Talk:Brunei

Formatting and language conventions For articles about Brunei, please use the 24-hour clock to show times, e.g. 09:00-12:00 and 18:00-00:00. Please show prices in this format: $100 and not BND 100, B$100, or 100 dollars. Please use British spelling (colour, travelled, centre, realise, analogue, programme, defence).

Spelling

Wikivoyage policy is to use US spelling, not Commonwealth. While I personally ignore original stuff written in Commonwealth, I strongly disagree with conversion of US spelling (the Wikivoyage Standard) into Commonwealth. Please do not do this again -- (WT-en) Colin 00:02, 28 Aug 2005 (EDT)

so we cant use coloUrful language? 58.171.197.83 10:24, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

Stay healthy

"Drink bottled water." err concise and to the point but why? poor water quality or just standard travel advice? 58.171.197.83 10:25, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

Redirect request

Can someone please add in a redirect so that "Brunei Darussalam" comes here instead of being red? Thanks! ReveurGAM (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

See Wikivoyage:How to redirect a page. I did it this time.Globe-trotter (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd just read it before seeing your comment. Unfortunately, while I now know the syntax (thanks to the examples and formula), I didn't see an explanation in Wikivoyage:How to redirect a page as to WHERE to put the redirect command. Since I've just looked at this article's page and not seen the redirect embedded here, I assume you had to create a new page named "Brunei Darussalam" and planted the command there. Is that right? ReveurGAM (talk) 05:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. Globe-trotter (talk) 10:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Luxury boat

When I lived in Singapore, 30 years ago, I heard glowing reports about Singapore-Brunei trips on an old boat with much mahogany, brass and luxury. I do not see it mentioned here. Does it still exist? Pashley (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Missing cities?

Brunei has no 'Cities' section. I guess the country is very small, but there must be a handful of settlement to list here? Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, Belait redirects to Kuala Belait, but I think Seria is actually the country's 2nd-largest city (or was in the 70s when I learned that stuff). Tutong has a listing for Bangar, which seems to be an error; the Brunei country map shows Bangar as being in Temburong District, and indeed, Temburong redirects to Bangar. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Remove 'Regions'

As long as Brunei has only 3 articles now and the prospects of it geting considerably increased is very low, I think, there is no need to keep Regions at all. We can possibly briefly mention them in 'Understand' section. And just to note, all current Brunei regions are either blank pages or redirects. --Kiaora (talk) 11:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Go ahead. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Brunei owned Hotels (review inclusion)?

Swept in from the pub

Given https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-47824896 (and the TripAdvisor actions), Should Wikivoyage review whether it's fair to the traveller to include the affected hotels and venues? I appreciate that generally Wikivoyage has not taken any political position on certain issues. The updated legal code in Brunei is already noted in that countries article. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikivoyage cannot take part in boycotts, because there would be no end to them and it would destroy a collectively-authored travel guide. We have guides to countries engaging in genocidal behavior. Moreover, Brunei is far from the only country that persecutes LGBT people. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

We could of course add a note to those hotel listings, saying they are under boycott for this reason, and leave to the traveller to draw any conclusions. I think many readers would be sad if they stayed there and only afterwords heard they were owned by the sultan. I hope we make this kind of things clear in the relevant country articles (Saudi Arabia, Israel, ...), and if major hotel chains are under boycott for good reasons we should mention it in Hotels or some other suitable article. --LPfi (talk) 12:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Ikan Kekek's comment. We can mention the boycotts if we want, but I'm not sure it would set a good precedent. While I agree that the new laws are terrible, there are lots of boycotts all the time, and lots of countries that persecute homosexuality. The attention on Brunei will die down like these things (unfortunately) always do. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I support mentioning the boycott. It's information for travellers, which is what a travel guide is about. Taking out the hotel information would be high-handed of us. It's not our place to make that decision for travellers. Ground Zero (talk) 13:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I am just wondering where to draw the line on boycotts. What boycotts should be mentioned? Is Wikivoyage a travel guide in English or is it a travel guide defending socalled western values in English? Can someone add values that does not coincide with the mainstream values represented by Wikivoyage? I am just wondering out loud. Philaweb (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd suggest that this discussion is something like the flip side of the discussion at Talk:Xinjiang#Fake news, where it was posited that a systematic campaign of repression against Muslims in Xinjiang is "not exactly travel relevant", which doesn't make sense to me when you consider the fact that a Muslim traveler such as this one can be very much affected by the Chinese government's reported forceful denial of the rights of Uighurs to fast during Ramadan, making them eat pork, etc. My feeling is that the hotel chains in question should be neutrally described as owned by the Sultan of Brunei, period. Anyone who wants to know more will have to look it up. And no, I don't think this site should be about "defending so-called Western values". It's a travel guide. Human rights are universal values, and their denial can affect travelers, either directly or in the atmosphere within or at points of entry in a country, but actually advocating boycotts is a step way too far. We can do that in our own time off-site, if we like. Or not. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree with mentioning nothing more than ownership for the reasons given. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 16:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Ikan Kekek. Just want to add: None mentioned, none forgotten – when it comes to boycotts. If we mention one, we should mention them all, for fairness sake. And we do not want to open up for that particular can of worms. Philaweb (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I like the suggestion of focusing on the traveler's experience. A temporary labor strike at a hotel is almost always going to be worth mentioning, because it could be noisy/dirty/unpleasant, even though that creates a lot of extra work for us (someone needs to check back every few days to find out whether it's been resolved yet). A request from people who live in a different country to not stay at a hotel because they're trying to punish the owner for his bad behavior? It's harder to see how that affects the traveler directly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Does Brunei own any hotels outside of their own country (pardon me for my lack of research on this topic)? I'm just thinking if there was (and there probably has been somewhere along the way) a boycott of Trump hotels, for example, there would be great challenges in trying to identify all the businesses in such a large network. Speaking of boycotts, there are also boycotts of w:Dick's Sporting Goods (they've added comparatively severe — severe compared to how things were at the company and severe considering half or more of the U.S. holds very strongly to the 2nd Amendment — restrictions on gun sales, causing the boycott) and there have been near-boycotts at Target, also (over their bathrooms/gender issues). In the case of Target and Dick's, finding every mention we have for these stores and including that there is a boycott or that there are concerns would be a COTM-level task. If the boycott turns into headlines in the U.S. news, for any of these issues, it may be worth posting, but otherwise, we're talking about one boycott in many. And remember, while Brunei's new laws may sound shocking in the current age, throughout history and especially in countries following Christianity, Islam, or Judaism, laws against these kinds of practices were common — perhaps they weren't dealt with in the same way that Brunei's dealing with them, but still, laws closely restricting social behavior to religious standards have not been abnormal in the past, especially in states with strong religious ties. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 04:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the boycott affects many hotels outside Brunei, see Celebrities Boycott Sultan of Brunei’s Hotels as Anti-Gay Law Goes Into Effect. I'd say mentioning that in listings for the hotels is worthwhile.

On the other hand, I agree with Ikan that "Wikivoyage cannot take part in boycotts", if only because it would be almost impossible to choose which ones. I can make a pretty good case for boycotting Israel, for example, but many would disagree & some would argue for a boycott on various anti-Israel countries. We definitely do not need to have those arguments here. Pashley (talk) 05:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Hell, a good case could be made for boycotting the U.S.! Nope, we definitely need not to go there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I think that we need to cover the impact on the traveller. I have seen photos of people protesting outside one of these hotels in California, but I doubt that this is regular enough to be worth mentioning. However if the boycott lasts months it may mean that the hotels have to drop their prices. The hotels may also have difficulty attracting bands to play in the bar or less likely in getting supplies or workers. AlasdairW (talk) 10:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Good points, but I think we should wait and see whether any of these things come to pass before mentioning them in listings. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Update on laws on sodomy and adultery

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-48171165 Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Wow, that sounds like quite the development - glad to hear that! Lazarus1255 (talk) 03:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Banner

The current banner is fairly boring, and not really representative of Brunei. Here's two of the Sultan Omar Ali Saifuddin Mosque, which is fairly well known. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Banner 0

Banner 1

Banner 2

Banner 2a (higher crop)

2, 1, 0. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 23:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• I think the current banner is nice, and it shows off one of the most interesting and distinctive attractions in Brunei (the water village). Keep in mind that the famous mosque is also the subject of the banner at Bandar Seri Begawan, and it's nice to have some variety. 0, 1, 2, 2a. —Granger (talk · contribs) 08:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Ban on Christmas

Here are the sources: , , . The dog2 (talk) 07:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Fornicatin'

Mx. Granger I'm legitimately curious, for which ones of the things listed in the warning box do they kill you? Brycehughes (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The warning box says "Same-sex relationships are illegal. Possible penalties include imprisonment, caning, or death by stoning." —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

So we could move everything else to a caution box, no? I literally know nothing and I'm just asking. Brycehughes (talk) 15:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I think so. I'm not sure whether the warning box should mention that drug trafficking also carries the death penalty and theft carries a penalty of amputation. Those are non-obvious dangers in some sense (in many countries these punishments don't exist for any crimes), and we have a warning box about something similar for Singapore, but on the other hand it should be obvious to everyone that drug trafficking and theft are crimes. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Right, we don't slap up big warnings on all the countries' crazy laws. LGBTQ+ warnings are necessary imho. It's a tough line to draw, saying who's laws are insane or who's aren't, without being limply morally subjective. Brycehughes (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

One issue is whether the legal system is trustworthy. If you get involved in drug trafficking, you probably know your life is at risk, but if you just looked the other way when somebody put some drugs in your pocket, then the death penalty indeed is an unobvious risk. I don't know how one could assess that – there is seldom a second examination by a neutral third party in these cases. –LPfi (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure having two boxes instead of one helps in the warningbox issue, unless what can be moved is lengthy. –LPfi (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Not gonna die on this hill. Brycehughes (talk) 16:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)