Talk:Sabah#rfc 51B6A18

The demography section was split off into a new article Demographics of Sabah, however, what was left is unsatisfactory. Please add a proper summary in this section, for example religious affiliations, ethnic groups, languages and other issues. It should not be detailed, and an extra paragraph or two of a few sentences each is sufficient, but it is nevertheless necessary. Hzh (talk) 10:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

:Thank you for the explanation. I will take some time in the near future to fix the issue. Molecule Extraction (talk) 10:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

::{{done}} I hope the issue have been settled now. Feel free to make some more improvement if there were something that was missed out. Molecule Extraction (talk) 06:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

::: Excellent, thank you. Hzh (talk) 09:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The official government census in Sabah, page 22 of the North Borneo report stated only this:

''Religion

The great majority of the Dusun and Murut peoples are

pagan, while an equally large porportion of the coastal com

munities are Muslim. The Chinese non Christian population

generally adheres to Confucian ethics mixed with Buddhist beliefs.

Roman Catholic, Church of England, Lutheran and other

missions, both Pastoral and Evangelical, are active in the Colony.''

How can you deduce from here, to 16.6% Christianity? Of course nonsense.

Of course, because it was sourced from a Christian Missionary in Singapore, who just made up this number. Someone deleted the source that I detected. Extracted from Caldora's book. It should be somewhere in the audit trail.

Also watering down the words of large proportion to just majority.

The only mention of Christianity is just "active". Othmanskn (talk) 20:09, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

:I believe it was based on British North Borneo census that they conducted every decade since 1921. It is difficult to get the softcopy in google book, just some snippet, maybe you can refer it in one of the library in the country. https://www.google.com.my/books/edition/Report_on_the_Census_of_Population_Taken/MuEgAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22Number+Percentage+of+Total+Population+Religion+1921+*+1931+*+1951+1960+1921+*+1931+*+1951+1960+Christian+Muslim+Other+Religion+6,980+10,454+29,092+75,247+81,886+86,713+115,126+172,324+168,938+173,056+189,923+206,850+2.7+3.9+8.7+16.6%22&dq=%22Number+Percentage+of+Total+Population+Religion+1921+*+1931+*+1951+1960+1921+*+1931+*+1951+1960+Christian+Muslim+Other+Religion+6,980+10,454+29,092+75,247+81,886+86,713+115,126+172,324+168,938+173,056+189,923+206,850+2.7+3.9+8.7+16.6%22&printsec=frontcover Danazach (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

::Nonsense again. There was only one census in 1960, and it was written down in the Colony Report. The textbook was not bassed on the colony report you idiot. Read the textbook again especially its references. The exact phrease on the number of chreistians in Sabah in 1960 was just "only active", no % at all. I am trying to work out how to complain about stupid editors who do not read references and even deleted many referneces that they do not like. Othmanskn (talk) 22:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

:::I am not sure whether you are familiar with citing. I have shared you the link to the census which clearly listed the number of christians and muslims in North Borneo and its percentage over the total population. I am just telling you the number quoted by the textbook tallies with the official census that I have shared you.

:::You seem to be unfamiliar with wikipedia (maybe you are a babyboomer trying to start contributing in wikipedia). But wikipedia is actually an open encyclopedia can be edited and reviewed by anyone. If it makes you happy, I will do the citation to the 1960 colony report, since you are so clearly affected by it. Danazach (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Recently I've begun to notice that a lot of edits create forced, irrelevant associations with the cultures and languages indigenous to the Luzon, presumably as an attempt to frame Sabah within a Filipino-adjacent perspective. As a native Kadazandusun I don't respect this.

Other attempts presumably with editors with roots from the Southern Philippines try to do the same flavor of unsolicited irredentism by adding bits of trivia that try to make Sabah sound more Tausug, Islamic, or Malay than it actually is and ever was.

Whereas the indigenous cultures, languages, and peoples notably the Kadazandusun, Murut, Rungus, Sama, are merely mentioned in passing references like tokens to bulk the article word count. AnderGapoh (talk) 11:11, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:Hi AnderGapoh, do you have specific examples? If information is "irrelevant" ("undue" may be a better word), it can be removed or shifted to a more detailed page. CMD (talk) 13:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::@Chipmunkdavis I occasionally check this article and remove any irrelevant statements that try to nudge the narrative in favor of the current irredentist claims. The latest edit where I removed a few questionable sources (including one that described itself as an 'alternative' news source) is one example of what I'm concerned about.

::I personally have no gripes with mentioning the pan-Austronesian ties that the region shares across borders (not just Sabah with the Philippines), but citing coincidentally similar-sounding words in a language native to what happens to be the political center of a country making irredentist claims is obviously an attempt to establish an unreasonable narrative.

::Sabah is also a state that historically (and really still is) affected by politically-motivated demographic engineering.

::Examples: https://www.thevibes.com/articles/news/107459/villagers-in-sabah-find-themselves-listed-as-muslims-without-their-knowledge

::https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/items/4d9f9189-6d29-4e6c-94bf-b519432c0db1

::Some of these Islamization efforts naturally spill over into online spaces where Sabah is represented to the world (i.e. Wikipedia). For example, commonly misattributing the name of the state to the Arabic word for 'morning' (which is meritless since ه and ح are completely different letters anyway). AnderGapoh (talk) 13:59, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:::P.S. Thanks for taking my concern seriously. It's really common for concerns such as this to be ignored online. AnderGapoh (talk) 14:00, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Another concern of mine is the gross aggrandization of the territorial extent of the so-called Bruneian and Sulu 'Empires'.

::::Contemporary historiography often frames these village-states as akin to the Roman Empire with territories completely encompassing modern borders. Brunei's influence was limited to the coast in Putatan, for example, yet you'd find tons of maps online that color the entire north of Borneo yellow, to imply a fictional 'historical' Bruneian subjugation of the territory and the indigenous population within it.

::::Some of these images have spilled over into various Wikipedias. AnderGapoh (talk) 14:05, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::If there are specific issues we can deal with them. We aim to present the demographic changes, cultural links, and similar without doing so in a way that unduly favours a particular narrative. CMD (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Hi AnderGapoh, Wikipedia, as much as it strives to be neutral, are after all still a majorly open platform to editors from all background. The neutrality of course depends on how many editors subscribes to such mentality, because we typically do not realize our own biases. Even administrators, may have their own biases, but of course since they are elected through voting system and tend to be scrutinized for their credibility, can be the judge but there are only a handful of them.

:::::As such, I believe it is the responsibility of each of us to edit articles/paragraph that we find skewed. Only then it will attract the attention of other editors to judge your edit, hence with many people seeing the edit change, not only it helps more peer review, but also sometimes makes us realize our own biases before judging others.

:::::Hence, feel free to edit those you find problematic, and surely with notification, people will note the changes and support you if it is indeed correcting the biases. Let's strive for a neutral public Encyclopedia.

:::::P/s: you might feel that this just became worse recently, trust me the battle that some of us had to undertake to withstand vandalism and war edit during the 2013 sulu invasion and 2021 arbitration was so much more intense. Danazach (talk) 01:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

There are some template parameters which aren't documented in the template doc and are preview errors in VisualEditor (eg. p#, demographics#_type#). They should either be replaced by other suitable parameters, replacing the template with {{Infobox political division}}, or removed from the article. Toffee Dude (talk) 12:41, 11 May 2025 (UTC)