actually wanted that Malaysia be just a renamed Malaya, but this is not supported by published documents.Othmanskn 17:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The best way is to say "Joined with Malaya, Sarawak and Singapore to Form the Federation of Malaysia" as both joined and formed are correct in their individual sense. Malaysia was already set to be formed with or without Sabah, and Sabah is a founding member of Malaysia. So both are correct.BaronVonchesto (talk) 17:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment

This article is very interesting with a lot of details. Some inline references would be nice though. Manderiko 01:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Immigration by Malayans or West Malaysians

I've added comments in the article putting immigration by West Malaysians as one factor for the large increase in the Population of Sabah. Data can be found from the statistics with people with races such as Malay. Malays don't exist in Sabah, or at least they don't call themselves as Malay. They call themselves as Brunei. I use Malaya because this is the legal definition of West Malaysia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Othmanskn (talk • contribs) 06:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Please sign your comments. Anyway, saying that "Malays" don't exist in Sabah is arbitrary. That's your personal observation and not representative of everyone, not least the people who've called themselves Malay. Whodhellknew 23:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

i read a sabah history book actually, it suggested that the malays, bruneis were found in small group during the time of british era and the sulu, bajau, murut, "kadazan"-dusun(before tun fuad stephan's time) were quite influential at that time. and the chinese also had good relationship with them, mostly if with those who are friendly & family persons type. and in fact, reality changed to sabahans society in this modern era which is something we all missed very much. mr_xmlv 13:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xmlv (talk • contribs)

Claims that SAbah is independent on 31st of August

Although School history books and legal documents indicate that SAbah was only free from British control on the 16th of September, the large number of editorials, self-published and government body-published books and informations, stating that SAbah got its independence on the 31st of August, I'm preparing references which showed these views. This is unfortunately par t of the history of SAbah, the ignorance of Sabahans of the dates concerning the formation of Malaysia, when Dr. Jefry, a PhD from Harvard can ignore offical documents. Maybe he has his reasons for deviating from offical legal documents(sabahcolonised.blogspot.com) and history books, Sejarah Tingkatan 3, 2005, but we must record his views in this wikipedia. Let the facts decide. At the moment I edit these views as though they are not the offical historical academic version, because currently School history books say otherwise.Othmanskn 14:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I dont really understand. Are u saying that Sabah was independant on Aug 31 '63, or Sep 16 '63? Which is true? What did Jeffrey say? kawaputra^torque 15:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Jeffrey said that it was on the 31st of August, 1963, and so is Dr. Herman Luping. If you want the truth, read my sabahcolonised.blogspot.com for photographed pictures of the legal documents that led to the formation of Malaysia. In that "Pemashoran Malaysia" document, Tunku Abdul RAhman declared that Britain ceases its sovereignty over Sabah on the day Malaysia was established, i.e. on the 16th of September, 1963.Othmanskn 16:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Matlan Marjan the most accomplished in Malaysia

Someone keep on deleting my comment that Matlan is the best in Malaysia and put "one of",and adding that Matlan is from Sabah. Obviously that person is not a Sabahan. The title already tells that it is about "Sabahans", so no need to tell that he is a Sabahan. I've already managed to convince the "volunteer administrators" of wikipedia that Matlan Marjan deserves a page for himself.

Mokhtar Dahari could get the title of the best player because of his contributions to Selangor, but he can only score 1 goal against an English B team, and that is from a long range fluke-shot.

Hairudin Omar scored one goal against Chelsea, not an international team.

The only players that manage to score 2 goals against England is Marco VAn Basten and Maradona, but Maradona uses the hand of god, but I believe Maradona still deserves to be the best football player of the Century. His style is similar to Mokhtar DAhari.

So, I'm willing to compromise by saying that Matlan Marjan is the most accomplished only.

I wrote, "Matlan is one of the most celebrated football in Sabah". I didnt say "from Sabah". I dont think this is wrong. There are other famous Sabahan footballers, eg: Hassan Sani, James Wong, Harun Laban, etc. I dont know how West Msians view Matlan. But saying "most accomplished player in Malaysia" may not be wrong. So i have no problem with it. The only thing is the length of his career was too short for other Msians or other ppl to note his accomplishment. kawaputra^torque 04:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone must have edited it. Maybe we should add Hassan SAni and James Wong because they also managed to be in the Malaysian team that got to the Semifinal of the Olympic, defeated by Germany(Amateur team). Harun Laban and others have less accomplishment so we cannot add them in the notable Sabahan entry. Otherwise it will become too long.

Celebrated is not suitable for Matlan, because his international career is too short for us to celebrate.Othmanskn 04:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Please prevent from giving opinion, as stated in official Wikipedia policy at WP:NOT#OPINION. __earth ^(Talk) 10:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Mat Saleh is a Suluk-Bajau

Someone keep on changing his race to Bajau, without even telling which Bajau is that. But History Book by Buckley mentioned that he is a Suluk-Bajau. Please note that those with Datu title can only be a Suluk, just like only a Brunei Malay can be a Pengiran.

Repetitive, boosterism, unconvincing sourcing

Edition by User:Othmanskn contains redundancy as well as boosterism. Concerning redundancy, the date August 31 1963 was mentioned a number of times, over and over again. This is observable at section "Second World War and the road to independence". It suffices for us to mention it only once. Furthermore, the same user is in the "Notable Sabahans" section uses a lot of "most", "best" without meaningful qualification. In most cases, it corresponds to his own opinion rather than hard fact. This violates WP:NPOV. And whenever it is cited, it cites his own blog, which is not credible at all. In one case, he even re-cites Wikipedia as source! This fails to adhere to WP:REF Therefore, I vote for a revert to Sept 5 edition of the article, before all his edits are added in. __earth ^(Talk) 11:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to the references that I had included. As for the notable Sabahans, deleting all entries and changing it to meaningless comments such as "he is from SAbah" is utterly stupid because the topic was about Sabah already. Also, it is the best description for people who are the only ones doing it at a particular moment of time. The qualifications are already recorded in many other wikipedia entries.

We can be certain that Matlan is the best scorer for Malaysia, although he is a SAbahan. No other malaysian player managed to score 2 goals against a full-team England. It is not necessary to state comparisons because footballers should be aware of them. REferences to other fan blogspots will help clear. Replacing the word "best" with popular is also stupid.

As for the repeat references of August 31st, 1963, it is necessary to indicate tell the whole story, and correct the blatant corruption of history in Malaysian media, which you try to perpetuate in wikipedia, that Malaysia was formed on the 31st of August 1957. Furthermore Sabah never joined Malaysia.

Whatever disputes you have have regarding the "repetition" of 31st of August, 1963, you can only delete the offending phrases, not the entire paragraphs that include valid and better references. Deleting these references is tantamount to vandalism, which is discouraged in wikipedia and will make Sabah a "protected" page entry.

As I had mentioned in your talk page, your vandalism acts will be reported to wikipedia administrators. Othmanskn 03:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you at least indent your comments to make them readable? How do you rate a person as the "best" scorer? Do you have references about his total goals for the national team?

I've also deleted the following passage " and not many football players in the world can score two goals against a full England Football team", since 'not many' is not a valid qualification.Whodhellknew 23:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm tired of your threat. You should follow it through. Regardless, your edition violates WP:NPOV and some of your sources violate WP:OR. You can't source your own blog. And you cannot source Wikipedia too to strengthen this Wikipedia article (read circular reasoning to know why). I am quite sure this will ring the bells with any admin that you will want to approach. You have yet to answer all these questions.

Plus, I have never said Malaysia was formed on August 31 1957. Find one instance of which I have said that on Wikipedia if you can instead of making wild allegation.__earth ^(Talk) 03:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

These are just a few of the references included. There are further references that support these refences. My blog is only a scan of the official references, for easy reference. The reference on Wikipedia is for you to find more official references in the articles there, but my references below which you delete without any reason: i) School History of SAbah: C. Buckley (also available a web version) ii) Sejarah Tingkatan 3: Buku Teks, 2006(Ministry of Education) iii) Pictorial History of Sabah: Sabah State Government

should be sufficient for you to know about Mat Saleh who is clearly shown as a Suluk-Bajau, and other dates that I had mentioned.

If you don't like anything in these additions, you should first of all, refer to the references. If you don't like the writing style, "too much repetitions", edit them accordingly, but make sure the message is not changed, because many nations were involved, e.g. Brunei and Singapore.Othmanskn 04:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Because it is repetitive that those statements on august 31 are deleted. No meaning has changed. Further, why don't you refer directly to the source instead of to your blog? At the same time, please don't include your opinion such as "greatest rebel" etc. Furthermore, I've read some of your sources like this on Mat Salleh]] and this it says nothing of the thing you wrote. __earth ^(Talk) 10:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Othmanskn, some of your statements contain POV (some of which i agree with) but unfortunately it has to be backed by source. Try to read: WP:POV and WP:PEACOCK to get a sense of what the wiki policy is about. I think the repetition problem has been solved. So, thats fine. But i wouldn't agree to deleting totally everything othmanskn has written. Probably some of it can be worked on by placing tags such as {{fact}}, etc. Some things u written in the tourism section has to be deleted though. Such as: all the trivial anjungs. kawaputra^torque 09:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

suspected Vandalism

Despite complaining about "repetitions", and Mat Salleh the "greatest" Earth deleted entire articles. What is bad is that with it, he deleted a lot of references including official references that support these arguments. Although some references are just web references, these are just to support the official references by providing easy access to some important documents.

I've researched Wikipedia "vandalism". I suspect the actions by Earth can be considered "vandalism" although not so clear. The motivatioin is clearly his Malayan Malay nationalism based on his informatioin on UMNO in his talk page.

I may agree that my English phrase may not be that excellent because it gave a perception of repetitions but it should be corrected word by word, not entire paragraphs, without removing the message of the phrases.Othmanskn 05:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Apart from his violations of WP:NPOV, some of his citations are bogus. For instance, this was what he wrote: "Mat Salleh, is the greatest rebel or freedom fighter in Malaysia. His exploits far exceed those of fighters from Malaya or Sarawak. Not only was he a multi-racial leader, he destroyed more British interests, controlled larger areas and fought for a much longer time, compared to the other known Malaysian fighters before the second world war." and the supported it with two citations that says nothing of sort. This is from his first citation: "Others were Mat Saleh and Antanum in Sabah, and Sharif Masahor, Rentap, Banting, Asun and Rosli Dobi in Sarawak. The main bone of contention among the “rebels” was the excessive and unfair tax and insensitive meddling in local affairs and customs by the new “masters”." [5]. Another is this: The British Chartered Company’s attempt to bring the different territorial and tribal chiefs of North Borneo, the area that is now Sabah, under one central administration was resisted every step of the way. One serious challenge was the uprising led by Mat Salleh. [6]. Observe how those sources do not support his opinion of Mat Salleh being the greatest rebel, etc. All it said that Mat Salleh challenged the Company's administration and that is all.

The same pattern is observable at some other citations that he provided. In other words, he is misusing citation to bring the impression that his opinion is backed by fact whereas in fact, it is not. And instead of addressing the matter, accusing me of being a nationalist, etc. __earth ^(Talk) 10:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

REad more history books which are also cited. These newspaper clippings are just lists of rebels. From there you can find out about their accomplishments. In these articles there was mention of the Naning rebellion. This was quoted as the largest British operations involving many guns and transports. But it was only ONE operation, but it covers the state of Negeri Sembilan that is only 150km long. Mat SAlleh covers areas of more than 450 km long and the British had to battle many times against his forts, not just once.

You can read the School History Book of SAbah, by Buckley in order to find out the details.

60.50.165.185 (talk)

citations are quotations. They support the arguments. You must read all the quotations before you come to any conclusion. Reading only some will not allow you to know the whole history. The most important is the readily available School History of SAbah by Buckley. You can compare that with our PMR History books on descriptions about other rebels. The most widely quoted was Lela, a murderer who just kept on running away, similar to the one from Sarawak, Mat Kilau and gangs who managed to destroy a few police stations for a few months and then disappear, similar for the other rebels in Sabah, e.g Gunting who was also a follower of Mat Salleh. Mat Salleh destroyed the entire British Administrative Centre, Pulau Gaya, including a few police stations. Had had forts in RAnau and Tambunan, a Dusun area, while he comes from Jambongan of a Muslim Sulu-bajau descent. None of the other rebels lead such a diverse groups of people. Most tend to lead people of their kind. These are all supported by the citations if you care to read instead of deleting them.

If anyone delete these citations, I shall initiatet the vandalism charge against them. 60.50.165.185 (talk)

I agree with Earth on this. There is no way to agree on a measure of how "great" a rebel is. Please just state facts and leave your opinion out of this. Whodhellknew 23:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please clean up this talk page?I can't make head or tail of this article? whos figthing whom?Also,I think these debates are starting to violate wikipedia's impartiality guidelines.Also,if people who advocate the philippine claim are biased,don't be biased in return.And all these capitalizations are making people angry!(Anonymus) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.76.252.247 (talk) 10:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

History is about special people, not average people

That is why we have to find out the special things about these people. Just stating that he scored 2 goals against England is meaningless without any comment on the significance of that score.

History is also not just a place to get facts. We need to analyse these facts and give some analysis. When giving analysia, we tend to give opinions. It should be alright as long as they are supported by facts. After reading the wiki guidelines on giving opinions, the opinions not encouraged are those about politics and current affairs. Also rankings that can get out of date very quickly. In history, many things were only valid for a certain period of time.

Matlan Marjan is a special football player. Either you mention his as an accomplished player or find alternative descriptions of his accomplishments. As for it to be out of date, it will be a long time because scoring against 2 goals against a full England team is very very difficult even for the very best professional strikers. Even Marco Vas Basten managed to score only 2, similarly for Maradona, the greatest footballer in the century as voted by the most people.

I shall reenter the description of his accomplishment. Luckily my references were not deleted.

Mat Salleh is another case. This is even worse. All my references had been deleted. In these references, quoted from New Straits Times, there are mentions of various rebels from Sarawak and based on these descriptions, it is very clear that Mat Salleh is the most successful/destructive of these rebels in Malaysia. If someone disagree, please come up with alternative names so that they can be debated. Just deleting these descriptions is tantamount to vandalism.

I shall reinsert most of my descriptions and references. The most valuable are the refences. Please never never delete these references. Please refer to my arguments on this suspected vandalism. Othmanskn (talk)

How do you measure "success" or "destructiveness"? Is there an academic paper purporting to measure the economic costs of all rebellions in Malaysia? Success on the other hand, is subjective. There is no agreed way of measuring success.

Thus, it is best to leave out any subjective description of their comparative effects and simply act as a factual narrative of what Mat Salleh did without any judgment. Whodhellknew (talk) 02:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Races are important for History

You don't equate political propaganda with History. History is a record of people and their behaviours, pointing out the special characteristics of them.

I've just finished reading many of the Osprey Campaign Series written by well known historians. I propose those who are interested to learn about history, to read these excellent books.

These historians point out the races of these people and their origins, right down to their ancestors. It is very difficult because most are mixed.

Campaign Series #13. Christopher Gravett. Hastings 1066. The Fall of Saxon England

Campaign Series #19. David Nicolle. Hattin 1187. Saladin's Greatest Victory

It takes considerable effort in order to find out the origins of each of the individual. For someone to delete them just because of their political inclination is very bad. In fact we need to know as much about these individuals as we can. Such as where he is born, who his parents are etc.

I shall start reinserting these races where I can find them. I tend to concentrate on the bajau and sulu races because I know them very well. For others, I cannot be so sure. Someone must find out. For those with kadazan-dusun, they have to be specific as to where he comes from. Either murut from keningau, dusun from ranau, or kadazan from penampang, or rungus from kudat.

Similarly for the Bugis. Andrekan or Boni. Brunei or Kadayan. othmanskn 60.50.165.185 (talk)

I forgot to log in for the above. Othmanskn (talk)

First of all, please sign off your comments with 4 tildes, which would put a date stamp on it as well as your user name. Second of all, just because some history books talk about the race of a historical figure, it doesn't mean you have to do it all the time.

The key test is RELEVANCE. For instance, anti-colonial insurgencies that originate from a certain tribe (e.g. the Mao Mao of Kenya that were mostly from the Kikuyu tribe) would definitely merit mentioning the person's race. However, if it is irrelevant, then there shouldn't be a need to clutter the text with mentions of race and ethnicity at all. Unless of course, the article is on the person itself, which means it doesn't belong in the Sabah page.

On that note, Mat Salleh's race is indeed relevant, but I disagree with your assertion that you would want to insert the reference to a person's race all the time in the Sabah page. A person's origins belong to his/her own page, instead of the Sabah page unless it is RELEVANT.

RELEVANCE please. Whodhellknew (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Earth submitted for Vandalism

My reason is that he had deleted my references giving excuses that they are irrelevant.

I've explained their relevances and the reasons why they are included and yet no comment on them.

The references that I gave are links to articles that can be easily accessed. They give list of rebels and their accomplishments, but they are not comprehensive since they don't tell much about Sabah. Based on these descriptions of other rebels, comparing them with Buckley's history book, we can determine that Mat Salleh is the most accomplished so far.

You can argue on my use of the word "greatest" but you canot delete the facts about him, such as a multi-racial leader, large areas, and more destructions and control compard to the other rebels.

Similar to my reference to prove that Many Sabahans believe that Sabah is independent on the 31st of August, 1957. It is shown on the notice board right at the centre of Kota Kinabalu city, and my blogspot shows such a picture for all to see.

My blogspot also shows scanned pages of newspapers which are already quoted so that readers can read for themselves these newspaper clippings. They are therefore relevant.

I'm still monitoring what he deletes some more. I've included the facts about budget distribution and poverty statistics complete with references. Othmanskn (talk)

I read your sources and it does not assert what you are asserting. And adding your blog to this article doesn't work well with conflict of interest. It also amounts of original research. If your blog have all that newspapers clipping, your sources should be THOSE CLIPPINGS, not your blog. And you may submit all you want but apparently, the admin there seems to disagree with your accusation because your complaint has been removed. __earth ^(Talk) 13:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

So you admit that my blogs are relevant. Why are you against the submission of my blogs as well as other sources of references regarding the greatness of Mat Salleh as a REbel???

You even deleted all references to clippings. My blogs reinforces these clippings for those who are lazy to read newspapers and I also include photos of the proof that SAbahans believe that Sabah was independent on the 31 August 1957. This photo is taken by myself but all Sabahans can see it everyday.

I shall resubmit your name for massive vandalism in removing entire sections.

Othmanskn (talk)

Othmanskn, on Wikipedia blogs are not accepted as sources, not yours or anyone else's. So please bring better references.

/ Mats Halldin (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Othmanskn, I quote "So you admit that my blogs are relevant." No, I did not say such thing. I repeat, your blog is not a credible source, as Mats has written earlier. It is nothing personal. It is WIKIPEDIA POLICY and GUIDELIENS, specifically WP:REF, WP:RS. Further, your sources do not validate your assertion. On top of that you are making value judgment, violating WP:NPOV. I have mentioned this earlier. Is there something else you don't understand? __earth ^(Talk) 14:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

dear fellow sabahans, while facing some heated issues, i hope you would consider not using verbal aggression (not just apply to avoid talking foul words, indirect and ironic-sounded words etc). this is just not a constructive approach to help people to understand about sabah in detail.

remember in wikipedia we are to inform the readers about us, so as contained in the wikipedia guideline, please cite the reference especially when it comes to prove the certain issues raised using the official and independent researches made by recognised and certified experts. newspaper is not always a good item to refer because the paper's article is usually made based on a writer's opinions and sometimes filled with emotions, never about a thorough, truthful research.

proper reference from books which usually contained the author's biography is always help to settle the possible heated issues, because from the author's biography we always know the author's experience and works, also they would go through a proper research before it is taken into consideration to publish. when no solid evidence provided, it's best not to continuously to debate as it always lead to dead end and unfinished solution.

also, please don't use political elements from certain political party into articles because political party encourage INDIVUALISM (based on Oxford Dictionary definition). it usually separate other people's thoughts and also creates conflicts. please remember our aim to maintain our page in wikipedia, is to inform the people in general. imagine what would other people think when they see us fighting over about, it would cause a high degree of embarrassing. mr_xmlv 12:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Sabah's Discriminatory Budget and Poverty Statistics

It is not the words that matter the most but the references. I fear that Earth will try to delete them.

The fact is that Sabah were given only 7.8% of the total budget based on Edge Daily statement of the Malaysian budget, compared to the population of Sabah that is 13% based on Figures from Statistics, 3.4 million out of 25 million.

Othmanskn (talk)

I'll have to agree with Earth - you need to supply your claims with credible sources, and your own blog is not one of them.

/ Mats Halldin (talk) 13:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand the whole issue. My claims are based on published figures and not on my blog. My blog is only the place where I scanned some of these sources. My blog is also the place where you can see real photos that I took to justify my claims.

I don't agree with the justification that the blog has to be deleted just because IT IS A BLOG. It depends on the circumstances. A blog cannot be used as a basis for arguments but it can used as a place to point to other references. For photographic evidences, there is no better way to place them other than blogs. Unless I upload it to Wikipedia, which I don't want ot do at the moment. Othmanskn (talk)

Othmanskn (talk)

Othmanskn,

1. your blog is not accepted as a reference. Period! If you want to refer to published works you need to comply to how this is done properly on Wikipedia.
2. Quoting from your post on my talk page: Earth did not "mixed up sections on Sabah's budgetery descriptions with my charge of Vandalism against Earth" — I did that — and, no, it is not "a lot of effort to insert the equal signs at both ends of the titles". As you are accusing Earth for two things it is better to discuss both under the same heading. I ,therefore, added the two equal signs again.

/ Mats Halldin (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Othmanskn, your blog IS NOT THE SOURCE. Reference it to the documents that you purportedly have and not your blog. Whodhellknew (talk) 01:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. Othmanskn (talk · contribs), you need to do some serious reading at reliable sources to see what is acceptable and not for sources. Blogs, especially from those who have a conflict of interest in the matter, is simply not allowed. Period. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion has been extended here. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Response from third opinion

Hello, I am from third opinion who is interested in taking on this issue. I'll begin by making a few general statements: Self-published sources are not acceptable, and they include self-published web-sites, blogs, books, newsletters and the like -- mostly because anyone can claim to have a book or site published.

However, if the source from the blog is reliable and can be accurately cited, and satisfies WP:SPS and WP:OR, then it can stand to be included. In other words, cite the original source, not the blog. I'll take a look at more of it in a minute. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Another issue I am seeing in the article are USENET references. These are also not acceptable, however, if it is repost of an article that can be fully attributed, source that rather than the USENET post itself. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Blogs are not the issue, References Are

The blog is the least of my concerns. It is the deletions of perfectly legitimate references that had nothing to do with any blog. You have even confused the topics altogether because of the vandalism of subtopics.

I solved the problems of photo refences by uploading the photos in wiki itself. The published references are also from the cover of books.

In the case of Mat Salleh, why delete easy references to rebels in Malaysia? Two important sources, had been deleted. Even reference from Buckley who clearly demonstarted the superiority of Mat Salleh to the history of Sabah, was deleted. What basis is that? What has got that to do with my blog?

Also in the Matlan's case, my reference as to the significance of the 2 goals against England was also deleted. The term the "best players" is just a logical common sense. Why should any team send players who are not the best for that match? Only idiots will come to any other conclusions. What has got that to do with my blog???

Othmanskn (talk)

Dude, you are confusing five different violations of policies as one. I repeat again, the violations are:

1. Your value judgment (e.g. best, the most, etc) violates neutral point of view policies (WP:NPOV )
2. Your value judgement is also your opinion, certainly not fact, thus violating policies on original research (WP:OR) and reference (WP:REF and WP:RS).
3. Your citation does not back your point! Violation of WP:REF and indeed abusing policies on good faith (WP:GOOD). Do you really think nobody would check your source?
4. Your blog is not a reliable source regardless what you post there. Again, a disregard for WP:RS.
5. Finally, for calling others that disagree with your opinion as idiot, violation of civility (WP:CIVIL). For that, you have been reported to the admin. And for somebody called others as idiots, maybe you should well read those policies first, lest you make yourself look silly.

At least 3 of the issues have been consistently highlighted. __earth ^(Talk) 01:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Using words like "greatest" and "best" to describe someone or something is not appropriate under wikipedia guidelines. Please read Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms. Look at the example and words to look out for. The page also teaches you how to improve your sentence. In essence, you should show how/why Matlan or anyone else is the best player, instead of telling us that he is the best. See also Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. kawaputra^torque 05:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstood the guidelines completely:

This is derived from Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms.

This is because you have the habit of refering to references without reading them let alone understanding it. Read the phrase "ninth largest"! If you know some English, you should realise that Greatest is Equivalent to Largest, depending on the context that you are refering to.

Peacock term:

   * Brazil has a vigorous economy.

Better:

   * According to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, Brazil has the ninth largest economy in the world by purchasing power parity (PPP).[1][2]

The first example simply tells the reader that the Brazilian economy is important. The second example shows the reader that it is. Show, don't tell.

Othmanskn (talk) 02:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

1. What is NPOV? The real reference.

NPOV does not mean the absence of any opinion such as "best" etc. REad this quote from the latest reference.

(As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. Debates within topics are clearly described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but must studiously refrain from asserting which is better.)

Read the following extract from your very own quote: (When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion. For example, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say: "Most people from Liverpool believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which can be supported by references to a particular survey; or "The Beatles had many songs that made the UK Singles Chart," which is also verifiable as fact. In the first instance we assert a personal opinion; in the second and third instances we assert the fact that an opinion exists, by attributing it to reliable sources.)

CAn you really understand English and find the similarities here: Matlan Marjan is the most accomplished footballer in Malaysia. He is the only Malaysian who scored 2 goals against England.

Mat Salleh is the greatest rebel in Malaysia. He destroyed the most properties, lead the most people of different ethnicities, cover the largest areas etc.

2. Is a blatant lie! isn't Matlan Marjan the only Malaysian who scored 2 goals against England. Have you read all the references. Din't Mat Salleh destroyed the most properties among the known rebels in Malaysia?Have you read all the references.

3.References do not back the facts claimed?

Did Buckley's references not backing that Mat Salleh is the greatest rebel in Sabah? Have you read thrse reference?

Wasn't the articles by Malaysian journalists and Malaysian text books about the rebels in Malaysia support the argument that Mat Salleh is the greatest in Malaysia? Of course it does not tell that Mat SAlleh is the greatest rebel in Malaysia for various reasons but we need to know the accomplishments of these rebels in order to compare with Mat Salleh that is well documented by Buckley and other references.

Do you have the right to delete references that refer to facts relevant to the fact that is discussed.

Extracted from WP:REF

((WP:Verifiability says: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."))

My quotations that may be challenged are: Who are the rebels in Malaysia and their accomplishments?

References need to be cited in order to back up my assetion which is very important in establishing the notability of Mat SAlleh in the topic "notable Sabahans". If you delete these references, which include Malaysian School Text Books and articles by Malaysian journalists archived by Lawyers in their main site and organisation.

By deleting these references you are committing vandalism and in bad faith, because it will destroy the argument and assertion of notability that is important for the topic.

Quoted from WP:GOOD (Good articles are articles which are considered to be of good quality but which are not yet, or are unlikely to reach featured article quality.)

Why do you quote something that has nothing to do with your assertion that my article is not in "good faith"? Can you reread what you have written.

4. My blog is not a reliable resource. So what? That is why it has to be backed up by many other references.

Again in your reference [WP:RS], there is no explicit statement forbidding blogs. Where do you get the idea that blogs cannot be used? You must quote the right sources first.

I can show you wiki policy references which allow blogs but have you even read my statements.

5. What insult have I said? Is the stating of the fact: "Why should any team send players who are not the best for that match? Only idiots will come to any other conclusions.", you feel so insulted.

Because you feel that you are the idiot.

Just because I prove that you're wrong, does not mean that I'm not civil towards you, according to Wiki or western values. For you, you may feel insulted by being proven to be wrong bordering on stupidity,but facts should stand by itself.

It is you who had been so uncivil towards the whole discussing by: a) not understanding, let alone quoting, arguments, previously presented b) telling absolute lie, saying that I lied about Matlan the only Malaysian scoring 2 goals against England. c) not reading own quotations for relevance or even applicability of the argument.

For a), b), the only conclusion that can be drawn is that you are an idiot but actually there are more to it than can be seen from these idiocies.

You are on a vendetta to spread lies about Sabah by appearing to be so stupid. Lies that belittle the true achievements of Sabahans due to your racist views.("superiority derogatory")

Your vandalism in deleting all references, is just an atttempt to hide you stupidities for various reasons.

The entire arguments had been so uncivilised in the first place because of the "not reading" of quotations and even arguments presented just in the previous paragraph.

Othmanskn (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

attention to sabahan wikipedians

dear fellow sabahans, while facing some heated issues, i hope you would consider not using verbal aggression (not just apply to avoid talking foul words, indirect and ironic-sounded words etc). this is just not a constructive approach to help people to understand about sabah in detail.

remember in wikipedia we are to inform the readers about us, so as contained in the wikipedia guideline, please cite the reference especially when it comes to prove the certain issues raised using the official and independent researches made by recognised and certified experts. newspaper is not always a good item to refer because the paper's article is usually made based on a writer's opinions and sometimes filled with emotions, never about a thorough, truthful research.

proper reference from books which usually contained the author's biography is always help to settle the possible heated issues, because from the author's biography we always know the author's experience and works, also they would go through a proper research before it is taken into consideration to publish. when no solid evidence provided, it's best not to continuously to debate as it always lead to dead end and unfinished solution.

also, please don't use political elements from certain political party into articles because political party encourage INDIVUALISM (based on Oxford Dictionary definition). it usually separate other people's thoughts and also creates conflicts. please remember our aim to maintain our page in wikipedia, is to inform the people in general. imagine what would other people think when they see us fighting over about, it would cause a high degree of embarrassing.

i wrote this into a new section in the hopes to attract attentions of you. mr_xmlv 12:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I have been guilty of using some foul words here. And im sorry. I also realise my mistake in that wikipedia is not a soapbox. But that was when i was not yet fully familiar with wiki guidelines. But now i know. :-). By the way xmlv, u can sign your name by typing four tildes (~~~~). I case u didnt know that. ќמшמφטтгמ^torque 05:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

yes i did man... Xmlv (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You must follow the guidelines by reading them first. No point in refering to guidelines when you don't read them. Refer to my explanations of the wikipedia references.

Othmanskn (talk) 02:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

"Kuala Lumpur's colonial mentality towards Sabah, wherein 95% of the profits from Sabah's immense natural resources are taken by the federal government"

i can not understand this, or should i say, i reject this, this is bias, i hope we can talk about it.

As far as i remember member of the federation are designated to contribute 95% of the state profit, how does that only concern sabah? (i think in case of kelantan oil revenue, well maybe that just my conclusion)

for now, i think we better put citation remark there, until the person who wrote this can clarify each statement with proper citation.175.137.235.145 (talk) 03:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Topic Work

Name of country:__________________________

Research: ______________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________

Find out all the details about the country by using sources and researching its climate and details: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Mark the boxes below as if you have done the research:

YES 0 or NO 0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Islamrocks (talk • contribs) 15:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Ph seal tawi-tawi.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ph seal tawi-tawi.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)