Talk:Sarawak/Archive 1

Motto
The state motto is 'Bersatu, Berusaha, Berbakti' which roughly translates into 'United, Industrious, Devoted' and not 'A Place Like No Other' etc. --Matthew A. Lockhart 14:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

State anthem
Somebody unfashionably left this at the front page. __earth (Talk) 05:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Earlier History of Sarawak
In Brunei history textbooks, it was mentioned that Sarawak was a Johor vassal state that was given to Brunei on 14th century as marriage gift for Sultan Mohammad Shah for marrying a Johorean princess. Can someone verify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.6.208.71 (talk • contribs)


 * Could you give us the title of the textbook + ISBN, etc? __earth (Talk) 08:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have a strong doubt on the veracity to the claim above, and I am somewhat unsure about the assertion made that a small slice of the present coast drained by the Sarawak river, was ruled in March, by vassals appointed from a distant, unknown Sultanate in Johor. If anything the Kingdom of Puni or better known as Brunei was recorded on Chinese annals, as one paying tribute to the Chinese ruling dynasties for a short time. Tuai 22:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

History POV
The History section does not appear to be written from an NPOV. eg, sections written in the First Person, comments such as "so far, so good".

The section seems (in part) to be one person's subjective account of the events leading to cession to the British Crown, containing unreferenced assetrtions about the author's claims to the throne.

We have "the Brooke family was intent on a policy of paternalism". It's hard to actually know their intentions. Would it be correct to say they "pursued" a policy of paternalism? We have "the intention was clearly admirable." and the constitution contained "defects" that were "wholly unacceptable". That's definitely POV. We have "the title of Rajah Muda would be restored to me". I doubt if the Wikipedia was to be made Rajah Muda. The secret agreement was "bound to" leak out. Malays "dramatically" attempted to assassinate the first British governor. This is either POV or at least peacock wording. On the basis of these points, the POV tag was justified. However some of the issues in the section might be better labelled by a different tag. Unfortunately I don't know enough on the subject to make corrections without possibly distorting the facts. The Photon 04:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You misunderstood the concept of NPOV. See WP:NPOV for further information. __earth (Talk) 13:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've made some minor changes. Recognition should be given to the native population such as the Malay and Dayak for having served in Brooke's government, initially in minor roles. Melanaus or Milanows, were at the tail end of the 19th century, regarded with very little interest being originally a riverine and coastal population, scattered in small numbers in the Rajang, immediate to their kin the Punan Bah and the Tanjungs.Tuai 22:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Issue 1
I removed this from the article:

As there is no explanation of who "me" is, this seemed to be meaningless and irretrievable by anyone without specialist knowledge. If anyone does know who the mysterious figure who was granted the title of Rajah Muna (heir apparent) by the proposed constitution is, this is interesting information which might be worth re-adding. If not, the content doesn't seem to be much use. TSP 19:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Issue 2
I can not understand why the editor saw fit to delete my contribution of 7 Feb. 2009 when I tried to include a new short write up under a new sub-heading: Places of Interest to the Visitor. The concise fact based information supplied was based on my personal first hand experience in Sarawak which I toured and studied extensively in 2006. Visitors ( Travelers and Tourists alike ) want to know information on where to go, what to see, what to experience when in Sarawak. If this is not essential information with practical advice help I do not know what is! Under " Economy " article, at the end of which the top 4 money earners for Sarawak are listed, my addition of the word " Tourism " as the 5th industry was deleted too. Why? I authored and published a travelogue book called Discovering North Borneo, a hard copy of which is with the National Library of Australia. --Attilaurm (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I also thought the "points of interest" list was quite interesting. Rather then beeing deleted I think a rewording under some other title would have been better - and maybe that is exactly what should be done! - However this is not a travelers guide or a place for first hand experience. I had to learn that as well and still have difficulties at times to keep to that policy and standard. If you have writen something yourself that might very well be absolutly true you should still not quote it here! It is considered a bad manner of style on Wikipedia to quote oneself. Besides that there should not be any "original research". If you know something then include a reference outside of Wikipedia to best avoid trouble. This is difficult and at times as far as I have experienced near impossible to always comply to. Sooooo maybe there should be a list of noteworthy places that doesn't sound like a tourist guides "things you should have seen" list. Maybe imagine a student writing a report on the place and consider the information he may need. As for travel guides - there are indeed other web projects that yearn exactly for that sort of information. Wikipedia may link to such a site but per definition may not use such style :-(   --T.woelk (talk) 09:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The suggested/contributed sub-title: “ Points of Interest ” was certainly not a tool for promoting tourism per se but to provide missing but essential, verifiable with the naked eye information of interest and thus add to general knowledge of readers and potential visitors to the State of Sarawak.
 * For example, under Sarawak, when history, geography, demographics, economy etc.etc. subjects are amply covered in minute detail whilst physical features like unique and true world class wonders like UNESCO’s World Heritage listed Mulu National Park (a.k.a. Gunung Mulu N.P ) and therein the huge caves system do not get a mention, the editor must be missing the point to the detriment of Wikipedia. So, in accordance with some of the arguable points raised that may be valid, I trimmed down my contribution this time and advise that ample cross-reference literature is available on the sub-titled subject proposed for online publication. --Attilaurm (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sarawak in film?
How about adding a section (perhaps with a different title) like this to the article? To start, the film, The Sleeping Dictionary was set in Sarawak. -FateSmiled&amp;DestinyLaughed 16:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No thanks. We don't see a list of films set in Texas in the Texas article, do we?– Matthew A. Lockhart (talk) 04:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic Confrontation???
I am certain that earlier timber blockades in the State in protest of further encroachment on NCR land does not constitute "Ethnic Confrontation". This term was used in error and should be replaced by some other title more aptly suited to describe Native Customary Rights in the State, especially in light of legal issues and points of law previously argued and clarified in the High Court.

"Ethnic Confrontation" would be better applied to the Dayak reaction against Madurese settlers in the Kalimantan States, however, it most certainly does not meet the criteria in this case.

Clarity please.

Also, I have updated some terms in the article. Indigenous could mean anything. For i.e "My pedigree Siamese Cat is indigenous to Thailand", "That particular "insert latin term" orchid is indigenous to "insert known area".

I've edited this section, having considered "native" and "rural communities" would better illustrate those examples used. Tuai 22:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

State crest / emblem / COA
Please don't revert back to the smaller lower resolution image of the State crest/emblem/COA. Whoever you are Mister unsigned 201.224.142.1 --Bukhrin 08:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Map of districts
Doesn't somebody have or can create a map where the current 11 administrational districts are shown, similar to the one for Sabah shown here? I'd do it myself, but I searched the whole Internet and couldn't find a existing map for reference. --134.76.63.1 (talk) 18:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Government
Can anyone add more on the government and administration? Earthlyreason (talk) 07:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Point of Interest
The Mulu National Park, a.k.a. Gunung Mulu Nat.Park This 52,864 ha. predominantly thickly rainforested park has been UNESCO World Heritage listed since 2000 and is renown for the unique and rich biodiversity, tropical karst formations and subterranean caves systems. At about 550 km. from the capital Kuching it is remote but open to the public. The caves systems in the park commonly offer an astonishing sight of stalagtite and stalagmite formations in a weird gargantuan proportion setting. The Clearwater Cave’s Sarawak Chamber has the world’s largest natural dome at 80mtrs. of height. Wind Cave and Lang’s Cave also offer huge inter-linked chambers and galleries and unique fast flowing clear water rivulets. Deer Cave houses the largest bat colony in the world scientifically counted to be in excess of 3 million. It is also home to millions of cave swiftlets. Both the Gunung Mulu, a 2,377mtrs. high pinnacle karst mountain alleged to be the most cavernous in the world and the botanical treasure park it dominates are subject of ongoing scientific research whilst the wonders are a drawcard for the adventure minded visitor. --Attilaurm (talk) 04:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There are many inaccuracies in this piece, and in any case, Mulu has its own page. Cavingliz (talk) 09:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Quite some time ago I added the geographic description to the article. I did mention some major mountain peaks and list the major rivers. I think a sentance on the major caves would be acceptable as these are an important feature of the karstic reagions. Just as I named the largest river or the highest peak the Sarawak Chamber should be mentioned as largest cave. Of course without any words of praise how exeptionally beautiful and well worth a visit these places are or too detailed descriptions. Rather interesting points could be the distributation of all the caves, relation to general geologic features in Sarawak, comparism of size to each other and maybe what effect their existance has on the infrastructure. In the "Environment" section a paragraph could be added that lists all the parks and gives information on the area of Sarawak that is under some sort of protection, maybe in relation to the size of Sarawak as whole as well as to the forest that is left. Similarly facts on the parks could be of interest in the section "Agriculture, logging and land usage" (especially land usage) and of course "Economy" maybe together with facts on the touristic sector as growing industry in general. As a matter of fact I think a section on the Ecology-Flora-and-Fauna may be missing and might be a good place for bats, swiftlets and the such. All this information should be checked on what relevance it has for Sarawak and not for caves, bats or some other subject. - And please numbers rather than words of praise or phrases generally found in advertising - All these facts would need good, if possible non touristic or politically tainted, sources. Eventually, on the long run, I guess I would add these things myself but considering the time I usually need I strongly suggest someone else should start doing this. Considering the info above on Mulu, I guess some of it could be used but most should be rather intigrated to articles on the park, the caves or the mountain if not allready there. --T.woelk (talk) 09:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * the flag,the star should be pointing 'downward'-the centre point that divide 4-4 at side. referhttp://www.pmo.gov.my/?menu=page&page=1671 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.184.111.80 (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Demographics
I think there should be a section for religion demography, or it can be a sub-section under current Demographics. There is no information on religion statistics in Sarawak in this page. Since that we have a demographics statistic from Department of Statistics, why don't we just use them?

One more thing, demographics should be as informative and brief as possible. I saw too many articles on ethnics (while some I consider as unnecessary for example "Dayak Sebob/Chebob"). We should have simplified it into 6 main ethnics: Iban, Chinese, Malay, Melanau, Bidayuh and Orang Ulu, plus a section for other significant minorities like Kedayan and Indian.


 * It's been going on for a year now and the same thing is still there without being modified/improved. I'd like to modify it but I lack information on demographics statistics. Thank you. Pinangjawa (talk) 19:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added religions demography. Please review. Pinangjawa (talk) 04:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Flow; grammar
I'm assuming that a citizen of Malaysia with around a medium degree of English contributed largely to parts of this article, as while they did a fantasic job supplying the reader with information and detailed historical facts, to a native speaker of English, significant portions of the article come off as a bit shaky, and I feel some grammatical changes to smooth out the flow of the article might be wise. See the religion section for an example. VoodooIsland (talk) 03:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Sarawak as a Non-Self-Governing Territory?
The following are the edits done by 95Kenrick to the lead section of the article on 14 May 2010:

I have viewed the UN page mentioned (Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories, 1945-1999) and Sarawak is listed as 'Change in status:1963'. This is a historical statement and therefore not suitable to be placed in the lead section of the article. The page itself did print that information was no longer submitted to the United Nations, indicating that the list was never updated (since 1999, 11 years ago).

One of the points in the 18-point Agreement between Sarawak and the Federation of Malaya in 1963 is the removal of rights of Sarawak to secede from the Federation later known as Malaysia. As such, Sarawak changed its status from a British Crown colony to a Malaysian federated state, while preserving some of its autonomous rights, and the term Non-Self-Governing Territory has neither been applied nor mentioned by any Malaysian publication ever (that I know of, please do correct me if otherwise).

My decision to revert all edits done by 95Kenrick (who may not be a Malaysian for the fact he/she couldn't spell Sarawak correctly) is due to preserving the NPOV to the lead section of article and because the editor overlooked this document (Non-Self-Governing Territories listed by the GA in 2002) which lists only 16 Non-Self-Governing Territories, Sarawak not included.

Thanks 95Kenrick, at least I've learnt something today. --CoolCityCat (talk) 08:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * so you can not eliminate Sarawakian in order to become Malaysian pls see:Constitution of Malaysia and United Nations — Treaty No. 8029 (31 JULY 1963) 95Kenrick (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Is that a statement or a question? Also, please do quote from the source for clarification. Thank you. CoolCityCat (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you never read [[File:Smiley-XD.gif]] Gondaria (talk) 00:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * which he/she may be a Malaysian on the fact didn't known his/her country's constitution ? how could be so sad Lol2.gif 95Kenrick (talk) 05:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * An exact quote / phrase / sentence from the Malaysian Federal Constitution may help. I realise it's quite lengthy and general to interpret at most parts. I just need to know which exact phrase you are referring to in this context. Not only for me but also for others who seek the truth. CoolCityCat (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I had to undo several changes that were introduced by 95Kenrick manually. The introduction to this article had become basically unreadable, and was mostly irrelevant information. Chelos (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The stuff I removed from the introduction was added again, this time by Kontoler. I removed it once again.  The same passage was added by the same person to the beginning of the article on Sabah, which I also had to remove.  Chelos (talk) 04:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's clear that 95Kenrick is pushing his edit despite disagreement from multiple editors. Perhaps, we should take a vote and let the matter rest? I'm confident many will vote against him. __earth (Talk) 15:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. I had to undo the edits once again. Chelos (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There is an incident report open at Administrators'_noticeboard regarding this issue. Chelos (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * At the very least Kenrick should present the facts here (incl. section numbers from the constitution), and let s.o. else write the material, since his writing is difficult to parse. — kwami (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm getting tired of the edits being re-added every time I undo, by several accounts, the latest being Lerdet. These accounts seem to be created solely for this purpose, since these are their only contributions.  At least the latest edit are more readable than the previous ones, which is a step in the right direction.  Although, they are still quite hard to follow and do not add much useful information.  It's not the information they are trying to add that I am against, per se, but instead that the language is terrible, and no real information is being added due to the lack of grammar.  Chelos (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Not a G12 speedy deletion
This article is not a valid G12 (copyright) speedy deletion and hence I'm removed the speedy tag. There's two reasons it's not a G12 speedy deletion: Please do not re-add the tag. It's most definitely not a valid speedy delete article regardless of whether or not some of the text is infringing. Dpmuk (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The claimed violation is only a section of the article.  Even if it was a violation this is not a speedy candidate as G12 applies "where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving".  In this case there clearly is content worth saving (the rest of the article).
 * 2) It seems nearly certain that the web siyte in question  got the text from this article rather than the other way round.  The text on their website was added to this article at several different times by several different editors.  It seems highly improbable that several different editors would copy text from the same website at different times over many years especially when there's no indication that the website existed when the first part of the History section was written.

To anyone else reviewing the speedy deletion tag - I've started an ANI thread here as I'm getting dangerously close to edit warring and I feel this needs another set of eyes to look over it. If you review the tag you may want to comment there as well. Dpmuk (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I would consider re-adding a speedy tag to be disruption, and it would warrant a warning to that editor. — kwami (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyright concerns
Having evaluated the copyright concerns, I agree that the external website almost certainly copies from Wikipedia.

For instance, looking at the history, the first two sentences entered the article in March 2008. The first part of the third sentence has been in the article since June 2004. The second part of the third sentence (since modified) entered in April 2008. The following sentence entered here, in January 2008.

While copyright concerns are important for Wikipedia and our downstream re-users, in this case infringement is reversed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that there's no evidence of a copyvio. Tourism sites frequently plagiarize WP, and there's no record of that site in the Wayback Machine to show it precedes this article. Either they opted out, or they're too recent (< ~ 6 mos) to have a record. — kwami (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

im removing something from the history section.
This statement "In June 2010, several Sarawakian immigrant workers in Singapore were arrested for carrying out a series of murders in the Kallang residential area of Singapore."

I dont think thats even appropriate, and wikipedia is not a new archive.110.159.92.94 (talk) 16:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It had already been removed once. It seems to have accidentally "got back in" when someone reverted to an earlier version for grammar issues. Well spotted - it certainly doesn't seem appropriate, and it was unsourced too (not that that really matters - as you say, this is not a news archive)  -  Begoon (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Flow & Grammar
As Voodoo Island stated back in May, the overall grammar and style of the article needs improving. I’ll be making these improvements throughout the week and would appreciate feedback when I have done so. The article has seen excellent improvements over the last few months, good work. Biggleswiki (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Malay in Sarawak
Just wanna tell u guys, Malay in Sarawak does not bind to the definition in federal constitution whereby Malay must be Muslims, and someone is considered Malay if he/she is a Muslim, practising Malay cultures and speak Malay. In fact, Malay in Sarawak is considered as "Bumiputera Sarawak", not "Malay". I can't explain this in detail, but I can assure you what I said is somewhat inarguable. You can confirm this with Sarawak government officials and agencies, especially the one dealing with native rights and courts. Pinangjawa (talk) 10:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

why does theres a section and detail explanation on religious and ethnic diversity?
i thought just like any other article, it would be better to put something like "Main article: Ethics of Sarawak" or "Main article: Religion in Sarawak" or "Main article: Islam in Sarawak"?


 * Done. Page on "Demographics of Sarawak" has been created and is now ready for review. It does include all the details from the previous publishing. Meanwhile for Sarawak page, the Demography section article has been made more brief with less details. Pinangjawa (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

its not i think it is not important, but the main idea of the article is to introduce sarawak, and im sure theres alot more to tell about sarawak then focus upon this subject.175.137.235.145 (talk) 03:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

and i do think that more citation are needed as the article progress.175.137.235.145 (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I couldn't agree more, my friend. However, just saying and actually doing it are two entirely different matters. And with that, this is where you come in.
 * Anyone can edit the article, as long as one knows the right way to edit it. We Wikipedians need as much help as we can get, because not everyone can do everything. For instance, I can only copyedit but I need someone else to wikify the article or verify the sources of the citations. And I really need someone who can paraphrase (could that be you?).
 * I strongly suggest that you join us here at Wikipedia. By that, I mean we'd rather see your username than just an IP address. Plus while you're at it, join our WikiProject Malaysia as well. Your contributions are most welcome. CoolCityCat (talk) 19:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * huh? i thought we supposed to talk about it and discussed about something before making a big editing on the article. this what i do, in respect for those that write that section. well thats it. i can only make suggestion, i can try edit it with my little knowledge about this section, and make a good adjustment of it,, then again only those with verify and credible sources can make such improvement otherwise it be waste of time and resources. do we need username to write smth in wiki? hmn... i could remember which rules this is. and i could not join you, i can only adhoc help something and sometimes when i spot it, i can make some effort for any commitment in wikipedia, well i did before but not anly longer, thankyou for your effort coolcitycat. sorry for making this suggestion, its just a suggestion, im not ordering someone.124.82.211.202 (talk) 10:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Business opportunities in Sarawak, also I ♥ cute animals
Why is this article listed as “done” at Wikipedia:Bell Pottinger COI Investigations? It still reads like an advert – was it already like this before BP? For example, there is talk about how “opportunities for investment are immense”, how Sarawak will be “a developed state by the year 2020” and about the authorities’ successful projects and their conservation efforts, but very little about the same government’s failure to prevent the “commercial agricultural development” from destroying the rainforest, without which there would be no need for borderline cynical “heart 2 heart” orang utan programs etc. The article seems to extol all the supposedly good things and credit the state rather than market forces, whereas economy-related social and environmental problems are kept short and are blamed on market forces rather than the state: “Sarawak's rainforests have been gradually depleted by the government’s reluctance to rein in profit-driven logging, palm oil and energy companies the demand driven by the logging industry and the following introduction of palm oil plantations.”

I’d be happy to see the one-sided adspeak insertions either reverted altogether or rewritten and countered. Appropriate weight should be given to failures, problems and challenges and of course criticism of involved companies’ behaviour as well as of governmental policies and projects. If that makes the article too long, move content to Economy of Sarawak etc. in a balanced manner. Wikipeditor (talk) 05:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with your sentiment here. The Energy and Economics sections read like adverts to Taib. This may not be intentional, but that's how it reads. While Taib has stated in a speech that he has increased the average wealth of Sarawakians eightfold (whether or not that is really true), the fact remains that Sarawak is (a) the wealthiest state in terms of natural resources, (b) has a relatively low population and yet (c) has some of the poorest infrastructure and greatest financial inequality in the country. We need facts and figures - good and bad, and a balance of opinion. Not going to be easy. I may try, at some point, though given my own biases which are perhaps evident by now, I think this is going to need to be an iterative process with a great deal of discussion. The bottom line is that the article needs to be representative of the place and people of Sarawak - not just of its leader, as parts of it currently are. dan (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Legal system
The following text was added but needs citations and further context: " Sarawak is notable for being one of two Malaysian states that enforces Shariah Law as a matter of state and judicial policy. Punishments for alcohol consumption, homosexuality, apostasy, and adultery include fines, imprisonment, caning, and execution." Shariah law is not just a single thing to be enforced as is, it needs to be interpreted. Presumably, Sarawak either has a legal system that is based on Shariah, or has two legal systems, but this needs to be explained further. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * All of Malaysia has two legal systems. My recollection is that rather more than two states, though not all of them, sometimes impose Syariah penalties of the type mentioned. See Law of Malaysia. -- Alarics (talk) 12:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The difference is that in the states of Sabah and Sarawak, Shariah (Syariah in Malaysia) criminal laws and sanctions apply, whereas in the rest of the country, Shariah has far less jurisdiction and applies only to civil matters. I think the text should be re-added.  --66.55.92.22 (talk) 10:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Citations would be required. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Recent activity
regarding your recent edit, I do not speak Malay but if the spelling of Yang Di-Pertua Negeri is incorrect then the article it links to should be moved - there is no useful purpose in creating a red link. Please also note that Sarawak is a state, not a country and this should stay as it is. ► Philg88 ◄ ♦talk 07:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Legal status
According to the article States and federal territories of Malaysia, Malaysia is a federation comprising thirteen states (Negeri) and three federal territories (Wilayah Persekutuan). Sarawak is one of the states. Philg88 ♦talk 15:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Please also refer to the previous discussion at Talk:Malaysia/Archive_4. Philg88 ♦talk 16:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Sarawak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.statistics.gov.my/portal/download_Population/files/census2010/Taburan_Penduduk_dan_Ciri-ciri_Asas_Demografi.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://ics.um.edu.my/images/ics/CAPFV3N2/Fanps.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cerevisae (talk) 07:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 one external links on Sarawak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101011185953/http://untreaty.un.org:80/unts/1_60000/16/16/00030780.pdf to http://untreaty.un.org/unts/1_60000/16/16/00030780.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111012141416/http://untreaty.un.org/unts/1_60000/18/5/00034224.pdf to http://untreaty.un.org/unts/1_60000/18/5/00034224.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121012193138/http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/4/24/nation/6125445&sec=nation to http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/4/24/nation/6125445&sec=nation
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110206085015/http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/earth/earthpicturegalleries/8296131/Rainforest-is-destroyed-for-palm-oil-plantations-on-Malaysias-island-state-of-Sarawak.html?image=5 to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthpicturegalleries/8296131/Rainforest-is-destroyed-for-palm-oil-plantations-on-Malaysias-island-state-of-Sarawak.html?image=5
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110208012219/http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/earth/earthpicturegalleries/8296131/Rainforest-is-destroyed-for-palm-oil-plantations-on-Malaysias-island-state-of-Sarawak.html?image=6 to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthpicturegalleries/8296131/Rainforest-is-destroyed-for-palm-oil-plantations-on-Malaysias-island-state-of-Sarawak.html?image=6
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110207212130/http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/earth/earthpicturegalleries/8296131/Rainforest-is-destroyed-for-palm-oil-plantations-on-Malaysias-island-state-of-Sarawak.html?image=8 to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthpicturegalleries/8296131/Rainforest-is-destroyed-for-palm-oil-plantations-on-Malaysias-island-state-of-Sarawak.html?image=8

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Some comments
The lead could use a bit of trimming. For example Cheers. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Following this, it became one of the founding members of the Federation of Malaysia (established on 16 September 1963) alongside North Borneo (now Sabah), Singapore (expelled in 1965), and the Federation of Malaya (Peninsular Malaysia or West Malaysia). could be changed to . (The rest of the information could be kept in the body of the article)
 * Sarawak State Museum is the oldest museum in Borneo. The traditional musical instrument, sapeh, is well known in Sarawak. The Rainforest World Music Festival (RWMF) is one of the premier music events in Malaysia. The Gawai Dayak festival is only celebrated in Sarawak. This could do with a bit of adjustment. For example, considering due weight, the RWMF and the museum is better placed in the body.
 * It would help to add some information about the major ethnic groups in the lead.

Accessdate parameter
Hey. The accessdate parameters are useful for references. It helps us to find the accurate date of the website. It is also required in case a new archive service is used in the future. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:45, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio detector
, Is Earwig's copyvio detector's check enough to detect any close-paraphrasing? Currently, this check concluded that violation is unlikely with 14.5% confidence level. I used the "search mode" which uses the Google search engine. It also checks external links in this page, and using the Turnitin plagiarism checker service. Thanks. The result is available here: https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Sarawak&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=1. It can take a few minutes to load. Cerevisae (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Although a useful tool for copyvio, it does not detect close-paraphrasing. Graham Beards (talk) 11:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

A reward for bringing this article to featured article status
There is a reward of US$ 100 (in Bitcoin) if anybody is interested in addressing the close-paraphrasing issue and successfully bring this article to featured article status. The due date of this reward is 30 April 2017. For more information, visit the reward board for more information. Thanks. Cerevisae (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

GOCE work sitrep
Could you get me up to speed on your progress with this article? This is a big project. Jasphetamine (talk) 12:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've gotten through most of the meat and have hit the territorial disputes section. The history section took me a lot longer than I had expected and things have been rather busy for me over the last week. I'm hoping to be able to spend some time this weekend on it. Please let me know what sections you're thinking of taking on. The fragmented prose in some sections take a long time to bend into shape. Blackmane (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I started poking at the conservation section, focusing on rewriting the broken prose, restructuring for continuity of logical progression, and chopping out redundant junk. I'm not a hardcore full-time type on Wiki so don't take a lapse in activity to mean I've given up. If you haven't tried to fix an article with properly broken prose before, instead of bending each sentence try ripping out the entire paragraph, use it for reference and rewrite the whole thing as a native speaker. It is more efficient and less frustrating. Jasphetamine (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's basically what I'm doing. it's why, when you check the edit history, there'll be huge time gaps followed by a big edit. The other thing slowing me down was having to do quite a bit of double checking in the history section because a number of statements weren't backed by the source. Blackmane (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm going to work on the section about ethnic groups a bit. It is sloppy. Another worry is unsourced stuff that seems almost like racial stereotyping or violates WP:OR or WP:SYNTH -- for now I'll fix the language and tag citation needed/clarify. I'll need some guidance on what to keep -- I'm not comfortable with Wiki politics. Jasphetamine (talk) 09:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem, if you want a second opinion just drop me a ping. Failing that I should be able to find where to get further guidance. Blackmane (talk) 10:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, so I tried to at least get some rephrasing and workable prose going on in this section, but right now it isn't very good. I think that the insanely weird nature of what is contained in this section and how it is phrased stems, at least partially, from a clumsy attempt to not set off close-paraphrasing alarm bells. The repeated structure of each paragraph got me suspicious so I checked citation 81, and it is easy to see how this was copy/pasted then mildly changed. WP:COPYVIO is a concern. Honestly I'd really like to WP:MERGE Demographics of Sarawak and rip out everything in this article concerning the population. BTW I'm in the GOCE irc channel while editing, drop by sometime. Jasphetamine (talk) 11:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Demographics section problems
Forgive my double ping on this, but I'd like to put the lid on the demo section asap since it is reresents a large percentage of problem-text and therefore time and effort here. Check how well fleshed out the demographics of Sarawak page and the related individual ethnic subgroup pages are -- how can we best leverage those existing articles to the benefit of this one? In light of my looking over those breakout pages IMO the demo section here is so fact-selective, poorly phrased, and close-paraphrased from source 81 that it isn't worth its own rewrite. I don't know how copy/paste works for internal wiki content, but a straight WP:MERGE would make this article very long. Please advise dude. Thanks, Jasphetamine (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In light of my looking over those breakout pages IMO the demo section here is so fact-selective, poorly phrased, and close-paraphrased from source 81 that it isn't worth its own rewrite. As copy editors, it's not our remit to do this. What we can do is bounce it back to the copy edit request page and let it be know that there are some content issues with that section and that it is not going to be copyedited until it is done so. Be sure to articulate what your concerns are. I've started on copy edits in the past but upon coming up against some content issues have pinged the requester, let them know the problems and left it to them. the guild members who look after the request page will close the request from there. Blackmane (talk) 00:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Blackmane, I left a note on the request page letting know I've encountered issues beyond the purview of copyedit and directing him here. Jasphetamine (talk) 00:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks and Blackmane, for the ping. But I dont understand the meaning of the "In light of my looking over those breakout pages IMO the demo section here is so fact-selective, poorly phrased, and close-paraphrased from source 81 that it isn't worth its own rewrite." You meant that the whole section is a close paraphrasing? I also don't see any source 81 in the demographics section. Regards. Cerevisae (talk) 14:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Source 93 is probably what I meant. I was referring to loads of closecopy from pages of The Borneo Trilogy which were especially severe in the ethnic groups section. I then mention those external articles since the best way to fix the Demographics section would involve leveraging them. Jasphetamine (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , I think I had fixed the demographics section now. Is there anything I could do for this section? Cerevisae (talk) 05:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Um... it looks like you just reverted the removal of my reworked section. It took quite some effort to rephrase that much close-para text without misrepresenting sources, dodge any potential racism pitfalls, etc. If that section is now "fixed" it was done by myself on behalf of GOCE, not you. Also be advised that your edit note of "Some correction" is misleading. It should say that you restored a TON of stuff edited but ultimately removed. never archived your Request so if you are going to make big changes check with Blackmane who is the editor from GOCE that took point and has done the lions share of editing. He should be kept in the loop. Jasphetamine (talk) 06:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I noted on WP:GOCE/REQ that said they would continue the copyedit. WP:NODEADLINE.  Mini  apolis  15:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry,, I have undone the previous two edits. What do you meant by leveraging on the main article Demographics of Sarawak? Thanks. Cerevisae (talk) 08:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I am not comfortable making big edit decisions without the initial GOCE editor being in the loop. I defer to on everything here and I encourage you to coordinate with him before doing any more editing. He is not just my senior within GOCE, he is damn good -- better than me by far. Jasphetamine (talk) 10:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jasphetamine for the clarification. Cerevisae (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, I intend on working on the demographic section last as that is likely to take the longest. I've got the Education and Culture sections to complete then will work on that. Blackmane (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Blackmane Cerevisae (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

just a heads up that I'm currently away for a few days, I haven't abandoned the editing of the article. I'll get back to it once I'm back in the country. --Blackmane (talk) 02:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Noted, Blackmane and thanks for your effort. Cerevisae (talk) 09:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your hardwork. I have started the FA review of this article. It will gonna take some time for the FA review to complete. Cerevisae (talk) 02:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Sarawak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cpps.org.my/Resources-%40-General_Information_.aspx
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20161119121306/http://www.bda.gov.my/modules/web/pages.php?mod=webpage&sub=page&id=49&menu_id=0&sub_id=66 to http://www.bda.gov.my/modules/web/pages.php?mod=webpage&sub=page&id=49&menu_id=0&sub_id=66
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161129025715/http://www.brooketrust.org/history-of-sarawak to http://www.brooketrust.org/history-of-sarawak
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/decolonization/trust2.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/constitutional_law_committee/my_constitution_sabah_sarawak_and_special_interests.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=%2F2010%2F4%2F24%2Fnation%2F6125445&sec=nation
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/09/140927-largest-cave-china-exploration-science/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.itto.int/direct/topics/topics_pdf_download/topics_id%3D2796%26no%3D0%26disp%3Dinline
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160415063610/http://www.theborneopost.com/2014/02/08/state-statistics-malays-edge-past-chinese-in-sarawak/ to http://www.theborneopost.com/2014/02/08/state-statistics-malays-edge-past-chinese-in-sarawak/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.stf.org.my/sarawak/index.php?do=people
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://sarawaktourism.com/blog/our-people-chinese/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2015/11/26/dap-english-remains-sarawaks-official-language/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ocasia.org/Game/GameParticular.aspx?SYCXGjC0df%20J2ChZBk5tvA=%3D

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sarawak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161219234519/http://www.ide.go.jp/English/Publish/Periodicals/De/pdf/DE43_4_4.pdf to http://www.ide.go.jp/English/Publish/Periodicals/De/pdf/DE43_4_4.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theborneopost.com/2016/09/29/government-aims-to-close-income-gap-between-urban-rural-areas-uggah/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)