Talk:Sabah/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Request for Comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This article reeks of racism and anti-Filipino sentiment. Any mention of the Philippines, Filipinos, the Sultanate of Sulu, or the Moro people are often equated with piracy, terrorism, poverty, criminality, refugee status and many other negative connotations. The section #Southern Philippines Moro refugees problems and terrorism threat" is blatantly offensive towards Filipinos. If this article is to become a good article then these issues must be resolved. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Title header "Sabah is racist?" How rude, saying other country as racist but cannot accept the fact as already been proved by various international media reports on who is top as a "troublemaker in the area". That part still can be modify to meet WP:NPOV, but to remove "Filipino criminals as the main perpetrators" is a big NO. Fact will become history and this is the fault the Moro "terrorist" can't refrain from based on what they have done. Molecule Extraction (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• • Truce.Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

You said this is truce?? Then your behaviour can be classified as fanatic who keep trying to think that you are true in every aspects, while those who disagreed with your "belief" ([1], [2], [3], [4]) are wrong. It is funny when I need to argued with some "nationalist" editor like you. Molecule Extraction (talk) 02:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

And... It's more funny when you tried to nominate this article for GA which are still not developed. Your behaviour just revealing your lack of competence with most contribution are based on a 'daydream political intention'. Molecule Extraction (talk) 05:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

A quick look on the section does indeed seem to be very POV, and based on unreliable (or non existent) sources. It needs a clean-up. I'm note sure how an RfC can help with that though. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 05:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

That's right, but seems there is an editor who keep 'pushing' to remove the part that against 'his own intention'. Molecule Extraction (talk) 05:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

It may very well be that there are two POV editors with opposite POV's fighting, this is normal. Currently though I think it's pretty obvious that one of them has been winning and that this article, or at least a section of it, ended up biased. I would like the editors involved to discuss and come to a rational NPOV version of the article, but that almost never happens. I'll try to get time to go through the references and check them up, at least. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@OpenFuture: Thanks for understanding and your help on this issues! I am willing to collaborate with any other editors to help the section looks more neutral rather than removing them. Molecule Extraction (talk) 07:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to hear that! --OpenFuture (talk) 07:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Is this an RfC or not? There is a {{Rfc}} template, but the whole of the next paragraph has been struck through, which makes the listings at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law look rather odd - is a question being asked, or not? If not, the {{Rfc}} template should be removed; if it is, the struck-through paragraph should be replaced with the actual question. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it's more a request for help than for comments. I think we should archive it. Opinions? --OpenFuture (talk) 08:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Section: "Southern Philippines Moro refugees problems and terrorism threat"

I started looking at the terrorism claims, since they are the most severe:

• "The Sabah state government has since been working to end the Filipino squatter problems that have become the main cause for rampant crimes, terrorism and drug trafficking in the state by relocating them to a place to ease proper management." - This racist rant was not in any way supported by the reference.

• "It was revealed that the Filipino immigrants in Sabah becoming insider spies and helping their foreign relatives to do the criminal and militant activities." - The only reliable source from The Hong Kong Standard was about hos insiders at a HOTEL might have been involved in a kidnapping, it had absolutely nothing to do with immigration or spying. The other source from "Theantdaily", which doesn't seem like a reliable source in the first place, talks about how the immigrants are helping their relatives into the country. It had nothing about helping them become insider spies or helping them to criminal and militants activities.

• "This has been proved by the Eastern Sabah Security Command (Esscom) Security Coordinating Intelligence Officer Hassim Justin..." - No, it has not, he didn't talk about that at all.

So I removed all mentions of terrorism, we have no sources for this. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, then what about the kidnapping part? Should it be 'rewrite' or reduce in one paragraph?? I think I will nominate this article for peer review soon to asking any suggestions for parts that need a refurbishment before I'm going to work it for a GA. Molecule Extraction (talk) 08:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, more eyes will help, right now it's a bit of a clusterfuck. I don't think we need to care about the kidnapping part, it gives undue weight to the issue. The Refugee problems section is currently more than half of the history section, which is pretty absurd. We should just cut it down by removing everything that is badly referenced at first, and then we can look at how to improve it from that point, IMO. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, copy that. It's nice to see someone like you were giving suggestion instead of the user who tried to bring me into an edit war. Thanks again, hope there will be more editors like you. Blessed be. :) Molecule Extraction (talk) 08:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• * Thank you for bringing this to our attention, Shhhhwwww!!, I didn't realize how much animosity there is towards neighbors in this part of the region. And thanks OpenFuture for your quick action on this.--RioHondo (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@RioHondo: There is no need to thanked Shhhhwwww!! for this. Actually myself doesn't hate Filipino neither as I have many friends from your country. But due to "some bad apples", "not all" of your country people keep bashing and attacking us in every place even in our native language forum due to what the PH country media called the "Sabah dispute" really makes us annoying. We have been "silent" for a long time, but there is a time we cannot entertain it anymore when our peaceful lives been disturbed moreover when our "indigenous people been killed" for no reason other than GREED by some "radical/fanatic" factions in the southern Philippines. Anyway, peace from your neighbour. ^^ Molecule Extraction (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Added the template above to give more Philippine perspective.Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 04:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Childish personal attacks; The editors have been warned

Seems you doesn't refrain from your childish behaviour. Molecule Extraction (talk) 05:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC) Childless or Childish? Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 05:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC) Who cares? Rather than become a 'GREED nationalistic editor'. Molecule Extraction (talk) 05:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC) Who cares? Apparently you. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 05:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC) Me?? Really?? Molecule Extraction (talk) 06:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC) Yup. How old are you? Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 06:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC) I have replied on this below this section. Molecule Extraction (talk) 06:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I was intending to continue to go through the section today, instead I had to waste time cleaning up the talk page and warning two editors here. Stop it, or you will both be blocked. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

More removals:

• "Their migration has led to major problems in the state", - not supported by source.
• "social issues and alleged theft of Sabahan native land." - social issues are not supported by source, possibly alleged social issues, but I think a magazine interviewing a random person who "alleges" things are undue weight. Removed.
• "The state economy has been impacted, as many of the illegal immigrants have been involved in crimes such as theft and vandalism" - Not supported by source. Removed.
• "have become the main cause of solid waste pollution in marine and coastal areas." - Source only says that this pollution has increased, not that it's the main source. That the pollution has increased is both self-evident and rather uninteresting. Removed.
• "Immigrants have destroyed many mangrove in the forest reserve areas to give way to build their illegal houses." -Not supported by sources. Removed.

As you see, so far very few of the sources I have checked actually support the text. I'm currently very inclined to stop wasting time on this and just removing the whole section. My main worry about this is that the rest of the article is equally bad. Help cleaning this mess up would be appreciated. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm intending to rewrite (cleaning up/refurbish) most of the sections to meet WP:NPOV as soon as possible, but with the conditions of my account that will be blocked at any time to served my sentence. I've decide to postpone the plan at the moment until the 'sentence' was relieved.

Molecule Extraction (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, the section problem has been solved. If somebody wants to add more to this, do it but by bit, this time with RELIABLE SOURCES. Immigration should probably be under "Demographics" and not history, btw. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for Comment 2

This article needs to be part of the Wikiproject WP:Tambayan Philippines but the other contributor is blocking ots entry. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 05:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Need for what consensus? Is it a 'Philippines territory'?? NO. Molecule Extraction (talk) 05:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• The hate in this article is nauseating. How old are you? Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 05:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hate?? You said I hate the "Philippines"?? The answer is "NO". I just hate your "behaviour" who continue to make disruptive contribution. And... Doesn't need to know someone age as you didn't even create a userpage to let peoples know about your info. Molecule Extraction (talk) 06:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Privacy. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 06:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Then same goes to me. Molecule Extraction (talk) 06:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

You brought up the term "childish". The level of behavior in this discussion is about that so assumingly your either twentyish or younger. Because it is embarassing for someone older than 30 to act like you do. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 06:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Haha, twentyish?? Proved you are wrong. It is more embarassing when someone who have contribute a lot of DYK submissions to insert a dreamland wish that never become true. Molecule Extraction (talk) 06:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

So you are older? That is just sad. I pray for your wife. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 06:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

No need to pray for my wife. Instead pray for yourself "to change your nonsense behaviour". Haha, I'm more feeling sad because of the behaviour of "some Pinoys like you". Molecule Extraction (talk) 06:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay.Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 06:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

So you are ready to change your behaviour in the future so there will be no more dispute between us? Molecule Extraction (talk) 06:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment. I am aware that a dormant claim exists on this area now known as Sabah by the Philippines. But as the article deals with the modern Malaysian state, i dont think it is necessary for it to be included in the scope for PHL. Although the article on North Borneo can be added considering that article deals more with the claim on the historical perspective as what the PHL claim really is, a historical one.--RioHondo (talk) 07:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding RioHondo. Yes, the same goes to Singapore and Indonesia when any part of territory have been under them as I have been told by a Singaporean user before that both of the WP scopes that were involved in a dispute can be only added on the main case pages such as the North Borneo dispute, Spratly Islands dispute, South China Sea islands dispute, Ligitan and Sipadan dispute and Pedra Branca dispute. Molecule Extraction (talk) 08:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, i know Sabah is a Malaysian creation, what the Philippines claims is that area of North Borneo where Sabah is now. Just like the Philippines has claims to the Spratly Islands, where the Chinese territory of Sansha is. We dont claim Sansha, only the area where it is now. I think thats how this whole claims issue should be settled.--RioHondo (talk) 08:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Sabah is not a "Malaysian creation" as we formed the country together based on the Malaysia Agreement. But I'm also respecting the Philippines right to claim on Sabah and it should be settled based on international laws and any edits to Sabah article should be based on facts on what the condition of Sabah at present (example: with whom Sabah at present). Same goes to our neighbours of Brunei and Vietnam (including PH) to stake their claim on the South China Sea issues as it is within ours (ASEAN) EEZ. But to just invading neighbouring country articles without accepting the facts like what have Shhhhwwww!! done is not really good. Molecule Extraction (talk) 08:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

A country can not claim entities (states/provinces) created by other sovereign, thats what i meant. And we dont have to be all that technical or legal, just sticking to WP:RS is what we in WP should be concerned about.--RioHondo (talk) 08:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

If that is from your perspectives. That's fine. I'm just feeling tempted with the behaviour of Shhhwwww!! who can't even present any WP:RS for his view but keep forcing to include it here. Molecule Extraction (talk) 08:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for Comment 2 and a half

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This article needs to be part of the Wikiproject WP:Tambayan Philippines but the other contributor is blocking ots entry. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 05:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Replied for the same reason on the above section. Molecule Extraction (talk) 06:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Demographics

@Molecule Extraction: Why did you remove the demographics? And more importantly, why don't you make edit summaries that mention things like that? --OpenFuture (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I've put the sections back in, given the lack of reason to hide them. There's very few edit summaries at all. CMD (talk) 14:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@OpenFuture: I did not intend to remove that, but hiding it at the moment because it takes a time to loading (as the content goes long) while I'm editing the article. But suddenly when I want to returning the section, "power interruptions" (blackout) in my area causing my computer to shut down. So, I cannot proceed with the edit. Apologies for any inconvenience caused by this. :( Molecule Extraction (talk) 14:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Reorganizing is one thing, but the article has to remain complete and sensible while you are doing it. If you can't do that, do the changes in a sandbox. And considering the massive amount of edits you are producing, I think that's probably a better way anyway. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I doubt that hiding sections affects loading times at all. It would actually increase the text load in an edit box (again probably won't affect load speed but will affect ease of editing) if you edit specifically the section just before the hidden text, as hiding it will result in it being part of the above section. CMD (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)