Talk:20-point agreement

message: This article is based on a common misunderstanding.  The 20 Points are no form of 'Agreement' - they were the Sabah delegates' submission to the Intergovernmental Committee.  The basis on which Malaysia was formed was the Federal Constitution, nothing more, nothing less.  The 20-Points have undoubtedly become important as a rallying point for disgruntled Sabahan, but they have no legal force whatsoever, and never did. Monsopiad 13:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we can change certain words in the article, ie: "is an agreement" to "is a submission". but do you have source for this? why does newspaper articles eg: daily express quote the 20-point agreement as if it has some sort of legal effect? kawaputratok2me 04:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Kawaputra, may I asked is the binding agreement the Malaysia Agreement that was signed in 1963? Because if it is then it is available via SAPP website here. http://www.sapp.org.my/pdf/msia_agreement_1963.pdf. If this were binding, I am also surprised that there are nothing on in wikipedia --Danazach (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - that is the binding agreement, yes. We already have a link to that on this article page, the Malaysia page, and several others. Some links point to the document in the UN treaty store, some to the text at wikisource, so that's actually pretty well referenced in several places already. What we really need is a reliable source for the text of the 20 point memorandum/agreement itself, which is a different document, which we believe was part of the negotiation, though not the final agreement - see discussion in next section.  Begoon•talk 13:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basis of article 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.digitalibrary.my/dmdocuments/malaysiakini/767_Report%20of%20the%20Commission%20of%20EnquiryNorth%20Borneo%20&%20Sarawak%20&%20IGC%201962.pdf
** In 20-point agreement (Sabah) on 2011-05-25 06:57:38, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
** In 20-point agreement (Sabah) on 2011-06-10 04:55:37, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
--JeffGBot (talk) 04:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: I am quite sure that the Malaysia Agreement and the 20-point agreement are 2 different things. The infobox in this article contains info about the former which already has a separate article. The two agreements might be related in some way - im not sure. But i think we should remove the current contents of the infobox as it is misleading and replace it with the 20-pt agreement, if we can find any source. ќמшמφטтгמtorque 08:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you that Malaysia Agreement and the 20 point memorandum are two different things, and hence it should be removed from the article..However I cannot find a copy of the official memorandum signed by 3 representatives of each of 5 parties involved, only information regarding it from sources in google book. I recall someone wanted to snap a picture of the agreement from Sabah Museum, but I'm not sure on the update of that. --Danazach (talk) 12:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm removing the infobox. As you correctly point out, it is misleading. Infoboxes are a convenience to display information, and if we don't have enough information to use one, then the solution is simple. We don't use one. This one is frankly bizarre, and very likely to mislead. Begoon talk 09:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Urgh. Thanks Begoon, and good spot Kawaputra. Lots of issues in this area, any cleanup is good. CMD (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox issue 

message: This article has become a WP:COATRACK.
I propose to restore the version of the brief timeline from here: .
If that's too radical, can anyone suggest a better way to remove all of the unrelated details about other treaties, later agreements and tangentially-maybe related issues which have developed? 
I'm serious - it's a mess. Begoon talk 05:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, User:Omdo has a penchant for adding less relevant or irrelevant information on wikipedia articles, and I've given up restoring to the more succinct version of this article. But I agree with restoring it to the aforementioned version.--Danazach (talk) 09:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it'd be a shame, in my opinion, to leave it in this state after Kawaputra and yourself put in all that effort finding sources. As it stood after that I think it was a nice, succinct article, explaining what this 20-point agreement was. And, really, that's all it needs to be. It's now the type of article I'd tend to take one look at, and go away not much the wiser, or more confused than when I arrived. I'm not saying the short version couldn't be improved, but I am saying it's now such a mess we "can't start from here"... I really vote for a bit of WP:DYNAMITE - but not full demolition, because we have a reasonable version to restore. Begoon talk 10:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Dynamite isn't an unreasonable idea. A brief timeline should be brief after all. Best thing would be to dynamite and then see if any of the removed sources have anything to add. CMD (talk) 10:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok - well, unless anyone objects in the meantime, I'll plan to do that tomorrow, then. Thanks, guys. Begoon talk 11:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:COATRACK]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 20-point agreement. 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/20120904055037/http://www.digitalibrary.my/dmdocuments/malaysiakini/767_Report%20of%20the%20Commission%20of%20EnquiryNorth%20Borneo%20%26%20Sarawak%20%26%20IGC%201962.pdf to http://www.digitalibrary.my/dmdocuments/malaysiakini/767_Report%20of%20the%20Commission%20of%20EnquiryNorth%20Borneo%20%26%20Sarawak%20%26%20IGC%201962.pdf
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) 00:24, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified