Talk:Brunei/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

I am not sure what "This limit used to apply to every entry; in 2007, however, this was changed to one limit every 48 hours." means in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.117.232.173 (talk) 18:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I know that there is no such thing as plural word of mukims for mukim in Brunei and I'm not sure the correct plural word of mukim. Is it mukim-Mukim? Anybody care to comment on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gross (talk • contribs) 02:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Mukim-mukim is the correct plural in Malay. Since the word does not occur in English, in my opinion either the use of the english natural plural "mukims" or the uncountable form "mukim" is acceptable. --Novelty (talk) 09:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Koyaanis-

This is a lovely article. Sets a high standard for these country-specific social studies pieces, like my too-long in progress Japan/History. I have a couple of questions though. Between the vague CIA definition, and your very detailed definition, I think we should have a phrase that concisely summarizes Brunei's government, if only because it's so unusual. ( A GDP per capita of, what, 25,000 US? And not a democracy. ) Do you think that an "Effectively near absolute monarchy?" would be right? Or "effectively absolute monarchy?" Or is it even near-absolute? I'm not sure exactly how absolute it is, because all I've read just gushes over the fact that the Sultan built a free amusement park. And has a big house. I'm fairly sure there's no legislative body with any real degree of power, so I suppose the only thing standing in the way of absolute monarchy would be the Judiciary, of which I don't know much.

Actually, now that I read what I wrote, this seems to be more a question for my benefit than for the article's. Well I suppose that's just another plus of patronizing Wikipedia, eh?

Also, for the articles' sake, I've got something else. On independence under a British-written constitution ( that called for a government in the British mold ), didn't the Sultan immediately dissolve the parliament that the constitution mandated? Or maybe he stripped them of power. Whichever, it was in 1984 as I remember. I think that ought to get a mention if I remember the facts right. That's why I'm asking you, as matter of fact, because you seem to have a lot more of the facts a lot straighter than I do. I don't want to post anything too outrageously wrong.

---

Well, I do very much appreciate the vote of confidence, but I didn't write the article--I cut and pasted it from the Department of State website, which offers info in the public domain on various countries (unless it's got a copyright notice on that page; otherwise it's free/free). But so unfortunately I can't answer your question. I'm really not very informed about various countries; I just think it's a valuable resource to have on Wikipedia. Someone probably should go over them asking questions and starting discussions; I've only removed glaring biases and attempts at propaganda; I imagine there are several scattered throughout, a bit submerged.

BTW, there's more info on the porting here, if you're interested. I don't mind doing it myself, but I wouldn't mind additional help either.  :-)--KQ

---

Oh, ah well. I suppose that means I'll have to look into it. I've been so busy lately though that I need to get this Japanese History article out of the way ( I just got back to school a few days ago. ) Porting seems like a good idea. This article is probably much more accurate than anything I can write. Especially to get things started up. This Japaneses history thing needs to get done first though.

-Seckstu

---

The coat of arms is in the .gif format, which should be avoided. If no one changes this, I will do it.

--zeno 01:23, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I've replaced the following "Britain still maintains a garrison in Brunei on the request of the Sultan and to protect the oil fields in the West of the country." to identify that it's not the British army but a garrison of Gurkha soliders who are on Sultan's payroll who are actually stationed in Brunei. This was done with the arrangement of the British Army (via veiled threats that Brunei will relocate all its investments away from Britian if this arrangement was not accepted.

Couple of events in the past decade includes "official coronation of the Crown Prince" (i.e. official confirmation that he will be the next Sultan), the Sultan's youngest brother is now living in exile in France due to mismanagement and emblezzment of money (US$3b worth) that sent the Brunei economy into a tailspin. I didn't know whether these events would be suitable but it does impact the country.

---

I have added an expansion of the description of the history and use of Anduki Airfield to the Brunei Revolt section based on my personal tour of the facilities there in 1998. At the time, I was trying to get permission to use a part of this airfield for a proposed Bruneian ultralight aircraft mfg/flight center but was denied any approval (in the usual Bruneian manner of being very polite but doing exactly nothing), mostly due to the reluctance of heavily British-run Brunei Shell to allow any other activity there - especially one with Americans involved. Although the ultralight flight center was intended to be part of the developing Jerudong tourist/hotel area near the famous Jerudong Amusement Park, I also encountered subtle Bruneian resistance to my mission, apparently stemming from the idea that the ultralights might fly over some of the Royal Family residences (istanas) near there. They did not seem to fear them posing a hazard so much as the idea that some of the Royal Family's activities and extravagant facilities might be observed from the air. On some of my numerous flights into Brunei, the Royal Brunei Airlines stewardesses made a point of drawing all the airplanes' window shades down while approaching and flying over the coast where the Royals' istanas are generally located. TYSON BA

This was just before Prince Jefri was brought to heel by the Sultan for his unauthorized and extremely wasteful (some would say completely mad) financial extravagances. The British businesspeople in Brunei, especially those connected with petroleum and aviation activities, sharply and actively opposed any involvement in Brunei by American businessmen or investors- a fact quite amazingly at odds with the representations of the Bruneian aviation and development authorities who induced the company I represented to consider the Sultanate for U.S. aviation investment. This ultralight mfg. and training center project was initially conceived based on the representations of the then-Aviation Director of Brunei while on a trade mission to the USA. A proposal for substantial Bruneian military participation in and benefit from the ultralight mfg. project was floated as a possible answer to their resistance, but was killed even though it was pointed out that stealthy ultralight aircraft patrols over Brunei's extensive and valuable forest borders would likely detect and deter much of their multimillion-$ yearly losses to eco-destructive timber thieves stealing teak and other valuable hardwoods. These timber thieves are so active and industrious that they have been known to lay their own mini-railroads from the rainforest to the beach in order to float their timber out. Naturally criminal activities on this scale could never be concealed from the air. In sum, Brunei remains an almost exclusively British and Malaysian (Bhumiputra) business preserve, and any American firms seeking to invest there in any area of business should be strongly cautioned about the inevitable vicious and stubborn British resistance they will encounter from the human relics of that decaying empire still in place there.

By the way, Prince Jefri has been repatriated but his passport has been seized, his aircraft auctioned, and he has been consigned to living on the miserable budget of only $300,00 per month by his brother the Sultan. Widely rumored to be mentally deficient -explaining the fact that he was always heavily sequestered and kept out of sight by the Bruneians and his entourage when formerly overseas- Prince Jefri Bolkiah has now been stripped of his chairmanship of the Brunei Investment Agency and the direction of the now-defunct Amedeo Corp., the vehicle for most Bruneian development initiatives in the past. He now lives under a sort of "Royal house arrest" in Brunei in his many garish and even bizarrely built istanas (palaces). The Bruneian people themselves are afraid to talk openly about the Royals because of the pervasiveness of Bruneian Internal Security informers, but I certainly heard some great stories in private while living there in 1997-1998. Publicly at least, the Bruneian Government is based on the so-called "MIB concept": Malay culture, Islamic religion, and "Beraja" - an untranslatable cultural concept stressing the respect the people have for the Sultan and his alleged historical identity and unity with the people and their interests. At least 51% of working Bruneians are in fact employed directly by the Government of Brunei, as a sort of social welfare program and as some answer to the high local unemployment problem.

Yes indeed, the Sultanate of Brunei is one of the last remaining utter and absolute monarchies on the planet, but Wikipedia may not be the place to elucidate all of its more bizarre aspects. Some of the things I learned and saw personally there truly beggar description and would strain your credulity if I told you. But I can say that the next Sultan, the present Crown Prince Haji Al-Muhtadee Billah is an interesting and fairly decent chap much like his father. What I won't put here are all the other things I learned about the Royals and the inner workings of the Sultanate. Had some very well-placed friends and informants myself, including a former leader (now pardoned and quite aged) of the Brunei Revolt of '61 itself.

I could further describe at length the extent of the Monarchy there, its anachronistic rituals and overwhelming influence, and the very peculiar workings of H.M's Gov't - but this is my initial contrib to Wiki and I now lay down the keyboard to see how this will be accepted.

[email protected] 206.224.69.3 00:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

MIB (Melayu Islam Beraja) vaguely means a Malay Islamic Sultanate, Brunei is the only MIB country in the world.Caramel16 10:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

---

This is very interesting.

As a resident of brunei for some odd 20 years. these facts have not been known to me. its even more interesting that a foreigner who has resided in brunei for 2 years can arrive at this level of knowledge about the internal workings of the bruneian goevernment. this is the clarity or objectivity that is needed in the media as a next phase in the development of the country.

at its present state of equilibrium, the country will not progress. it will be trapped in a state of equilibrium whereby the tertiary educated and competant migrate out and the non tertiary educated from neighbouring countries malaysia migrate in. unlike 1960 and 1970s singapore, brunei does not have a culture or history of competetiveness,innovation and entrepreneurship. It lacks a competant ambitious middle class which is vital in developing the economy at a grassroots level. instead, the working ,middle class foreign immigrants (especially non-malay or muslim) are restricted, citizenship or permanent residency is not granted even after decades of residency in brunei. this protectionist policy results in immigrant foreigners regarding brunei as but a mere stepping stone for other countries which is deplorable because ideally, the immigrant residents leave not because of indifference to the bruneian culture and society but due to the lack of acknowledgement and indifferent treatment by the government.

Brunei needs to adopt an open attitude towards foreign influence in this ever increasing globalized world. It needs to shed off its isolationist and secularist policies if it aims to progress as a nation. Otherwise it is potential wasted.

I hope such a viewpoint can be incorporated into the article to better reflect the perspective of the internalized foreigners who are treated indifferently. That brunei is a nation, and not a racial community.

-sec

Was there or wasn't there a rebellion? What does it mean to say there WAS a rebellion that was PREVENTED? 08:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

---

I added a judicial section.

Regarding the Gurkha soldier being station in Brunei. They are probably on Sultan's payroll but they are still a British Garrison because they are many British soldiers (not just Gurkhas) in the garrison. They have also been called to serve outside Brunei, as in a few ago Gurkha troops from Brunei Garrison served in peacekeeping efforts in East Timor.

1. remove the arabic naming. Reason: Arabic is not one the main lingua franca in brunei. number of arabic speaker is so little with exception of those who study in school. Even the no. of Hokkien (Chinese languages) speaker in Brunei is even greater. If you wanna put the arabic naming then there sould also be the chinese naming.

2. no one mentioned that Brunei one of the few countries in Southeast Asia that reached the United Nation Millenium Development Goals

3. why did everyone put the negatives things about brunei? what did they want? TYSON.254-5792773344

• What Arabic naming are you talking about? Those are Malay language in Jawi script --Bukhrin 16:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know the economic data on Brunei, especially the distribution of wealth. Also, I was in Malaysia last week and heard stories of people who had been tortured in Brunei because they were suspected of proselytizing. It would be interesting to have more material on religious freedom. scott 06:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Jscottbasiko

In my ongoing efforts to try to include every country on the planet included in the scope of a WikiProject, I have proposed a new project on Southeastern Asia at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Southeastern Asia whose scope would include Brunei. Any interested parties are more than welcome to add their names there, so we can see if there is enough interest to start such a project. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Are these related words? I would think there has to be some common etymology. Chris 03:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC) Qhaddafy 11:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC) Yes, Chris. Brunei is located in Borneo. The Smallest nation(in Size) but probably the richest in Borneo

I removed English from the "official languages" in the infobox. According to a Government of Brunei website, the official language is Malay. English is only mentioned as "other languages". --Joshua ^{Say "hi" to me!}_{What have I done?} 04:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The link you give is no longer working, but I've found the 1984 constitution which says that English can be used for official purposes until such time that law shall remove this privilege. I do no know if that's happened, and any insights would be greatly appreciated. JREL (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused, I though that this was the Sultanate of Negara Brunei Darussalam, but the page say the State of Brunei Darussalam. As Brunei is a sultanate, this doesn't make much sense to me, I'm guessing that Negara means State, but I don't know. Can anyone give me an answer? Therequiembellishere 20:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

You are right. Negara is the Malay word for state. __earth ^(Talk) 13:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

So is it the State of Brunei Darussalam or the Sultanate of Brunei Darussalam? Therequiembellishere 19:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The official name, in the official language (Malay) is 'Negara Brunei Darussalam'. That translates to the 'State of Brunei, the Abode of Peace' in English. Brunei is also a Sultanate as it is ruled by a Sultan, but since "sultanate" is an English word and not a Malay word, it's not part of the official title. --Novelty (talk) 09:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to make a correction here. Negara means Country. Negeri means state. State of Brunei was the case before its independence in 1984. During then it was not recognised as a country but a British colony. Now its called Negara Brunei Darussalam or just Brunei Darussalam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.166.136.102 (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The "Politics" section was tagged POV, but I see no summary of the problems here -- all individual statements seem to be referenced and there's no obvious slant in either direction as far as I can see. Jpatokal 08:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence "Its realm covered the whole island of Borneo and the southwestern Philippines", and replace it with the sentence I copy from History of Brunei, which states "The sultanate's control extended over the coastal regions of modern-day Sarawak and Sabah, the Sulu archipelago, and the islands off the northwest tip of Borneo."

The truth is, prior to the coming of the western colonialist, the island comprised of relatively independent kingdoms, there were no dominating power per se. There were kingdoms in areas now known as Indonesian part of the island that were in some sort of tributary position to the Banjar Kingdom in the south, but that's it. There is no record of the Brunei Sultanate ever got its hand on these kingdoms.

So unless there is any proof that it did, we could only include what is already verifiable, that the sultanate's realm covered only the northern part of the island which is now a part of Malaysia's Sarawak and Sabah, and the Sulu archipelago which is now a part of Philippines.Matahari Pagi (talk) 02:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the NPOV violation that said "Being an absolute monarchy, press is tightly regulated."

Czar Choi (talk) 02:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Is Brunei considered "unconnected" only due to a lack of a dry land connection, or are parts of the Brunei Bay Malaysian waters all the way until the intermediate part of Malaysia? --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 11:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I am in Malaysia, which borders both sides of Brunei has never experienced any temperature close to even 24 deg celsius let alone 12 deg as stated in the article page of Brunei. Wonder if this is an overlooked fact. - Red1 D Oon (talk) 11:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I am also surprised by this climate data indicating such relatively cool temperatures in winter. Is there an environmental reason Brunei has significantly cooler winters than nearby areas in Malaysia? If so, perhaps it should be explained on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.66.30 (talk) 08:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing this table for the time being. The figures given come to a total of 487 thousand, while the stated population of the whole of Brunei is less than 400 thousand. The city data is clearly inconsistent and is probably wrong - or at the very least needs a substnatial explanation of why it is inconsistent.

Rank	City	District	Population	Density (per mi2)
1	Bandar Seri Begawan[d]	Brunei-Muara	134,000	26,403.8
2	Gadong Town	Brunei-Muara	109,000	7,876.4
3	Jerudong	Brunei-Muara	93,000	12,752.2
4	Kuala Belait	Belait	78,000	14,371.8
5	Seria	Belait	35,000	10,781.7
6	Berakas Town	Brunei-Muara	19,000	1,232.8
7	Tutong Town	Tutong	15,000	1,232.8
8	Bangar	Temburong	4,000	2,808.3

Nick Connolly (talk) 00:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

08/09/09 Please note that under 'Population', the author(s) have January 2009 estimate 388,190. Yet under 'Geography' heading writes: "The total population of Brunei Darussalam is about 600,000 of which around 130,000 live in the capital Bandar Seri Begawan." And in the 'Population growth estimates for Brunei'box has: 1948 388,190 <<<<< 1956 406,017 1968 456,761 1979 480,153 1985 519,035 1989 539,912 1992 548,563 1998 571,981 2001 590,000 2006 609,342 <<<<< 2010 616,093

All these numbers seem to need to reconciled. —Gary —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.171.0 (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the following table as it isn't consistent with Brunei population data. Possibly it matches a graph for Bahrain.Nick Connolly (talk) 18:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Population growth estimates for Brunei
1948	388,190
1956	406,017
1968	456,761
1979	480,153
1985	519,035
1989	539,912
1992	548,563
1998	571,981
2001	590,000
2006	609,342
2010	616,093
2016	629,145
2023	641,776
2030	652,000
2034	665,339
2039	679,208
2045	683,952
2046	692,000
2049	701,412
2050	700,098
Source: Dept of Sustainability and Environment

"Brunei Darussalam consists of two unconnected parts with a total area of 5,766 sq. kilometers (2,226 sq. miles). 87% of the population lives in the larger western part, while only about 10,000 live in the mountainous eastern part (the district of Temburong). The total population of Brunei Darussalam is about 400,000 of which around 130,000 live in the capital Bandar Seri Begawan."

Does anybody else see a problem with this? That's only the worst of several factual inaccuracies in this article. And I chose this article at random to edit. Jesus Christ.

And for the morons about us, if 10,000 is 13% of the total population, then the total population is only 77,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.157.92.7 (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

--- I have changed it to 97%, I believe 87% was a typo. I will get a geographer at UBD to enter a reference to confirm the figures. Mochagateau (talk) 01:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Did somebody completely plagiarize a tourism brochure for the first section? The only thing missing is a statement that says, "Come to Brunei! A wonderful adventure awaits." I know this is Wikipedia, but it would be nice if the writers could contain their excitement while writing about a topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.146.137.194 (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The "Demographics" section states that "The foreign population is around 220,000 people. The non expatriate population is around 399,290." = 619,290 total population. The 2009 census estimate has the population at only 388,190. Duh! The figures in the demographics section are also unreferenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.184.3 (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

2nd to last paragraph of lead(intro) section, there's a tag of [loation needed]. What location? --Mistakefinder (talk) 07:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Could someone change the graphic showing the different districts so that it's legible without having to open the link to the picture? It could probably be achieved by changing the fonts to black so that it isn't red-on-pink and difficult to read. Sorry for not doing it myself, but I have no graphic editing software.. Lime in the Coconut 16:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

An image used in this article, File:Emblem of ASEAN.svg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?

Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

This review is transcluded from Talk:Brunei/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chipmunkdavis (talk • contribs • count) 16:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to fail this to try and save someone else some time. I've inteneded myself to try and improve this article towards GA, but as it stands at the moment it is not comprehensive and many sections could be much better sourced. Many sections are extremely short, Culture for example two tiny paragraphs, a sentence on alcohol, and a list of Bruneians (something totally UNDUE on any country article anyway). Sources are okay, but some sections (such as the Brunei Halal brand in Economy) are unsourced and highly undue. The article does not meet the GA criteria, and although the problems shouldn't be that difficult to fix, but they will take substantial time. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Good call. I know it's a small country, but that shouldn't mean the article should be so empty. It's not even half the size of the Singapore article. Nightw 00:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

This review is transcluded from Talk:Brunei/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jim Sweeney (talk · contribs) 13:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Quick fail the referencing is not to the standard acceptable for a Good Article Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

This review is transcluded from Talk:Brunei/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Thehistorian10 (talk · contribs) 16:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Introduction

I am not going to use any fancy graphs or charts, being as I cannot manipulate them at all. I am a literalist interpreter of the guidelines, by the way. This review will contain my own judgement, and - where appropriate - citations and examples to reinforce my points. To become a good article, this article must pass at least 90% of the good article criteria. This is to say that the article must fully pass 5 out of six of the criteria in order for it to be given good article status.

Is the article well-written?

I think the article is well written. The subtopics make sense, and are organized appropriately. The spelling and grammar are exemplary. One disadvantage of the lead section is that it can be considered as too long. However, as this is an article about a country, and thus there is much information, the lead can be thus forgiven for being too long, as it must summarise much information in a short space.

Is the article factually accurate and verifiable?

Every paragraph has an accompanying inline source. There is an adequate number of sources for the article, bearing in mind the amount of research required for a geographical article, and also bearing in mind the article's size. There are no evident signs of original research.

Is the article broad in its coverage?

This is a geographical article, and, as such, should BROADLY cover all aspects of the country - its history, tourism, economy, climate, geography, politics, culture (which includes media) and its demographics. The infobox contains much supplementary geographical information.

The article is broad, and yet detailed enough to reinforce the points it makes. However, detail is somewhat lacking in the "history" section, although this is offset by the link to the article "History of Brunei", where one can expect to find more detailed information.

Is the article neutral?

This article is neutral - it does not give undue weight to one belief system, nor to one area of specialism or expertise. It covers all areas equally and without undue "over-referencing".

Is the article stable?

There are no evident or ongoing edit wars. The revision history reflects this. There are, however, many instances of edits by different users. However, this is offset by the fact that those users were adding extra information and correcting grammar and typographical errors. There is no evidence of editors arguing through constant reversal and re-reversal of each other's edits. Nor is there evidence of any arguments on the talkpage.

Illustations in the article

All images have captions, which adequately describe the subjects of the images. The copyright information is easily accessible. Images are relevant, as demonstrated by their placing in the article and captions.

Final judgement

I am happy to say that this article has FULLY PASSED ALL CRITERIA. I am happy to mark this page as a good article.

I am very dissapointed to see this article on brunei and fail to see a single metion for restriction on freedom [ of all kinds ]. Even in a country with more freedom than brunei, malaysia, there are even articles about freedom restriction. In a country with even less freedom, should'nt there be at least a small section about freedom restrictions ?

' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_religious_freedom_in_Malaysia '

Just read this report from the US government ;

Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2005 Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor March 8, 2006

There were problems in the government's human rights record, particularly in the area of civil liberties. The following human rights problems were reported:

   * inability of citizens to change their government
   * arbitrary detention
   * no freedom of speech, press, assembly, or association
   * restrictions on religious freedom
   * discrimination against women
   * restricted labor rights
   * exploitation of foreign workers

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61602.htm

Yet i fail to see any of these mentioned in the article. Not including any of this makes this article both un-clear and inaccurate. Ignoring these problems is very bias, as civil liberties are essential for a free society ; it brings self-fufillment, justice, freedom to think and do without external influence, and many others. I am not saying that brunei should be free or will be etc, what i am saying is if you want to write an article on a country, it should cover all major history and happenings ; both negative and positive.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.160.33.119 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 14 June 2006.

Possible POV violation? The statement in the article, "Due to the absolute rule of the Sultan, Brunei is one of the most politically stable countries in Asia," could be understood as a plea for the advantages of despotic rule. --IslandGyrl 20:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Qhaddafy 12:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC) Well, it's relatively stable, besides, we can't really force everyone in this world to follow the same rule as in your country. Many traditionally minded people didn't really care about "changing" government, what do they care is how good their lives are. It's a "Brunei" anyway, not the 51st State :)

"77% of the population lives in the eastern part of Brunei, while only about 10,000 live in the mountainous south eastern part (the district of Temburong). The total population of Brunei Darussalam is approximately 408,000 (July 2010) of which around 150,000 live in the capital Bandar Seri Begawan." Elsewhere in the article, it is noted that Bandar Seri Begawan is located in the country's western portion. Even if the rest of the western portion were uninhabited, the eastern part would have just 63.25% of the population. Nyttend (talk) 15:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

- You are right. The paragraph seems to be wrongly structured, because most of the settlements are located near coastal and urban areas, and Temburong is the EASTERN part of Brunei. Thanks. Muhammad Mukhriz (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

An image used in this article, File:Panji-panji Brunei.gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Panji-panji Brunei.gif) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

An image used in this article, File:Coat of arms of Brunei.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Coat of arms of Brunei.svg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Which categorical description should I describe for English in a better way? "Recognised" or "Used for some purposes"?

I do think that Recognized is suitable, that would make it in line with the Malaysia infobox and there seems to be sufficient references to support that.Obersttseu (talk) 09:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Yup, Obersttseu was right. As I also been asked by a user before. — иz нίpнόp ^ʜᴇʟᴘ! 10:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

What about "Also used for official purposes"? 41.130.4.76 (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, as Obersttseu already said "there seems to be sufficient references to support that". Plus this site is more likely a self publish source. — иz нίpнόp ^ʜᴇʟᴘ! 12:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

"Also used for official purposes" is also not very clear. Malay is used for official correspondence such as government letters. I believe "Recognized" is better as the references state in what way English is recognized but not in what official purpose is English used.

This section needs some fixing and improvement. SirAlexOreo (talk) 11:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Already done by Hallows AG, but not just that which need an improvement, if I have much time with a better internet connection I think I want to improve this article along with the Singapore article to be like the Malaysia one. :) — иz нίpнόp ^ʜᴇʟᴘ! 11:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I suggest to shorten the introduction by moving the following section to "History"

At the peak of Bruneian Empire, Sultan Bolkiah (reigned 1485–1528) is alleged to have had control over the northern regions of Borneo, including modern-day Sarawak and Sabah, as well as the Sulu archipelago off the northeast tip of Borneo, Seludong (modern-day Manila), and the islands off the northwest tip of Borneo. The maritime state was visited by Spain's Magellan Expedition in 1521 and fought against Spain in 1578's Castille War.

During the 19th century the Bruneian Empire began to decline. The Sultanate ceded Sarawak to James Brooke as a reward for his aid in putting down a rebellion and named him as rajah, and it ceded Sabah to the British North Borneo Chartered Company. In 1888 Brunei became a British protectorate and was assigned a British Resident as colonial manager in 1906. After the Japanese occupation during World War II, in 1959 a new constitution was written. In 1962 a small armed rebellionagainst the monarchy was ended with the help of the British.[11]

It may be more relevant to add some recent developments in a sentence or two. Peteruetz (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

"Brunei has a constitutional sultanate. It has a legal system based on English common law, although Islamic shariah law supersedes this in some cases."

Brunei has a constitution which states that the Sultan is the Head of State. However, the incumbent Sultan of Brunei now heads the government, therefore he is also the Prime Minister. Furthermore, the Sultan has the full authority of ruling the government. I am confused now, because Brunei is one of only few nations ruled by an absolute monarchy. Please explain this! --Muhammad Mukhriz (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The source that I have placed on the statement (the CIA Factbook) states that Brunei has a constitutional monarchy as its type of government.--Hallows Aktiengesellschaft (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, AG. Muhammad Mukhriz (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The CIA Factbook uses "constitutional monarchy" whenever there's a constitution. That's a minority view. I think we shouldn't stick to the CIA Factbook in this question. СЛУЖБА (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

This reads like it was written by the Chamber of Commerce. The facts could be reduced into three paragraphs, and ersatz information as uninformative as a "People" magazine article is the result. Doesn't anyone NOT working for or afraid of this government have anything to add? TheCryingofLot49 (talk) 23:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Should update the Brunei International Airport picture with the new modernised Brunei airport. Ruse998 (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Next to the flag there is an emblem referred to as a "Crest." This is a misnomer. A crest is a component of a heraldic display. ^[1] A more correct word would be "emblem" or "seal."^[2] Jeremy6857 (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

For years, this page has been claiming that the mean maximum temperature for January is 24.8 degrees. This is ludicrous. I have input some more reasonable figures.

I have taken the figures for each month, varying between 31 and 32 degrees, from:http://www.myweather2.com/Holiday-Destinations/Brunei-Darussalam/Bandar-seri-begawan/climate-profile.aspx?month=1. I admit that this is not the best source, and it would be nice to have more accurate figures. But at least it is better than showing figures of around 25 degrees.

If someone can get some better figures, why not enter them? And why not provide a proper reference to justify the new figures? But please do not put back the values of 24.8 degrees (etc).

David deterding (talk) 09:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Please remove the extra punctuation at the end of "unleaded petrol price of B$0.53 per litre.,[63]" 108.114.8.27 (talk) 23:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Brunei. 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/20120105222217/http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/country-profile/asia-oceania/brunei?profile=geography to http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/country-profile/asia-oceania/brunei?profile=geography
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120106164539/http://www.brudirect.com/index.php/Local-News/sultanate-moves-to-reduce-unemployment.html to http://www.brudirect.com/index.php/Local-News/sultanate-moves-to-reduce-unemployment.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120106113435/http://www.brudirect.com/index.php/Local-News/speedboat-services-to-and-from-temburong.html to http://www.brudirect.com/index.php/Local-News/speedboat-services-to-and-from-temburong.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101226055851/http://ubd.edu.bn/academic/faculty/im/index2.htm to http://www.ubd.edu.bn/academic/faculty/im/index2.htm

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} 14:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Brunei/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This page fails to meet the GA Criteria. Primarily it fails in the following areas:

- '1. Well Written' - There are various grammatical errors throughout the article. Ref: the Animal Rights section.

- '2. Verifiable with no original research' - There are several unsourced statements. "Foreign workers tend to emigrate from non-Muslim countries.", "As of August 2015, there were no cases within the Sharia Penal Code that would entail the death penalty without four qualified witnesses." and "Stray animals especially dogs and cats are protected their rights by NGO group in Brunei." are examples.

Plebotron (talk) 10:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: I've done a few changes to the article, specifically to the areas that you have mentioned above, I'll do more edits to it in the near future. Hallows ^AG (talk) 02:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The two editors involved in this GAR have not edited this review nor Wikipedia in some months. I am taking over the GAR. Notes have been left on the editors' talkpages. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

• It contains an appropriate reference section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Query

Fail

• The prose is generally readable and conveys information, however there are errors in places, the meaning is not always clear ("Brunei is the first country in Asia to ban on shark finning nationwide."), and there is a trend toward short paragraphs, and abrupt, disconnected sentences which inhibit reading flow. The articles needs an appropriate copy-edit. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
• Layout. There are too many short sub-sections, which inhibit reading flow, images and media are used in a haphazard fashion, creating a jumbled disorganised appearance. See WP:Layout - in particular WP:LAYIM and MOS:BODY. The See also and External links sections need to be checked, as they appear to be over long, with dubious entries. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
• The citing of sources is a major concern. The article qualifies as a quick fail due to having been tagged as needing sources in multiple places since October 2015. Looking at the article history, the article had been quick failed on 20 December 2011 for lack of sources, then was passed four days later, even though the sourcing issue had not been addressed. A FAC in Jan 2012 was quickly rejected because of the sourcing issues, and it was suggested at that time that a GAR take place to remove the GA listing. I don't think I need continue this review. The article clearly does not meet GA requirements. This GAR has been open since September 2015, with the same sourcing concerns, and they still haven't been addressed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

General comments

This is a clear fail, and I will delist the article. It is somewhat concerning that such a poorly sourced and messy article has been listed as a Good Article since December 2011, even though several people were aware of its faults. One of the strengths of the GA process is that delisting can be easily done by any editor in good standing without the need for red tape. I understand the reluctance to get involved, but folks should not be afraid to initiate an individual GAR, and to carry out a delisting when an article clearly does not meet the GA criteria. However, if unsure - perhaps because of prior involvement in an article, there is also the option of a community GAR, or approaching an experienced reviewer, such as myself - as was done in this case. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

This edit request to Brunei has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There is no indication source for the statement "Economic growth during the 1990s and 2000s, averaging 56% from 1999 to 2008, (...)." If we are talking about the GDP growth here, most sources I found give me much lower growth rates (Maximum ~10%): http://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/Brunei_Darussalam_Country-profiles_SYB2014.pdf http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/1999/cr9919.pdf 2.246.172.25 (talk) 08:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done for now: The first 56% appears to come simply comparing 1999 and 2008 GDPs. 2008 GDP was 56% more than 1999. However, that is not the year-to-year average.

Should we attempt to find the correct average, or simply change the text to state "growing 56% between 1999 and 2008", which would also be accurate? -- ferret (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Partly done: I have changed "average" to "increase", as that is an accurate representation. The GDP between 1999 and 2008 increased 56%. -- ferret (talk) 00:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)