Talk:North Borneo dispute

Removal of the military conflict style infobox

The template used before was a military conflict format. Sabah dispute is not a military conflict (yet). So I've removed it from the article. Someone madeit read like as if it is a war between Malaysia and the Philippines. Ryan_Aldren 06:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Cobbold etc.

This section is wrong: 'Malaysian sovereignty over Sabah was further strengthened by two referenda: the first facilitated by the United Nations-backed Cobbold Commission, from February to April 1962 and the second before the formation of Malaysia in September 1963. Both referenda recorded 70% of Sabahan population voting for Sabah to be part of Malaysia'. Firstly, the Cobbold Commission was the commission set up by the governments of UK and Malaya to investigate the possiblity of forming Malaysia; it was the second commission that was UN-backed, created as a response to Philippine and Indonesian objections to the formation of Malaysia. More importantly for the argument being made, NEITHER commissions were referenda; they were commissions of inquiry that interviewed a relatively small number of people, largely from the existing elite that were biased in favour of Malaysia and, by their own admission, did little to try to ascertain the views of the interior people. Monsopiad 01:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)monsopiad

Can you cite references for this? --Howard the Duck 18:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The actual texts of both commission reports are available at the Sabah State Archive and in numerous public record libraries around the country and the UK, including Rhodes House at Oxford. If you consult these, you will see that both commissions interviewed a very small number of people/organizations and were in no way representative, let alone proper referenda. The Cobbald Commission provided a rough estimate - based simply on the impressions of its members - that one third of the population of North Borneo was pro-Malaysia, one third was anti-Malaysia, and one third didn't really care or understand the issues. A couple of academic articles that discuss Sabah's status within Malaysia are Paridah Abd. Samad and Darusalam Abu Bakar, 'Malaysia-Philippines relations: The issue of Sabah', Asian Survey 32:6 (1992) and Audrey Kahin, 'Crisis on the periphery: The rift between Kuala Lumpur and Sabah', Pacific Affairs 65:1 (1992). 81.154.16.250 18:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)Monsopiad

Obviously biased...

..and lacking in citation, incorrect grammar, and many typos. many work to be done here.--kawaputra 13:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

WHY DOES MALASIA OBJECT TO HAVING THE SABAH ISSUE RESOLVE LEGALLY THROUGH THE ICJ? mactanone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.177.99.218 (talk) 11:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably because Malaysian government policy is that the Philippines claims are groundless...that's what we're told. But when came to think about this, I think its politically suicidal for any leaders in Malaysia to bring this issue to the ICJ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan darknight (talk • contribs) 06:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

yes it is groudless, the issue was settle, as far as im concern, but theres need for further investigation, i had cite on chief minister musa aman on this matter to the article, as well as a citation from the star web news.175.137.195.76 (talk) 23:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Padjak/pajak

The key word in the agreement was "padjak," which has been translated by American, Dutch and Spanish linguists to mean "lease" or "arrendamiento." The BNBC (Barron & Alfred Dent Company) "Leased" (Padjak) the North-Borneo territory in 1878 and the leased/Padjak valid "for as long as they (Barron & Alfred Dent Companny) intended to use them (The North-Borneo). The agreement further states explicitly that "the rights to the territory may not be transferred to a nation or another company without the sultan's express permission".

i thought the meaning of padjak in malay is "pawn". i dont know if tausugs uses this word. hence, malaysian/british interpretation: "sale" or "cession" --> wrong. phils/american/spanish/dutch interpretation: "lease" --> wrong. this means that the sultan sulu had actually intended to get some cash while putting sabah on as security. he might have hoped to regain sabah back one day by paying back the same amount with interest (and inflation :o). or he might not. my 2 cents --kawaputra 13:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR __earth ^(Talk) 15:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks for pointing that out. should i delete/edit the relevant theories/ideas i written above?

anyway, what do u understand from the word padjak/pajak? i havent consulted a dictionary yet, but im quite sure thats the meaning. i found only one article online though:

The Philippines v. Malaysia: At the heart of what so far remains this war of words is, quite fittingly, one particular word. That is padjak, which today in Malay means "mortgage" or "pawn" but a century ago meant "to lease" or "to cede." from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,723859,00.html

i think the last part of the sentence is influenced by the american,spanish,dutch interpretation. cos lease in malay is is "sewa" isnt it?

In Indonesian, padjak(old spelling)/pajak(new spelling) means "tax"...so, probably in lieu of or something owed. Though these are my personal interpretation. Rad vsovereign 18:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The End of The Lease

I think I saw it somewhere in my school history book that the last of the Sulu Sultanate Sultan Esmail Kiran officially announced that the lease had ended somewhere in the 50's. Why does the Phillipine government still trying to take the rights of the Sabahan and Malaysian people?

(Ryan_Aldren 11:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC))

Because that would be a malaysian government created history book you learned from. Unfortunately.(and its not theyre fault) Malaysians have failed to realise that every piece of information that was fed through to them before the internet was widely available, is what they want you to think/know. There have been many injustices that have happened in Sabah that have been kept quiet. People in West Malaysia have no idea that alot of Sabahans especially the ones who live in the more rural areas have secret meetings talking about independance, i know because i finally was invited to one and shocked to see at least 20 thousand people in a secret rally in the middle of Pitas. Even police were there!

Sabahan talking about independence from Malaysia? Who wrote this? Ryan_Aldren 06:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Stop using too many Question marks!People might get the impression that 1.)you're angry (which isn't really wrong)or 2.)that you are biased towards your country and do not have an impartial attitude,which is banned in this site.To the person who said that Sabahans were holding "independence meetings":Please present proof,please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.76.251.12 (talk) 10:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, done.Ryan_Aldren 08:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Price of Lease

How much is the annual rent? Rad vsovereign 18:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

According to the "official" Sulu Sultanate web site it is suppose to be PhP77,442.36 or US$1,500. But I can't confirm if Malaysia are paying for these lease or not. Ryan_Aldren 04:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Facts of the Claims

The agreement only mentioned the eastern part of Sabah, not the whole of Sabah.

The agreement was with the Sultan of Sulu, not the Government of the Philippines that does not even recognise the rights of the Sulu Sultan in the Philippines, let alone pay any lease on the former Sultan properties in the Philippines.

The descendents of the Sulu Sultan in Sabah have equal rights compared to those of the Philippines that are no longer of direct descendent of the Sultan of Sulu, and are considered as being captured by the enemy as they had been stripped of their rights as the Sultan of Sulu.

If the Sulu royalty really want their rights and dignity to be restored, they must search for all the rightful descendents of the Sultan of Sulu in Sabah and take their cases to the world courts.

The Suluk word is "Sanda" which in malay means "pajak". These all mean "mortgage", not "lease". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan darknight (talk • contribs) 06:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

And what if the Phillippines recognizes the rights of the Sultan,As they could be forced to do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.76.251.12 (talk) 10:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

There would be some kind of constitutional issue I guess. Because since the formation of the Republic of Philippines, the Sulu Sultanate were no longer recognized as a political and government institution. But in case of Sabah dispute I am not sure since the deal was between the Sulu Sultanate and the British colonial power. Ryan_Aldren 04:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Renaming article

I suggest renaming the article to Philippines' claim of Sabah. There doesnt seem to be any dispute. There is no military combat. Plus i think Phils dropped their claim years ago. ќמшמφטтгמ^torque 17:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

- no. the philippines has not abondoned the claim. doing so would be politcal suicide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.14.31.18 (talk) 10:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I know. The Philippines haven't give in yet. Please explain why it is a 'political suicide'?Ryan_Aldren 09:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan darknight (talk • contribs)

Claim by Republic of the Philippines, or by the autonomous South?

In the present context, "Philippines" refers to republican government in Manila. I have yet to come across any recent claim from Manila on Sabah, besides during the Konfrontasi days of the 1960s, hence the tone of this article sounds rather misleading. Instead, the claim on Sabah as of May 2008 comes from Nur Misuari who seems to be acting on behalf of the Muslim South only. (source [1]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anggerik (talk • contribs) 07:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

base upon reading, the south want free from philipine, and the philipine dont want to separate the south. it seem to me, they are not incorporated in this matter. well this is based on my reading, it could be wrong.175.137.195.76 (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

My very little comment

This is full of fabrications and bias. Blaming it on our country again just because we have a larger population than your country? And oh, actually most of our leaders are not of the Tagalog ethnolinguistic group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTechieGeek63 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Relax, this is wikipedia, not a fact book, we should gather more facts than claim and bias, was state almost factual. but i doubt some are not notable.175.137.195.76 (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

notability

do http://www.epilipinas.com/SabahClaim.htm are notable source?175.137.195.76 (talk) 23:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

No, this link is notable http://www.mpil.de/ww/en/pub/research/details/publications/institute/wcd.cfm?fuseaction_wcd=aktdat&aktdat=201010200400.cfm

In particular, I quote

historic title, no matter how persuasively claimed on the basis of old legal instruments and exercises of authority, cannot - except in the most extraordinary circumstances - prevail in law over the rights of non-self-governing people to claim independence and establish their sovereignty through the exercise of bona fide self-determination.

Most Filipinos who are strongly defending the Phillipines claim over North Borneo fail to acknowledge the UN backed commission to find out North Borneo people's opinion on the formation of Malaysia, and the result was that majority of North Borneo people favoured independence and eventually joining Malaya and Sarawak to form Malaysia. --Danazach (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Source http://countrystudies.us/philippines/93.htm

The writeup using this source is basically a copyvio; " It was revealed in 1968 that Marcos was training a team of saboteurs on Corregidor for infiltration into Sabah. Marcos later decided to drop the claim, but the aggrieved Malaysians insisted on such an explicit, humiliating public renunciation that no Philippine president could meet their conditions."

Also if this source is used, it should rightly lso include the following line in the source

" The Philippine constitution, by not mentioning Sabah, seems to have dropped the claim. Aquino rushed a bill to Congress in November 1987 to renounce the claim once and for all, hoping to get the issue out of the way before Malaysia's Prime Minister Mahathir bin Mohamad arrived for the ASEAN summit in December, but Congress did not act."

as that was the original sour's attempt to balance the article. To only selectively pick out one section just because it fits a theory is a show of biasness.... Zhanzhao (talk) 06:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Opinion of Judge Franck in the Sovereignty over Ligitan and Sipadan case between Malaysia and Indonesia

In the current version of this article, the 'Developments" section says that This is further reinforced by the International Court of Justice view that historic title, no matter how persuasively.... This is simply untrue. The case only concerned itself about the sovereignty of Sipadan and Ligatan islands. What was lifted from the reference used to the article is simply an opinion of Judge Franck (as noted by the [pp. 655-658 S.O. Franck] tags) regarding the application of the Philippines to intervene in the case and was not a statement by the whole court.

In another source regarding it, it says that the International Court of Justice (1) By fourteen votes to one, finds that the Application of the Republic of the Philippines, filed in the Registry of the Court on 13 March 2001, for permission to intervene in the proceedings under Article 62 of the Statute of the Court, cannot be granted (snipped; reasons follow) because of its "untimely nature" and that The Court therefore concludes that the Philippine Application was not filed out of time and contains no formal defect which would prevent it from being granted among others.

Moreover, in its objection for the Philippines to intervene in the case, Indonesia contends that it is evident from this note that the Philippines raises no claim with respect to Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan and maintains that the legal status of North Borneo is not a matter on which the Court has been asked to rule (emphasis added) and that Malaysia further contends that the issue of sovereignty over Ligitan and Sipadan is completely independent of that of the status of North Borneo and that [t]he territorial titles are different in the two cases (emphasis added). No statement in the source would suggest that the application by the Philippines to intervene was denied because the question of which state holds sovereignty over North Borneo has been decided.

Then follows a series of opinion of the judges to the case. You can see the Separate opinion of Judge ad hoc Franck at the last page on which he says, Judge Franck agrees with the Judgment of the Court and with its reasoning. He adds however, that the Philippine Application is also barred by a supervening legal principle: the right of non-self-governing people to exercise their right of self-determination. Succeeding terms such as Judge Franck believes and In Judge Franck's view would suggest that this is a personal view of a judge, and has been given undue weight and synthesized in the article.

It should be clear then that the North Borneo dispute has not been settled in the Sipadan and Ligatan islands case. I shall be making the necessary corrective edits. Xeltran (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Sulu and its dependencies

I can't seem to find any reference attesting the following claim. "North Borneo was never considered a dependency of Jolo."

ICJ observes that Sultan of Sulu definitively ceded the "Archipelago of Sulu and the dependencies thereof" to Spain. North Borneo, a dependency of Sulu, hence has been ceded to Spain in 1878.

Even US in its letter laying claims of North Borneo, stated that North Borneo is indeed a dependency of Sulu. --Danazach (talk) 10:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

References

POV Disputation

This article has serious POV problems. Another clue is that North Borneo dispute of Philippines between Malaysia is distinct from the phrase the Sulu intruders of Sultan Jamalul Kiram III its articulaton as such but those are conflated makes a strong case that the article lead needs a complete rewite Omdo (talk) 11:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Please explain clearly what points of contention are. The Philippines, as the successor state, claims North Borneo on behalf of the former Sultanate. Xeltran (talk) 10:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

"Etymology" section

As of the current version of this article, let me explain why a separate section is unneeded.

• Firstly, contemporary meaning of "etymology" pertains to a study of words, which the section does not concern itself of. It would be more appropriate to name the section as "Overview" or the like given its content.
• Omdo has termed the dispute as that of an irredentist nature. While it can be said that the Philippine claim is based on historical accounts, there are a number of legal arguments brought forward such as the varying interpretation of the 1878 agreement, as opposed to a strict definition of irredentism that mainly argues through ethnicity. Furthermore, no reliable source has been placed to support such view. This article is about a territorial dispute, yes, but whether it is irrendist or not will have to be verified. Saying "disputed irredentist claim" is redundant. All irredentist claims are territorial ones, and are disputed by another state.
• There is no context whatsoever for the The Office of the President of the Philippines MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 162 dated 20 August 2008 Guidelines on Matters Pertaining to North Borneo image found on the right side of the section. This is a document issued in 2008, but nowhere is it mentioned in the "Etymology" section (that stops midway in the events of the 1960s). Perhaps this would be given better weight in the Philippine claim part, but it would be much better to contextualize it in prose rather than just placing the image there as it is quite cluttered there already with too many links to Wikisource.
• The Formation of Malaysia (third para.) can be merged to its already existing section in the article.
• Manila Accord (foruth para.) is already mentioned in the Philippine claim section. Merging is also possible with other relevant sections.

While most of the text in the section needs fixing grammar-wise just so as to preserve as much information as possible, I believe the section itself duplicates and overlaps the sections after it because, for instance, it narrates events up to the 1960s but the next section goes back to 1878. In a nutshell, the whole section is redundant and, I believe, needs to be removed. Xeltran (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

A new "History" section has been added (diff). I have a few issues regarding its neutrality but it's not something that cannot be worked upon. Another issue there is the apparent disconnect with the next section. I am still quite adamant about MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 162 being in the "Etymology" section. It is really irrelevant as far as the section material is concerned. First paragraph can be seen in the lead. Second one on the "Philippine claim" section. Paragraphs 3 and 4 are can be merged to the "Formation of Malaysia" section if there is any material not already found there. Xeltran (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Nothing in that section is about Etymology. The Overview section is the lead. I've removed it and the history section that was added with it. The whole article is History, and there were quite a few odd, and mostly unsourced, claims in that section. Information that people want to add should be discussed here, and then placed in a section that it's actually appropriate for. CMD (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Nur Misuari's wives and Sabah inheritance

Misuari's wives are descended from Sulu Sultanate royalty and claim inheritance in Sabah.

http://www.mindanews.com/mindaviews/2013/02/24/commentary-the-sabah-standoff/

https://twitter.com/jamelaaisha/status/305719949920452608

http://manilamail.com/archive/feb2013/13feb24.html

http://www.philstar.com/opinion/2013/02/24/912503/if-malaysia-offers-raise-sabah-rent

http://www.thedailyguardian.net/index.php/iloilo-opinion/25207-going-bananas-over-sabah

http://antipinoy.com/all-about-the-money-the-bangsamoro-framework-agreements-unintended-consequences-in-sabah/

https://www.transcend.org/tms/2014/02/philippines-the-women-in-the-bangsamoro-peace-process-history-herstory/

http://afrim.org.ph/newafrim/tag/helped

http://afrim.org.ph/newafrim/2014/04/09/the-women-in-the-bangsamoro-peace-process-history.html

http://www.mindanews.com/top-stories/2008/03/29/moro-women-second-to-none/

http://philippineculture.ph/filer/chapter+18.pdf

http://www.morobloggers.com/category/lahad-datu/ http://www.morobloggers.com/2013/02/commentary-the-sabah-standoff/

http://suluism.blogspot.com/2013_02_01_archive.html http://suluism.blogspot.com/2013/02/if-malaysia-offers-to-raise-sabah-rent.html

http://obitir.wordpress.com/2013/02/22/padjak-rent-or-cession/ http://obitir.wordpress.com/page/42/

http://www.bworldonline.com/content.php?section=Opinion&title=The-Sabah-standoff&id=66240

http://www.philstar.com/nation/2013/10/19/1246758/duterte-dont-touch-nurs-wife

http://www.iscenetv.com/fatima-celia-kiram-also-wife-of-nur-misuari/

MNLF and Misuari's claims on Sabah

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/moro-rebels-claim-4000-trained-fighters-mobilised-in-sabah-sarawak

http://news.silobreaker.com/moro-rebels-claim-4000-trained-fighters-mobilised-in-sabah-sarawak-5_2267089697543028749

http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2013/09/09/1188941/mnlf-mobilizes-tausug-fighters-malaysia

http://english.astroawani.com/news/show/mnlf-supports-sulu-claim-says-nur-misuari-faction-9877

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/regions/02/18/13/misuari-bangsamoro-has-claims-over-sabah

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3LQ17HtPdY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lWhlRZs0Xs

http://malaysia-chronicle.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=64302:dont-talk-so-big-mnlf-chief-nur-misuari-tells-najib&Itemid=2#axzz2tc4Q7Nym

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/talktojazeera/2013/03/201331421944766446.html

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2013/06/26/us-nur-misuari-link-in-sulu-attack/

http://www.interaksyon.com/article/59100/exclusive--misuari-stakes-familys-claim-to-sabah

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2013/04/10/mnlf-training-camp-for-sabah-rescue-operation/

http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2013/03/20/Lahad-Datu-Nur-Misuari-told-not-to-take-advantage-of-Sabah-situation.aspx/

http://www.theborneopost.com/2013/03/21/milf-refutes-nur-misuaris-claim-over-sabah/

http://mnlfnet.com/Mahathir%20Arroyo%20to%20be%20accused%20of%20hijacking.htm

http://mnlfnet.com/Bangsamoro%20people%20may%20sue%20Malaysian%20premier.htm

http://mnlfnet.com/Articles/Philippine%20n%20Malaysian%20Colonialism.htm

http://mnlfnet.com/Articles/Editorial_19Dec2012_Philippine%20&%20Malaysian%20Colonialism-Afraid%20of%20Bangsamoro%20Freedom.htm

http://mnlfnet.com/Articles/BYC_09Feb2013_Agreements%20Status%20Quo%20for%20Filipino%20Land-Grabbers.htm

http://mnlfnet.com/Articles/SSNB%20Pressl%20Statementl_03Aprilr2013.htm

http://mnlfnet.com/Articles/Editorial_13March2013_3-1%20Kampung%20Tandou%20Massacre_Sultanate%20of%20Sulu%20&%20North%20Borneo.htm

http://mnlfnet.com/Articles/BYC_11May2013_After%20GE13,%20Is%20There%20Peace%20in%20Sabah.htm

http://mnlfnet.com/Articles/Editorial_26Feb2013_Prologue%20on%20'Why%20Did%20Quezon%20Commonwealth'.htm

MILF troops defect to MNLF to claim Sabah for Moros

Page 9

http://www.thephilippinetribune.com/uploads/Issue_04-10-2014.pdf

https://www.facebook.com/Nur.P.Misuari/posts/726505984059818?stream_ref=10

https://www.facebook.com/MoroMuslimsDefenders/posts/850691334957913?stream_ref=10

https://www.facebook.com/IslamicPhilippinesball/posts/393980524077458?stream_ref=10

Rajmaan (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Sultanate position after Jamalul Kiram III's death

Update on Sabah standoff Oct. 20, 2013

By invictus1819

Sultan Kiram III Dies, Asks Siblings To Pursue Sabah's Repossession From Malaysia

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-932759

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on North Borneo dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120206062534/http://www.royalsulu.com/cession.fig1_issues.html to http://www.royalsulu.com/cession.fig1_issues.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Clarification: which part of the ICJ publication says that the Sultanate relinquished his rights?

I am at the page 204-206 I cant find where it specifically stated that the Sultan of Sulu relinquished the sovereign rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.57.56.250 (talk) 06:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

It is actually on page 268 on the Summaries of Judgments, Advisory Opinions, and Orders of the International (International Court of Justice) and page 54 on Recueil des arrêts, avis consultatifs et ordonnances (United Nations). Don't know if you can view the page on your country. Molecule Extraction (talk) 11:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Philippine claim; a couple of sources

I am not knowledgeable re this topic, but I stumbled across a couple of items which, it seems to me, deserve mention and/or use as supporting sources for material in the article but which are not mentioned. I'll just list and link them below:

• H. Otley Beyer (December 8, 1946). "Brief memorandum on the government of the Sultanate of Sulu and powers of the Sultan during the 19th century". Official Gazette. Government of the Philippines.
• "Concurrent resolution expressing the sense of the Philippines that North Borneo belongs to the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu and to the ultimate sovereignty of the Republic of the Philippines, and authorizing the President to conduct negotiations for the restoration of such ownership and sovereign jurisdiction over said territory". Official Gazette. Government of the Philippines. April 28, 1950.

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on North Borneo dispute. 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/20100111070218/https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rp.html to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rp.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140617040008/http://www.bt.com.bn/life/2008/09/21/how_brunei_lost_its_northern_province to http://www.bt.com.bn/life/2008/09/21/how_brunei_lost_its_northern_province
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140617035533/http://www.bt.com.bn/2013/03/07/sabah-and-sulu-claims to http://www.bt.com.bn/2013/03/07/sabah-and-sulu-claims
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.asianjournal.com/cgi-bin/view_info.cgi?code=5867

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Cite added, and some sources possibly deserving mention

This edit caught my eye. As the change was unsourced, I dug up this supporting source and added a cite of it. While doing thia, I stumbled over a cople of other sources which seem relevant to this topic but which don't seem to be mentioned in this article. Someone with more topical knowledge than I might want to take a look at the following:

• "Memorandum Agreement between the Governor-General of the Philippine Islands and the Sultan of Sulu". Official Gazette. Government of the Philippines. March 22, 1915.
• "Cession and transfer of the territory of North Borneo by His Highness, Sultan Mohammad Esmail Kiram, Sultan of Sulu, acting with the consent and aprroval of the Ruma Bechara, in council assembled, to the Republic of the Philippines". Official Gazette. Government of the Philippines. April 24, 1962.

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, the second source you mentioned is already in the wiki article, on the third paragraph of section "Phillipine claim", albeit with a wrong date entered. --Danazach (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on North Borneo dispute. 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/20160615181020/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/102/8560.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/102/8560.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130822221918/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/102/7700.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/102/7700.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140116123119/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/102/7698.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/102/7698.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Article organization, early history, etc.

This article is on the fringes of my areas of interest, but I've stumbled into editing it after making these edits to the Sultanate of Sulu article, where it is mentioned as a detail article. Looking at the Philippine claim section here, it struck me that the early part of that section content didn't really fit there, and I thought that perhaps there it would fit better in an earlier Early history section. Two of the sources I looked while looking at these ([2], [3] -- and, later, at [4]) contain some details about this, but I'm not sure that they reconcile with one another.

I'm not sure at this point what ought to be done with this, and I'm even less sure that I ought to be the one to do it. I mention it here mainly to make a record of this info. (updated) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I do agree that perhaps there should be a section called Early History or Background that summarizes events leading to the 1878 agreement, but should not be too lengthy that it overshadows the main discussion or focus which is the 1878 agreement. Danazach (talk) 00:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Following that line of thought, it seems that all of the info in this article body sections above the present Philippine claim section ought to be summarized in such a section, with the details not directly relevant here moved to other articles where those details are more directly relevant. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

What I actually meant is that, chronologically, early history or background should come earlier in the article, however if it is too lengthy, then the main point of contention which is the 1878 agreement will be pushed further down. The other sections are currently elaborated below the 1878 agreement, so even if it is lengthy it is not overshadowing the 1878 agreement section, since coincidentally the other sections are events post 1878. --Danazach (talk) 10:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

OK. Noted. I didn't mean to argue. Philippine history is an interest area for me but this article, the Sultan of Sulu article and, probably, other related articles concern an area out of my current focus areas, and the details seem more complicated and convoluted than I really want to get into. I'll try to leave this to editors with more focus here. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

"Pajakan" (noun) versus "Pajakkan" (verb)

Hi @Andykatib, the reason why I transcribed the Jawi word as "pajakkan" is because if you know Jawi and read the original document in Jawi script, it is written as " فاجاقکن " the verb meaning "to grant/lease"... further down the agreement there is another word " فجاکن " which is the noun version "pajakan" which is "grant / lease"

Verb: kerana waris-waris dan pengganti-pengganti kita serta dengan keredhaan sekalian dato’-dato’ yang sudah bermuafakat sudah keredhai pajakkan dengan keredhaan dan kesukaan kita sendiri kepada tuan Gustavus Baron De Overbeck

Noun: adalah boleh sekali-sekali kuasa dan perintahyang dikeredhai dalam pajakan ini diberi atau ditukarkan kepada lain bangsa atau kompeni daripada bangsa asing kalau tiada dengan keredhaan perintah bawah duli Queen terlebih dahulu. Danazach (talk) 00:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

• Hi @Danazach:, no worries. Thanks very much for adding the quotation marks. I am no expert in Jawi so I trust the judgement of experts like you who know the language. Take care and happy editing. Andykatib 12:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)