Talk:Raj of Sarawak

message: hi,
Does anyone have the book - "Silvia, queen of the head hunters"? Can I have the page number with the picture of the state crest on the doorway with the Jawi transliteration of Dum Spiro Spero (written as "Haraplah, selagi bernafas"). This is just to stop people from changing the wording to "Berharaplah, Selagi Bernafas" - Thanks --Bukhrin (talk) 05:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motto 

message: I'm not sure if a state ruled by a Raja should be described as a Kingdom. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: To those who persistenly deny this was a kingdom, please read the book published by a British Consul to Brunei, Sir Spenser St. John which published in 1863 where he himself referring Sarawak as a kingdom with prosperity, good government, security of life and property, western civilization and the Rajah who is a friend of the Dayak. Another book published by the British War Office (a recognised department of the British Government) in 1942 referring that Sarawak was a kingdom with absolute monarchy. So how can both of the two sources can said this entity to the extent of being kingdom if not it is indeed was really established as a kingdom. Furthermore, the title of Rajah is clearly explained in its article that the title is solely used/given for a monarch. I have seen such similar attempt to deny Brunei as an "empire" before in Talk:Bruneian Empire, but as been answered by an IP editor there, there is an oldest book published in 1868 that clearly stating that it was an empire with only different spelling of Brunei > Bruni. So just because some spelling used by the oldest records are different from the modern spelling used in our current life today, doesn't mean their existence can be deny. I took another example of this oath stone erected in North Borneo prior to the 1963 Malaysia Agreement, see clearly the Malay language words being used in the sentence in the picture below, for example perlambaga'an (constitution), ugama (religion), rayat (citizen), sabalek (e.g. while or in other meaning), ta'at (e.g. loyalty, obedient) and kapada (to). If you studying and learning modern Malay language today, these kind of words have been standardised to perlembagaan, agama, rakyat, sebalik, taat and kepada despite the meaning are still the same as the original sentence.  Night Lanternhalo? 03:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please don't give as a source a mid-19th century British consul. The questions to ask is: did the Brooke rajahs called their state a kingdom? The answer is no. Do modern historians refer to Sarawak under the Brooke rajahs as a kingdom? The answer is no. While one finds 57 occurrences of the word "kingdom" in this Wikipedia article, one will not find a single occurrence of that word in well-known historian Runciman's history of Sarawak under the Brooke rajahs (including 33 pages of notes). To me, that's a serious problem. The Wikipedia rule is that the most common usage in a given language must prevail in titles of articles, etc. "Kingdom of Sarawak" is neither the most common usage...or even an uncommon one. It's a fantasy kingdom!--Lubiesque (talk) 12:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see from the above that I'm not the only one dismayed by the use of the word "kingdom". BTW, soon after the accession of King Edward VII, it was determined that, at Court, Rajah James Brooke would be referred to as "Rajah of Sarawak" and ranked immediately after the Heads of the Indian Native States (Runciman p. 200). No Sarawak king or kingdom in sight.--Lubiesque (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

text: Actually Spenser St John has a whole chapter on the Kingdom of BRUNEI... Lol.....I noticed earlier today that Wikipedia has an article on the "Bruneian Empire". I'm not sure many historians refer to the "Bruneian Empire" and call the rather modest possessions of the sultans of Brunei in those days as an "empire". But there you go: some contributors fantasize a lot on Wikipedia. But inventing kingdoms and empires is no way to improve the reliability of the encyclopedia.--Lubiesque (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is the answer, then so does with the State of Sarawak as you recently did towards the article with almost every of the search results from the keywords showing only the modern state of Sarawak in Malaysia , not the past entity under the Rajah. Instead the keywords with Brooke Raj/Raj of Sarawak  or Sarawak Raj  showing more positive results. Regarding the Sultanate of Brunei, personally I have no problems if they want rename with the title, but some folks for surely always trying to redirecting or connecting it to the modern country of Brunei (see the page moving history by yourself with one user redirecting it to the Brunei article while an IP changing the redirect to the Bruneian Empire).  Night Lanternhalo? 14:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: As I had pointed out in the changes that I made but that you reverted, Sarawak under the Brookes was generally simply called "Sarawak", which is why I replaced dozens (!!!) of phony "the kingdom" by "Sarawak" (but you reverted those as well since you seem to worship the word "kingdom"). It was also called State of Sarawak (the way Indian princely states ruled by rajah, sultans, etc. were called "states") or Raj (Runciman refers to the "Chief Secretary of the Raj", and he has a map showing the "Approximate frontiers of the Raj of Sarawak", p. 188). "Kingdom" is pure invention. A title for this article could be "Sarawak under the Brooke rajahs". In any case, the word kingdom should be avoided as it is a fake and misleads the reader.--Lubiesque (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason for the revert still does not justifying me being a monarchist fan or any other nonsense that currently appear in your mind even if I am in the position that Sarawak under Brooke is indeed an administration based on a monarchy system. Like any other administrators told us before when you want to make a drastic change on any article name, you need to gain a consensus in the article talkpage first. This procedure however are not followed closely by you as seen with your recent change when even the file names that supposedly been changed through moving request are simply done through text modification that making the article seems to have been vandalised.  Night Lanternhalo? 15:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, I intend to request a page move soon and see if there is a consensus. The new page title could be "Sarawak under the Brooke Rajahs". Maybe there are other possible titles. At any rate, just about any new name would be better that the fanciful "Kingdom of Sarawak", which looks like a cool title, but is unfortunately totally ignored by historians.--Lubiesque (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

text: Agreed since the administration is under the Rajahs itself, similar like how British India are called British Raj. The moving procedure can be read here.  Night Lanternhalo? 00:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be good to see various sources brought to this talkpage, and a move request started after that. I agree that it seems appropriate to consider a move based on what's been discussed above. CMD (talk) 07:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

text: *sigh* To Mr. Lubiesque, rather than you continue making personal attack towards other editor and just changing some of the lead texts, why don't you start gain consensus right down below for entire renaming? It is a shame that a so-called avid fan of Steven Runciman works preferring more towards "personal attack and calling that as an invention by an editor obsessed with the word kingdom". Seriously sir, this kind of attitude deserved no respect from other editor.  Night Lanternhalo? 01:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and one more thing for sure. You keep implying that it is like I am the one who "originally" invent the word "kingdom" in this article and seems to accuse me of being a fan of "fantasy kingdom". Let me tell you once and for all that this article was expanded by me only since 29 July 2017. Listen!! Since 2017!!! While according to the article history, the "kingdom" title has been used since 2007!! For God's sake since 2007!? Why not even a single person disputing the fact for almost 10 years (+2 more years without any action)? The recent one only began in 2016 but the reply only come the following month after my modification in 2017!? In fact I've seen user like Battang are quite active putting an eye to the article but still not even a single modification been taken towards the article on the "kingdom" issues. Only when someone already willing to spend his "wasted time" to expanding this article with more details in that year, there comes you changing every of the "kingdom" sentences without proper procedure until the article seems to have been vandalised by irresponsible readers. The funny thing is when I began to undoing your recent edit, asking the reason and telling you to follow moving procedure, there you go with personal attack rather than continue to starting a moving discussion. In fact my last reply to you here as seen above was in the month of April 2019, now is already June!! What are you doing for two months without initiating any moving procedure to gain consensus? *Sigh* Seeing your talkpage with several warnings including the warning for edit war in British Raj article making me no surprised with your attitude! Remember! "What goes around comes around" so don't expect someone could treat you nicely with this kind of attitude! 走好!!  Night Lanternhalo? 04:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kingdom? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kingdom of 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/20150401045406/http://www.dutcheastindies.webs.com/sarawak.html to http://www.dutcheastindies.webs.com/sarawak.html
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) 09:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Jeremy Kusumatmadja made an interesting point by adding that Sarawak occupied part of Brunei.  From 1888-1935.
It had nothing to do with the Brunei gov falling apart, as is his claim in the edit summary. 
It would have been nice if he had given a reference...
Charles bought the concession of Brooketon & Muarra coal mines - as well as bought back the coal rights for all of Brunei from Cowie.
But I don't think we can call this Sarawak territory - one of the restrictions to the concession was that Charles Brooke was not allowed to raise the Sarawak flag.  So I'm not sure if you could actually call it Sarawak territory if he didn't have full sovereign rights.
The territory was ceded back to Brunei in 1935 by Charles Vyner.
Here's a letter from Charles explaining the whole history: http://archive.brooketrust.org/DA/showObject.php?id=CBLB_8_241  MatSallehSesat (talk) 04:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Jeremy Kusumatmadja can you provide a citation or source? Charles Brooke bought the lease to Brooketon 7 Sep 1888, and Brunei became a protectorate on 17 Sep 1888. In 1906 the British told Charles Brooke that he could not raise the Sarawak flag at Brooketon.  To me this suggests that Sarawak never had sovereign rights in Brooketon.  So I don't think this qualifies.  Are you referencing something else?MatSallehSesat (talk) 11:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brooketon 1888 - 1935