Jump to content

Talk:Malaysia/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 8

"Model of racial harmony"

The last sentence of the lead section says: "Nonetheless, Malaysia is considered to be a model of racial harmony." The sentence was added by me (see diff), and it got removed a quite number of times for two months.I am quite tired of this "racial harmony" revert war. Any comments? --Joshua Chiew 15:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Leave the sentence out. First, its hard to prove anyway unless you can provide an external (and respected) citation that says exactly that (got to stick to WP:V policies). Secondly, there is as much evidence to disprove such a claim (starting with the May 13 incident and later). Without strong verified support to back up such a claim, it will be regarded as non-neutral point of view and reverted. And rightly so, I must add. --Epanterias amplexus 18:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that sentence should not be included. There is no proof of who made the quote, and also its best to leave out touchy comments like that one. Cavingliz

How can there be harmony if more than century old Hindu temples are destroyed? Please explain!! 62.58.72.211 12:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Just read 100yrold-temple-razed-in-malaysia 62.58.72.211 13:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It's more about illegal construction rather than religious intolerance. A mosque also has been demolished due to no documentation [1]. __earth (Talk) 13:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The Hindu temple was more than 100 years old (It was builded built in colonial times). There are not many more than 100 year old buildings with proper documentation. And why was it destroyed after all this time? To me it seems a case of growing intolerance. After more than 100 years you expect some kind of implicite legalisation. And did the destruction of the Mosque increase the harmony? 62.58.72.211 15:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Nope. the mosque destruction does not increase harmony. But it's important to differentiate the cause. Illegal construction and religious intolerance are two different issues. Besides, the authority is providing new site for the temple. Nonetheless, unless the "harmony" sentence is cited, it's better to leave it out. __earth (Talk) 15:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Malaysia a model of racial hormony? NO...i totally disagree, there's no evidence that support the 'non-neutral point of view', beside I am also a Malaysian and had experienced something that is not 'racial harmony' —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.50.172.148 (talk) 12:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Malaysians still live harmony together though there are some small racial problems. Still no racial war.. We really are live with harmony together unlike other multiracial countries. Izzudin 16:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


There is practically NO country that is multi-racial that do not have a few cases of racial discrimination among its populace. So i do think malaysia as a country that is quite harmonious (racially)Chessmanlau 09:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You think, I think, they think... So, what is new? __earth (Talk) 11:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
i find the quota restriction in education and other racial policy disturbing for a "model country"... being harmonious is one thing, but i doubt it qualify as the best nor a model for others to emulate. Akinkhoo 19:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

There are 2 main versions of racial harmony in Malaysia. The Malays will claim that Malaysia is a very harmonious country & it's a model for the world. This is not surprising since the Malays benefit the most in Malaysia, especially under the NEP. The non-Malays feel otherwise since they are left out of most government policies, from government scholarships to jobs in government owned companies e.g. Petronas, Telekom & TEN. --Dydz1776 11:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

True, true. It's actually not so bad, but it probably doesn't qualify as harmonious. I've got this friend who's into politics, always forwarding stuff he gets, and there are definitely some who are dissatisfied. The laws benifiting the Malays were set up at the time of independence to remove any Malay feelings that the Chinese and Indians were taking over the economy, the politics, etc.. It probably doesn't look so good now, especially things like allowing Malays the same grades in exams for lower marks. Even so, it's still alright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.49.118.252 (talk) 09:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject

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 Malaysia. 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 16:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it better to be called Southeast Asia? It is very rare to use Southeastern Asia.Zack2007 16:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Only used that phrase because that's the UN's designation of the area. If and when the project takes off, I agree Southeast Asia is probably the more standard usage, and that probably will be what the project is officially called. Badbilltucker 18:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Question

How is East Malaysia linked to Peninsular Malaysia? There are more than 600Km of sea between them, and I'm pretty sure that air transport cannot be afforded... Are there any ferry boats? Cheers

Cheers. Well, they used to be a ferry link between the two by the Feri Malaysia service in the 80s from Port Klang in the west coast and Kuantan in the east coast to Sabah and Sarawak. Then the company went bust. Now the only option is by air. First through Malaysia Airlines then by the budget airline Air Asia. I believe that most air traffic now are through the Air Asia network due to the routes rationalization and cheaper fares most of the time. --Bukhrin 07:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind answer, Mr. Bukhrin! I cannot tell actually wether this is a problem or a gift to Malaysia: the isolation must keep people from Borneo in Borneo. What I know from Malaysia is that the continental part is very rich like an "Asian Tiger"; whereas poor Borneo relies mainly on exportation of raw materials. In my country, Brazil, as well as in many other countries, historically people from poor regions go to the wealthier ones by land; in our case, sometimes even in the most precarious lorries, the cheapest way of getting from one place to another. Well, I'm sure that although getting Malaysians together is important for national integrity, it may represent a problem for wealthy Peninsular Malaysia as unqualificated people would migrate to Kuala Lumpur and eventually get unnemployed. So here are a few more questions: Is there a great inequalty between these parts of the country that would justify my thoughts? Are "Borneans" able to afford plane tickets and migrate in a large scale? Or would they rather stay in the island? I'm asking that because my country suffers from an enormous social inequalty, so I could never imagine how such a large geographic separation like that would work out! Cheers! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.58.225.237 (talk) 00:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC).
I would like suggest that if you ask at Reference desk, you will get better answers. Besides, a talk page is supposed to use to discuss how to improve the article, not to ask for information or personal opinions (see WP:NOT). Lastly, remember to sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~). Hope this helps. --Joshua Chiew 01:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Mr 201.58.225.237, though Joshua is right, I would like to share the fact that Malaysia is a federation. The Bornean Malaysian states have considerable power on immigration, not the federal government, per Schedule 9 of the Constitution. Talking about inequity, Malaysian Gini Coefficient, the measure of inequity is about 0.4++. If you want to compare inequity between Malaysia and Brazil, you might want to find Malaysian and Brazilian Gini coefficients. __earth (Talk) 03:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Joshua Chiew and Mr. Earth, thank you for your answers. I admit that I am wrong by using this page for these purposes, but it is more unlikely of being answered in the reference desk. I think that the information I seek is very important, since Malaysia has an enormous gap between two considerable pieces of land and population, and there is absolutely nothing about this subject on the Malaysia-related english articles. Actually I was planning to delete this topic when I got answered, but in some way, this is a debate about its content. I took my time to check the GINI indexes and although Malaysia has more income equalty than Brazil, it still is a rather considerable GINI index, so I still cannot imagine how Malaysia could actually work out with such an unique geography, even with separate federations. I do not intend to compare our countries though, I just used mine as an example. I am very sorry if I caused this impression; as a matter of the fact comparing Brazil to Malaysia would be a complete waste of time since our country is sunked in political corruption and has very little economic growth, while Malaysia is one of the envies of the world. Cheers! :) 201.78.13.7 19:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Malaysian Cannot afford air travel from the east to the peninsular? No, I disagree...domestic travel between the two are available and is considered as reasonable. Beside, Malaysia is no 'weak 3rd world country' —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.50.172.148 (talk) 12:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Malaysia's official religion

hi, guys, i found out that Malaysia does not have any official religions. Islam is not an official religion of Malaysia according to the Article 3 of the Federal Constitution.[2] i believe Islams was said to be an official religion due to majority of malaysians are muslims. however, i would say that Kelantan's official religion is Islam as it is under the govern of PAS, which is an Islamic Party. Kelantan is also the only state where it restricts almost all the entertainment, male and female to be separated in queue while paying at counters of the supermarkets, and issueing warning to women who have been dressing little or exposing themselves in the public. For years, PAS always mention their mission is to turn Malaysia into Islamic Country. if Malaysia is already an Islamic country, i guess PAS wont declare such mission. i think it is againts the Islam as well as bringing insult if we were to compare Malaysia with the REAL Islamic countries in middle east. Mike86 12:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Article 3 of the Federal Constitution are:
Though 'official' is not in the sentence, but it is understood. It is one of the social contract signed by the BN while achieving Merdeka. Kota Bharu is declared by PAS as Islamic city because they do not agree with the Federal government principle regarding Islam (PAS wants to practice a stricter version of Islam). If you can see, many policies in Malaysia has been influenced by some Islamic policy (while trying to address the sensitivity of non-Muslims) (Sharia law to Muslims, etc). At the status quo, Islam is still an official religion with the other religions can be practiced freely.--Zack2007 13:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Being the religion of the federation gives it official recognition of a special status. Also, to Zack2007, no social contract was ever signed, neither by any one of the Alliance members, nor anyone of note. It's not an explicit concept, that. Whodhellknew 16:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

We cant use the word "understood" Zack as Malaysia has never declared their official religion is Islam or Malaysia is an Islamic Country. If it was, we would have a lot of problems. u may not be able to see women dress sexy in kelantan but in other places of malaysia, like KL is the one. i believe if Malaysia's official religion is Islam, they would restrict such act of "dressing sexy" or any act againts islam, including non-halal food to be totally banned in malaysia, so as to uphold the official religion which is Islam in Malaysia. i could also see that malaysia's artists would have problems, famous singer like Siti Nurhaliza, etc. I dont think i need to elaborate more on malaysia artists. I think this is a very important issue to discuss before creating more confusion or wrong information to the readers about Malaysia. i would contact Malaysia government regarding to this problem and to ask for clarification. Mike86 3:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Islam is an official religion in Malaysia is to be interpreted on how the government has the obligation to protect the integrity of Islam. Thats why we have JAKIM, JAIS, JAIK etc. That's what i meant by policy. Islamic principle in a government doesnt mean to enforce all those done by Kelantanese PAS as in Islam there is Qias law which enable a government to do what is right for its citizen. PAS enforces rules as it focuses on stricter law. By it, it doesnt guarantee PAS's Kelantan is a better islamic city than the rest of Malaysia. Do you think by restricting all those will enable Kelantan to be a better state then the rest? and by wearing tudung, it doesnt make the person to be a better Muslim then those not wearing one.
  • Your comments:
    • 'if Malaysia's official religion is Islam...banning of non-halal food' - Why banning the non-halal food making Malaysia more Islamic? Islam considers non-muslims too. During the prophet's time, Muhammad never enforces banning them at all. He advised the Muslims to care for what they eat.
    • 'Siti Nurhaliza' - what really is your understanding of a country who has Islam as an official religion? Those with opressed women, no democracy, no freedom? is that Islamic at all? Islam enforces on religious freedom and freedom in religion. If Siti does not want to wear tudung, it is up to her. Please read this article from NST taken from Malaysia Today [3]

As it stands, Islam is still an official religion of Malaysia. The integrity of Islam is protected by the government. (there is no government organisation set up to protect other religions such as Christian etc) --Zack2007 14:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:OR. __earth (Talk) 08:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

conclusion, Official religion of Malaysia is Islam. But in Malaysia its self is not sure whether or not its Islam. By putting the status, official, meaning, the government adapt Islamic value into the government. For example, stop meeting when the time to pray come. --Towaru 13:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Despite not having the word "official religion" in the Federal Constitution, one would be hard pressed to find a constitutional interpretation that does not acknowledge the official status of Islam either by operation of law or by convention. The support of Islamic institutions and propagation by public funds is specifically mentioned throughout the Constitution and the implicit granting of a preferred status for Islam is also obvious. Moreover, the framers of the Constitution (Reid Commission) had the intention of institutionalising Islam's official status in the Federation. This is a matter of public record.
This, of course, doesn't preclude the possible debate of this matter in the future but Wikipedia is concerned with the current status, and not on partisan opinions or agendas. -- Bob K 16:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
So far as I know, Malaysia's official religion is Islam. If I clearly remember, even the PM (prime minister) said Malaysia's official religion is Islam. Well, not to be confused because long time ago (in the middle age), Srivijayan in Malaysia religion's is Hindu or Buddhism I think. Then, when Arabs came in trading with us, they introduced Islam. Then many people converted to Islam and the whole (well, not included Sarawak and Sabah) region came to Islam. But later on, Islam spread to Sarawak and Sabah. Some tribals had different religion. But people recognise Malaysian's Official Religion is Islam. And since Malaysia is known for it's multi-cultural and multi-races (Chinese, Indian, Tribal), still, the Official Religion of Malaysia is Islam. --Sayasakit092 23:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Problem at Malaysian

There is currently a buildup of over 750 ambiguous links at the Malaysian disambiguation page. This is an extremely large number - actually, it is roughly double the largest number of ambiguous links of any other page on the English Wikipedia. Fixing the links requires the editor to distinguish between links that are intended to refer to Malay people from links that are intended to refer to the person's nationality or an aspect of the Malaysian nation (which should be generally be directed to this page). Can some editors who have a good understanding of the human geography of the region volunteer to correct the links? Dekimasu 05:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Many of those links were placed by Baryonic Being on 24 Dec . Many of the links are irrelevant and unnecessary. If someone knows how to do it, can they revert to the earlier ref list before Baryonic Being changed it. Cavingliz 13:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I think you may have misunderstood me. It isn't the references section of Malaysia that has a problem, it is the incoming Wikilinks at Malaysian - what you see if you click "What links here". I believe all that User:Baryonic Being did was move a tag from the top of the Malaysia page to the bottom. Dekimasu 13:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, I got it wrong. I was refering to Malaysia page, not Malaysian. On the Malaysia page, Baryonic Being placed hundreds of links, as I said many don't need to be there, and could be removed. Cavingliz 13:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure what he may have added in the past, but he didn't add any links on December 24th. He moved an {{unreferenced}} tag, and that's all. Dekimasu 14:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Opps, I've been using the word "links" when I meant "refs". If you click on history at top of Malaysia page, you'll see :

10:47, 24 December 2006 Baryonic Being (Talk | contribs) m (Lots of refs now, except History section) so as I see it, BB added the refs then. Many don;t mean much, e.g. 20-25 etc Constitution of Malaysia. And some of the Time mag articles are not that relevant. Cavingliz 15:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

But he didn't add them then. If you look to see what he actually edited by comparing the versions, he only moved the tag down the page. He meant that the page has a lot of references now, so there was no need to have a tag at the top of the page asking for more references. In general it is better to have too many sources than not enough sources for an article, so I think that aspect of the Malaysia page isn't a big problem. (^?^) Dekimasu 15:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Still looking for someone to assist on the disambiguation page. Please help! Dekimasu 14:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Would love to help but the internet is rather slow, even with proxy because of the earthquake in Taiwan. __earth (Talk) 15:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem seems to have been at Template:Malaysia-geo-stub which now points directly to Malayasia so there are now only 300 incoming links to Malaysian --Henrygb 11:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

All the rest are done now, too. Thanks to anyone and everyone who helped. Dekimasuが... 11:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Student needs help

Hi, I'm a student from Malaysia, and my teacher had came up with a topic for my oral test. I'm supposed to present a speech regarding...umm, well, I'll just put the topic/title here: "Malaysia's Role has Allowed World Peace" or the Malay equivalent, "Peranan Malaysia Mewujudkan Keamanan Dunia". Is there site whereby I can search at for the role of Malaysia? What the country does to ensure world peace? I hope someone could be kind enough to go through the bother of helping me out...thanks in advance! Cheers!! Zacharycrimsonwolf 13:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC) 13:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, we arent doing anybody a homework here, plus wikipedia is not a reliable source for your homework. and second, Malaysia had done less than Iran had done toward global peace, more oftenly its just a talk, probably unilateral multilateral talks asking for the developed nation, especialy, Israel to be nice to the world.--Towaru 18:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC) if you looking for Malaysian people conducting peace operation, I think you better check out MERCY Malaysia, if you looking for Malaysian Government Army conducting peace-keeping operation, i think you better check UNIFIL (not sure if thats the right spell), or that army who went to Lebanon.--Towaru 21:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!! Hey, I'm not asking anyone to do my homework for me, I'm just looking for a place to start researching. Even though Wikipedia is not really a reliable source (anyone can edit), its a good place to start. Anyway, thanks again for helping me out, I really appreciate your help, Toruwa. Zacharycrimsonwolf 13:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC) 06:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

oops sorry hehe, next time, i will read carefully .--Towaru 19:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Proportional breakdown of state religions

Reading through the section on religion, I noticed that there seems to be a major problem with the percentages given in the breakdown; they appear to add up to 112%. If someone knows where to get accurate figures, then please fix this inconsistency.

147.222.24.23 03:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"....60.4 percent of the population practiced Islam; 19.2 percent Buddhism; 9.1 percent Christianity; and 6.3 percent Hinduism. The remainder 5 percent was accounted for by other faiths, including animism, shamanism, Sikhism, Bahá'í, Taoism...."

did you mean by that percentage? 60.4 + 19.2 + 9.1 + 6.3 + 5 = 112?, oops its a hundred percent, im getting old arghh.--Towaru 10:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I personally think that this page should be semi-protected due to excessive amounts of vandalism by IP-address users and un-established Wikipedians. The vandalism here is really getting out of control and as an alternative, the vandals should be blocked immediately for at least 6 hours before giving them a final chance on Wikipedia before being blocked indefinitely. Acs4b 11:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

yes. i agree. there seem to be vandalisms here everyday. kawaputratok2me 04:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The vandalism problem on this page is not out of control (it isn't hard to deal with one or two cases a day, especially on a high-profile country page that a lot of people have on their watchlists). If someone vandalizes, please put a template:test or template:bv on their talk page, and if they are recurring vandals report to WP:AIV. Borisblue 04:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Picture of the food looks horrible. Can't someone put a more presentable one?

Tamil in Malaysia

Is Tamil a national language or an official language ?

It's neither but it is a major language spoken by the 3rd largest ethnic community in Malaysia. It is also offered as an optional subject in national schools and there is a whole category of Tamil language state aided primary schools. - Bob K 06:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Economy citations

I added the "missing citations" tag because there are a lot of unverified statements that seem like they should be verified by third parties. Candent shlimazel 14:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Population

under demographics, the population isn't showed. someone please correct it. thanks Abdelkweli 22:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Msia-crest.jpg

Image:Msia-crest.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Malaysia discussion

Debate has been started at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals to see if there is interest for a WikiProject Malaysia. Chris 04:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Natural Resources

This article, while offering excellent historical and general data about the area, neglects mention the incomparable natural resources, especially on the island of Borneo. With that, attention should be given to the rapid destruction of the rainforest due to its abandonment to commercial interests that want its timber and convert the land to plantations that supply the rest of the world with rubber and palm oil.

Jawi script as native name of Malaysia?

A recent update to the page reverted the removal of the Jawi script for the name of Malaysia. I am not certain what is the official status of the Jawi script in Malaysia. I know it is a legitimate form of script for the Malay language and I was taught Jawi in primary school but Article 152 of the Malaysian Constitution doesn't define the script unlike Article 153A of Singapore's Constitution which defines the national language as Malay in the Roman script. Perhaps the answer is in the National Language Act 1967? Until this is clarified definitively, I'd like to suggest that the Jawi script be removed from the article by virtue that the Roman script is in common usage. - Bob K 19:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

According to Section 9 of the National Language Act 1967, it is stated that "The script of the national language shall be the Rumi script: provided that this shall not prohibit the use of the Malay script, more commonly known as the Jawi script, of the national language." Note that neither script is actually "native" to Malaysia. The Rumi (Latin) script uses the Latin alphabet, while the Jawi script is a modified form of the Arabic script. The Rumi script is more commonly used in Malaysia, and it is taught in all schools and AFAIK, the government uses the script in all correspondence. The Jawi script is seldom used apart from a few road signs (Jawi road signs are uncommon) and the SPM examination (the instructions on the cover of the Malay language (or "Malaysian language") paper states that either script may be used). I can't even read Jawi after studying Malay in school for twelve years! But one thing for sure: Malay is the one and only national and official language in Malaysia.--Joshua Say "hi" to me!What have I done? 00:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I guess that settles it. Since the official script is defined pretty clearly in Article 9 of the National Language Act, I think it'd be justified to remove the Jawi script spelling in the article. - Bob K 01:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Bahasa Malaysia, Malaysian Language, or Malay?

Now, the official language of Malaysia is Bahasa Malaysia, or Malaysian Language and no more Bahasa Melayu. All government and private sectors must use the term Bahasa Malaysia rather than the latter. [4]. So in order to comply with that, we should rename the official language as Bahasa Malaysia or Malaysian Language. I have seen people tried to change that but someone else will revert it. So let us have some concensus on it ok. --Zack2007 04:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Refer to Article 152 of the Constitution [5]. It is clear that the official language is Malay. Further, do use English per WP:UE. Bahasa Malaysia is not the English rendering. For example, refer to Indonesia where the official language is stated as Indonesian rather than Bahasa Indonesia. __earth (Talk) 04:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Agree in calling "Malaysian" rather than Bahasa Malaysia. But because the government has reverted the use of Malaysian Language for all things and call for everyone to use it, so why wikipedia is an exception? Naming Convention said that use the more popular usage. The term, Malaysian Language will be used more and more often from this point onward in Malaysia and in the world. --Zack2007 09:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd contend that the proper term to use is still the Malay language. This is affirmed by the Federal Constitution, legislation and also popular usage. The term Bahasa Malaysia is more a policy shift rather than one of linguistics. If we keep defining Malaysia everytime a politician (whether in power or otherwise) decides what it is, we're gonna be a pretty confused lot. - Bob K 11:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

In The Star, 15 June 2007 it said "the Cabinet decision to refer to the national language as Bahasa Malaysia rather than Bahasa Melayu. " And furter down the Wiki page on Malaysia is a bit on language which says Bahasa Malaysia Cavingliz 14:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

A Cabinet decision ultimately is still a political decision. Unless the law or the Constitution is amended to specifically refer to the national language as Bahasa Malaysia similiar to Article 36 of the Indonesian Constitution, I don't see the change in terminology for Wikipedia as justified. As it is right now, the Constitution defines the national language as Bahasa Melayu or the Malay language. - Bob K 14:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
The official language of Indonesia is commonly called Indonesian language whether in or outside of Indonesia. It is a long-established term since the independence of Indonesia in 1945. Bahasa Malaysia, or "Malaysian language" is virtually unheard of outside Malaysia. From a linguistic POV, Bahasa Malaysia and Bahasa Indonesia are the official versions of the Malay language in both countries. Back to the topic... IMO, we can leave the official language in the infobox as Malay and add footnote to state something like "officially known as Bahasa Malaysia (literally "Malaysian language")." --Joshua Say "hi" to me!What have I done? 01:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
In Indonesia, the official name; Bahasa Indonesia; is official both by law and common usage. In Malaysia, the term Bahasa Malaysia is official so far as a Cabinet decision is concerned and by common usage (even when it was "officially" reverted to Bahasa Melayu). Technically speaking, Bahasa Melayu is the official terminology as per legislation. So while I'd agree with the retention of the term Malay within the infobox, I'd agree less with a note stating that Bahasa Malaysia is official. Perhaps a more descriptive but accurate footnote would be something along the lines of "the current polioy is to refer to the Malay language as Bahasa Malaysia or the Malaysian language" with some chronological information about how the terminology has changed over the years. - Bob K 08:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Bob K. It provides the closest understanding of the situation for the policy of Malay Language changes. Because I remember reading that one minister said "The national language of Malaysia is Malay Language but we just want to call it Malaysian Language from now on"..But I still believe that in the infobox it should be written as "Malaysian" with a footnote that Malaysian Language in the legislation is called Malay Language instead. This reflects the policy change in Malaysia. --Zack2007 10:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Policy change should be referenced but official terminology retained for the article. Until legislation is changed to refer to the national language and official language as Bahasa Malaysia, there is no justified reason to change the terminology used in this article. As a result, I've reverted the edit done by Zack2007 but have retained the footnote with reference to the current change in government policy. - Bob K 10:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Malaysia

Calling all Malaysian Wikipedians around the world!! It is high time for us to start our own WikiProject for Malaysia..any one can create/assiting me to create WikiProject Malaysia.

I'm with you, but it takes a lot of work let alone time to create one, unless if you are an admin/higher rank. But yeah, I will support it.--Zack2007 03:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I need some one to start off the project as i have no experienceMarcusaffleck 15:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Zack, this is simply not true! You don't need rank to create a wikiproject. As an administrator, I can tell you that all we have over the average editor is the ability to protect and delete pages. The role of admin is simply to handle "cleanup" tasks- like deleting images that aren't used in articles anymore, et cetera. We have no "political" power over normal users. (In fact, there has been some discussion in the past to rename us as "janitors"- in my opinion, a more apt description of the post)

A lot of Wikipedia's most valuable contributors don't have adminship, and a large number of them aren't even interested in running. Please don't be discouraged to embark on big projects on Wikipedia just because you don't have adminship. Borisblue 15:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


I've created a Malaysia Wikiproject here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Malaysia. Please come along and join! It is based upon the structure and content of the Indonesian Wikiproject (Wikipedia:WikiProject Indonesia). The creation of the project pages is about 75% complete, with a number of sections yet to be copied across from the Indonesia project, specifically:

I've run out of time for now to do this work, so it would be great if some other people could assist. (Caniago 18:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC))

Blanket reverts deprive article of valuable contributions

A blanket revert on 02:04, 13 July 2007 by Earth for "Too many leftover from vandalism in the current edition)" is not practical if it is a blanket revert that eliminates contributions from other editors. Let us hold off making such reverts and take more time to dissect any instance of vandalism from the body of text.Mister Fax 18:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Earth also reverted two of my recent changes with comments that didn't make sense. I put in edits about the influence of religion on government in the government section, and he got rid of it and said to put it in religious freedom, where it does not fit. Also something similar in demographics. I put this stuff back and I think it should stand. Bigglove 18:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's not overlook what Earth was attempting to do though which was to remove needless and senseless vandalism. Which I have hopefully just done myself by simply deleting the offending text. Hads78 16:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

My stuff is still there, and perhaps it was removed by accident when removing vandalism. Thanks to other editors for letting it stand. Bigglove 15:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

History

Just James wrote "The earliest inhabitants of the Malay peninsula were the orang asli or indigenous people who migrated from Siam around 2500 BC." This statement is incorrect, as archaeological evidence has shown the area was inhabited 100-200,000 years ago in the Lenggong Valley. Cavingliz 09:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

human rights article

It doesn't look like there is a human rights article on malaysia that I could find. Does anyone know of one? If not I might start one at some point. Bigglove 18:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

U can expand from this: Human rights in Malaysia. kawaputratorque 19:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thanks, i should have looked before I asked :=). I will start on it, but will need some help. Bigglove 16:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Motto

"Bersekutu Bertambah Mutu" Translates more accurately into "Federating Adds Quality". Opinions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.48.110.33 (talk) 03:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope, the old Jata Negara has the english version of "Bersekutu Bertambah Mutu" on the banner. "Unity is Strength". --Bukhrin 17:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I am confused. Every dictionary I have consulted agrees that "Bersekutu Bertambah Mutu" should translate into something like "Federating Adds Quality" or at least "Unity Plus Integrity" possibly. It is hard to imagine how one gets from "Bersekutu Bertambah Mutu" to "Unity is Strength".

However a quick consultation at Google indicates it is probably the first guy and I that are in the wrong. Can anybody help me out on this? Is "Bersekutu Bertambah Mutu" an old fashioned Malay way of saying "Unity is Strength"? Burger Ramly is said to be "Halal, Bersih dan Bermutu" and I'm fairly sure they don't mean "Halal, Clean and Strong". Ryan Albrey 08:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note that there are differences between directly translating a phrase and translating context. Those that designed the crest are doing the latter. For instance, one does not directly translate "air yang tenang jangan disangka tiada buaya" into English. Rather, the equivalence would be "calm water runs deep" or something like that. __earth (Talk) 12:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Is it really: 'məleʃɑ? I thought it was 'məleiʃɑ? Arthurian Legend 03:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think 'məleiʃɑ is also correct, if not, the correct pronunciation. But from my observation, most Malaysians pronounce it as 'məleʃɑ. Feel free to add it in the IPA thing. Any other M'sian wanna comment? kawaputratorque 04:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Are these Malaysians English speakers? I can't find any substantiatian for pronouncing the name as though it were spelled "Malaysha" anywhere. Every source I can find indicates that it is pronounced as though it were spelled "Malayzha". I rather doubt the "Malayziya" pronunciation given is ever used, but lacking substantiation of my view, I've left it in the article. Tomertalk 04:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Ya im quite new to this IPA thing, but i put it there anyway. Sorry. And thanks for correcting. About "Malaysha", yes i have heard Malaysians use this. Im not sure if they're Malaysian English speakers. Does it matter if they're English speakers? About "Malayziya", ive heard ppl in the news (tv) pronouncing it as "Malay-see-ah". They dont use the alphabet 's' in IPA? kawaputratorque 05:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
It's alright. I'm not trying to castigate you or anyone else. If TV News announcers don't speak English, I can imagine they might well assume that they are pronouncing the name correctly by saying "see-ah" or "see-ya", but that doesn't really have anything to do with how the name is pronounced in English (the only relevant topic here). On your other question, yes, "s" is certainly used in IPA, as is "z"...and perhaps that's the problem...without investigating, it may well be that /s/ and /z/ are not phonologically distinct in Malay, or that /z/ doesn't even exist at all (which would make my "correction" incorrect). That said, however, if Malay-si-ya is a pronunciation used by non-English-speaking (or poor-English-speaking) Malaysians, this mispronunciation really has no place in the article to begin with. :-\ Tomertalk 06:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Ya i guess. Im also not sure if /s/ and /z/ are phonologically distinct in Malay. I suspect they are. And come to think of it, i think what the tv announcers were pronouncing was actually "Malay-zi-ya". Hmm, I think i need to do abit more research. :-P kawaputratorque 14:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Citation

The recently added source are suspiciously similar to Wikipedia article:

In 2004, Minister in the Prime Minister's Department, Datuk Mustapa Mohamed, revealed that Malaysia's oil reserves stood at 4.84 billion barrels while natural gas reserves increased to 89 trillion cubic feet (2,500 km³). This was an increase of 7.2%. [31] The government estimates that at current production rates Malaysia will be able to produce oil up to 18 years and gas for 35 years. In 2004 Malaysia is ranked 24th in terms of world oil reserves and 13th for gas. 56% of the oil reserves exist in the Peninsula while 19% exist in East Malaysia. The government collects oil royalties of which 5% are passed to the states and the rest retained by the federal government. [32]

I have a feeling that the source might have copied Wikipedia. I therefore suggest we find a better source for that. __earth (Talk) 12:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It may well be the other way around: a wikipedian copied from that source. It has been used before. But non-web sources would be preferrable - do you have any? docboat 01:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, these are copyvios from Wiki, reported many times at Wikipedia:Forks and mirrors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm quite sorry, I was the one who added that citation. Hopefully, I won't make the same mistake again. Acs4b T C U 14:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Arabization

File:Arabization 123.jpg
Arabization of Malaysia
An editor has nominated the above file for discussion of its purpose and/or potential deletion. You are welcome to participate in the discussion and help reach a consensus.

How come nobody write "Arabization"? The country is copying the Arabian lifestyle especially costumes in school, at home, at work and anywhere. Everyday we saw Malays wearing such Arab-looking dress. Shall we write Arabization under Malaysia? Naiseroder 10:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles in Wikipedia must be verifiable, from a neutral point of view and no original research. Unless you can provide reliable sources, "Arabization in Malaysia" seems unverifiable, biased and probably original research to me. --Joshua Say "hi" to me!What have I done? 14:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Indeed no. There are currently issues n Malaysia with the spread of Wahhabi Islam financed by Saudi Arabia, and an attempt to radicalise Malaysian Islam. That might belong under a political/religious topic. But the typical Malaysian dress has been such for a long time, and is merely now more prevalent. What you might have been noticing, if you are new to Malaysia, and had never visited before, is that there are a lot more visitors from Arab countries, who find Malaysia a very pleasant holiday destination. They do, indeed, dress in conservative Wahhabi style - but please bear in mind that such a style is also not inherently "Moslem", rather a style of dress, and is not typically Malaysian. docboat 01:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Like Joshua said, it needs to be verified by reliable sources per WP:ATT. __earth (Talk) 02:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not delete the picture, we are not yet finish discussing the topic. Naiseroder 04:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

"YES" good point docboat, thanks. Arabization in Malaysia is not POV, Arabization in Malaysia is fact. Naiseroder 04:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, cite your assertion to satisfy Wikipedia's rules. __earth (Talk) 05:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What is "cite your assertion"? Please clarify, I'm new to Wiki. Arabization in Malaysia is already a fact, anyone have eyes can see the Malays dressing like the Arabian. If you want, I can go out shoot some photos of Malays (wearing like Arabian) and upload here to proof to you? Naiseroder 05:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

By cite, it means by providing reliable sources from well-established reports. Original research, personal opinion or anything that falls into the same category is not acceptable. Kindly read WP:OR as well as other rules mentioned earlier to have further understanding of the typical citations style and requirement. Shooting a photo like what you are suggesting or drawing a banner like what is shown in this section is hardly a reliable source. The photo itself suffers from NPOV I for one can shoot a photo of somebody wearing "western" dressing and assert that there the is a westernization in Malaysia. But the point is, those are opinions. Editors' personal opinion is not strong enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. __earth (Talk) 05:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Naiseroder is pushing a POV and probably trolling - but this deserves and answer. Firstly, _earth is quite correct in the wikipoints - POV have no place here. Secondly, if you are familiar with Malaysia, you will know that Malaysians do not wear "Arab" dress, although the use of hijab is increasing. But "Arab dress" can mean a variety of styles from Morocco to Libya and all points between, so I suspect you are referring to the appearance of Wahhabi-style Saudi dress in KL especially, due to the large number of ME visitors to Malaysia. But they are visitors, not Malaysians. Thirdly, even if some Malays chose to wear Arab-style dress (and I think they do not) that in no way suggests "arabization", which implies social, moral and cultural adoptions of a foreign culture, and Malays are proud of Malaysian culture, and have no need to import someone else's culture. docboat 10:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
__earth wrote: "wearing "western" dressing and assert that there the is a westernization in Malaysia." You see, Westernization is what today Malaysia want (the Malaysia astronaut and the development in Malaysia) because westernization is forward-looking, science, modernization, positive and most important money making, whereas Arabization or "wearing Arab dress" is completely backward, too hot for tropical Malaysia, it is also very clumsy+sweat and not suitable for women working, competition, especially not suitable in sports, swimming, etc. Westernization is learning the advancement from the west because the west is clearly stronger and hundreds of years much more advance in all aspects than Arab civilization (yes I know 14th century Arab used to be stronger), learning from a strong civilization is human nature, just like all Malaysian love Manchester United, AC Milan, Real Madrid because they are strong and Malaysian die for it because everyone admire the champions and the strong and rich, who in Malaysia care to even watch a lousy football team play? Therefore, westernization is "learning", Arabization is negative, backwards, wasting time, slow, useless and many more, it is simply the Arab civilization of today is far far behind (even PM Badawi and ex PM Mahathir agree). Malays-Arabization is nothing good at all, unless they work hard and they proof to the world first. Nobody want to learn from the weak, not you, not me. Naiseroder 05:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
you are missing the point. The point is, those are opinions and it does not warrant entry into Wikipedia. You may have your own opinion and you are welcome to have it but the bottom line is, Wikipedia doesn't care about your or my personal opinion on the issue. __earth (Talk) 07:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, Arabization in Malaysia deserved mention in the article Malaysia, that's my point. Regardless of this Wiki POV or NPOV picture whatsoever. Naiseroder 05:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

reply to docboat, Arabization in Malaysia is not a term I invent for fun or trolling, I actually read it in local Malaysia newspaper (some ministers scolded the Malays wearing Arab dress), I too saw Malay women/men wearing it. Naiseroder 05:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Still no proof. Malays wear Baju Kurung, Baju Melayu, Kain Sarung, Baju Kebaya, (girls with the hijab), but they are definitely not arab origin. They cover according to Islam. They wear bright colours, in contrast to Arab, where the hijabs are in dark colours. This is not just limited in clothings. Cultural wise, we follow malay cultures, with a hint of Islam and Western. Look at Hari Raya/Eid-ul Fitr for example. In Malaysia, we celebrate Hari Raya Aidilfitri like no ending, while in Arab its a simple celebration (they celebrate Eid-ul-Adha more, which is opposite to the muslims in Malaysia). Music is heavily influenced by Malay cultures, even Nasyid is an Islamic song with a hint of Arab and Malay culture (usage of Malay musical instrument for example).
You compare the scene in 1960s and 2000s. They are not because of arabisation process. It is the appreciation of Islam. People these days are more educated, they read books, they read Islamic literatures and becoming more adhering to Islam, as compared to 1960s. This is the process of Islamic education, not Arabisation. Thank you. --Zack2007 06:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi all, here is Arabization of Malay, from Malaysia newspaper: "In the appeal in 2006 by three schoolboys who had been expelled after they refused to remove their turban, Justice Abdul Hamid ruled that Islam was not about serban and beard. "I accept that the Prophet wore a turban. But he also rode a camel, built his house and mosque with clay walls and roof of leaves of date palms and brushed his teeth with the twig of a plant. Does that make riding a camel a more pious deed than travelling in an aeroplane?" He had added that the pupils were only restricted from wearing the serban as part of the school uniform but not at other times. In a landmark decision as election judge in 1995, Justice Abdul Hamid ruled that the validity of the electoral roll could not be challenged in an election petition after they had been duly displayed and gazetted. Justice Abdul Hamid ruled that a petition should challenge the manner in which an election was conducted and was not to dispute the names of the rolls after they had been gazetted." http://archives.thestar.com.my/search/default.aspx?query=serban (AbJeanne 04:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)).

So 3 students as opposed to-10 million muslims in Malaysia? how do u weigh your argument? In Australia, many students were expelled because they are wearing the hijab. So is there an arabization of Australians as well? --Zack2007 06:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Arabization is not only about wearing Arab dress, see article Malaysian name "Malay names are often drawn from Arabic and follow some Arabic naming customs, although some names have Malay, Javanese or Sanskrit origin." In Malaysia, there are some 10 million++ Malays using Arabic names. In Indonesia, they preserved the traditional names, ie: Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, Megawati Sukarnoputri... KCKaySee 10:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I still believe this is not purely arabisation. It is stemming from Islamisation (not Arabisation). Many of the malay names are also modified and not purely arabic. Abdul Rahman if it were to be arabic, supposedly pronounced in this way, Abdurrohman. You can still find some malay words in a name, like Putri etc. One strong note is, this is a cause of of Islamisation not really Arabisation. Please understand the difference between two. --Zack2007 11:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, do I see socket-puppetry here? __earth (Talk) 12:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Stealing 1 car is thief, stealing 100 cars is thief. 3 students or 100000 students make no diference. KCKaySee 14:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Correction: theft or thievery, not thief. Not that your statement makes sense anyway but I supposed having good grammar might help. __earth (Talk) 16:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
All Malays (near all) adopted Arabic names, some in corrupted form. Read article Arabization "Arabization describes a growing cultural influence on a non-Arab area (which is Malaysia) that gradually changes into one that speaks Arabic (luckily no) and/or incorporates Arab culture (YES is Malaysia)." KCKaySee 14:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Malays in Malaysia adopted Arab names, some wearing Arab dress, if this is not Arabization, then what is? KCKaySee 14:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Whatever it is, this is not a forum, per WP:SOAP. This certainly not a place for a debate that you sought. I suggest you visit some public forum out there. __earth (Talk) 16:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello __earth, look at the mess you did to the Wiki-discussion. OK, first, you replied to Naiseroder: "You may have your own opinion and you are welcome to have it..." and then you said "This certainly not a place for a debate that you sought. I suggest you visit some public forum out there." (Do we all notice your self-contradiction?) You are the one who said "you are welcome to have it" and so I gave my opinion together with the support from reliable source.

You said: "By cite, it means by providing reliable sources from well-established reports...." OK I saw this reliable source http://archives.thestar.com.my/search/default.aspx?query=serban posted by (AbJeanne and I replied to it but you said I made no sense and you start pointing at my grammar. KCKaySee 04:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It is a mess if you take my words selectively pieces by pieces instead of in full. In full, I said: "You may have your own opinion and you are welcome to have it..." which is immediately followed by but was for some reason left out by you "'...but the bottom line is, Wikipedia doesn't care about your or my personal opinion on the issue.". Therefore, it is consistent to everything that I have said. So dear KC, please read in full. Contradiction only happens when you selectively choose to quote my words instead of in full. Furthermore, the almost simultaneous presence of new editors joining this particular discussion at this particular period reflects the hallmark of socket puppetry, per WP:SOCK. Thus, the statement, this is not a public forum, which it is not, per WP:SOAP, WP:NOT, among others. Besides, you source says nothing of Arabization. You took a case of a person wear a turban than try to generalize it to the whole population, which is an act of synthesizing your sources, which is frown upon at Wikipedia per WP:SYN. You position remains original research, per WP:OR.
But despite all of your discussion, the article Arabization is a better place to advance your opinion than this page. This is supposed to be a summary style article as guided by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries. By I think you would receive the same opposition, based on the same reasons and guidelines stated here. __earth (Talk) 04:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I too wonder if KCKaySee is a sock puppet of Naiseroder but I am a bit concerned that KC does not understand the difference between Islamisation and arabization. Islam uses the arabic language - translations may be useful, but the original language is preferred. You might call African-Americans who adopt Islam (and take on a moslem name in arabic) a part of an arabization program - and they would vehemently deny that. The same as a Moslem who becomes Christian might take a Christian name at baptism, but retains all aspects of the previous culture - Malay, Indonesian, Pakistani or Moroccan. But as said above - this is no place for a debate: wikipedia needs facts, verifiable things are welcome, not opinion. docboat 04:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Put it this way. Arabisation does occur in nations such as the Egypt, Afghanistan, and Iran. They not only use Arabic language, their culture is Arab, everything is Arab. In contrast, Malaysia undergoes Islamisation, a process of which the Muslims adhere more strictly in terms of Islamic practices etc. That includes introducing Islamic culture into Malay culture (not replacing). We have Arab names because of Islam, just like what docboat said. A reliable source does not include a newspaper of a government expelling 3 students wearing a serban. Arabisation is a transform of one self to be more like an Arab. I think these students or many Muslims in Malaysia want to adhere and appreciate Islam in that extend that they want to follow every aspect of Prophet Muhammad, which include his dresscode. This is not seen as an act of Arabism, but more into Muhammad-ism. I know many faithful Christians who love Jesus and want to be like him. This is the same thing. Please be clear between Islamisation (which is no doubt happening in Malaysia), and Arabisation (not happening in Malaysia). --Zack2007 04:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia: 1. "Islamization or Islamification means the process of a society's conversion to the religion of Islam..." 2. "Arabization describes a growing cultural influence on a non-Arab area that gradually changes into one that speaks Arabic and/or incorporates Arab culture...."

Islamization-Malay/Malaysia is already history. Now we are looking at Arabization "gradually....incorporates Arab culture". Zack2007 wrote: "We have Arab names because of Islam", ok, how do you explain Indonesia not make compulsory the Indon-muslims a must using Arabic names? Why Indon-muslims preserve original names and why most Malaysia-muslims lost original names?

"A reliable source does not include a newspaper of a government expelling 3 students wearing a serban" I believe this is your personal POV, how can Malaysia's best selling local newspaper not a reliable source? KCKaySee 05:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It is a practice that Malays Muslims in Malaysia use Arab names, it is simply a practice. Indonesian Muslims still use Arab names as well, only some prefer using the Javanese names (like Susilo), but doesn't mean they dont use Arab names. Indonesians do use Arabic names especially the Muslims ones. It seems that you are trying to use small example to represent the whole population. If you learn statistic, you will be deemed very biased because ur sampling do not represent the whole population. I would certainly reject your publication if your reference is based on the 'most popular' newspaper. Next time, I will quote from the most popular bestseller book, Harry Potter. Besides, the newspaper section you tried to provide say nothing. Seriously read WP:OR. Maybe also read some books on reliable sources.
One more thing, arabisation doesnt only just include language and names. It must INCLUDE culture as well, which include way of life, food, dance, etc. Is there Arab food creeping into Malaysia? Arab dance? --Zack2007 05:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Guys, I would like to invite you to read the first template on this talk page. Please move your discussion on Arabization to your respective talk pages. __earth (Talk) 06:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
As stated earlier, you source says nothing of Arabization. You took a case of a person wear a turban than try to generalize it to the whole population as Arabizatoin, which is an act of synthesizing your sources, which is frown upon at Wikipedia per WP:SYN. You position remains original research, per WP:OR. __earth (Talk) 05:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

__earth wrote: "but the bottom line is, Wikipedia doesn't care about your or my personal opinion on the issue.", so if Wikipedia doestn't care, why you care so much? KCKaySee 05:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yo, Wikipedia doesn't care about personal opinion, read WP:OR. The guideline governs what can be included in the article page. Read the guideline first and then come back here okay? 05:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Earth (talk • contribs)

Arabization in Malaysia includes: * 1.Malay names * 2.Wearing Arab dress * 3.Foods - lamb, beef, halal foods, Islamic dietary laws, dates, etc. Lamb & beef are not main Malay foods before Islam/Arab arrived. * 4.Dance - (Zapin (Jawi:زافين) is a dance form which is popular in Malaysia especially in the state of Johor. It is believed to have been introduced by Muslim missionaries from the Middle East in the 14th century.) * 5. Mak Yong is traditional dance drama of Kelantan, Malaysia. According to UNESCO, Mak Yong appeared well before the Islamization of the country but was banned in the year 1991 after the Islamic Party of Malaysia took control of the state. Malaysia did this to Wayang Kulit too. * 7. and many more I afraid. KCKaySee 06:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You are contradicting yourself. Wearing Arab dress in malaysia is minority. most people wear western clothing or the cultural dress (baju melayu/kurung, etc, rarely arab dress). Food: Islamic dietary laws come from ISLAM, not Arab, lamb consumption is uncommon in malaysia (thats arab dear), we eat goats which is a native food from Malaysia. Dance: Zapin is incorporated into Malay culture, it has a touch of Arab but it doesnt justify arabisation. Mak Yong is banned because of the Islam, not because its not 'arabic' enough. Wayang Kulit is banned because of the element of 'un'islamic in it, not because of arab. You said it yourself, the Islamic Party banned it, not an Arabic party. OMG this is so common sense and why am I wasting my time with this. There is no such thing as arabisation in Malaysia. Islam and Arab is not the same thing. Many arabs are christians. --Zack2007 07:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


I suggest someone create an article "Arabization in Malaysia" so that we all can further discuss and improve the article. KCKaySee 07:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC) I can help do it actually.

Blog by Hafiz Noor Shams December 27th, 2005 http://maddruid.com/?p=697 "Of Arabs aren’t Malays and Malays aren’t Arabs ...I overheard a conversation between two Muslim Malay males, both were draped in Arabic dressing. The conversation was about westernized Malays. I wasn’t sure if they were talking about me in particular though I was wearing a Michigan cap, a cargo pant and a bright shirt while my mp3 player was valiantly trying to entertain me until it ran out of juice. And it died out exactly when the conversation started to get interesting. Before that, I didn’t eavesdrop on purpose - situation forced me to be where I was. One of the two friends was lamenting on how the Malay society is rapidly being westernized at the expense of the Malay culture (tag). The person went on further by stating sooner or later, Malay culture would die out with morality and god phrased out by burgers and pizzas, g-strings and bikinis. The other one agreed and began lambasting how inferior western cultures and moral are compared to Islam’s. It was odd how they used the term Malay and Islamic culture interchangeably. Soon enough, as I followed the conversation quietly while tending to my cool wound, I realized that the Malay culture they were talking about was really Arabic culture. They made no distinction between Malay, Arab and Islam. I rolled my eyes upon that discovery and felt how oxymoronic the situation at hand was. They were talking about the Malays abandoning Malay culture while they themselves were wearing something not Malay but entirely Arabic...."

Is that you Earth? You wrote that yourself and now you denied entirely. KCKaySee 07:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That my opinion yes and i deny nothing. Like i said earlier, personal opinion is not strong enough to warrant inclusion into wikipedia. I repeat Wikipedia doesn't care about your or my personal opinion on the issue. That is wikipedia guideline. It has been repeated throughout this discussion. Which part of that you don't understand? __earth (Talk) 07:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Local newspaper + Your own blog written by you + many related Wiki articles, and you still insist that was my personal opinion. You and I share the same opinion based on what you wrote, how can you say it was my personal opinion? KCKaySee 08:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

My opinion on the subject is irrelevent. As is yours. As docboat has said, as with anyone's. Wikipedia's guidelines clearly says it is irrelevant. Is the something about it that you don't get it? __earth (Talk) 08:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Let's make this clear. Opinion - yours, earth's or anyone else's opinion, is NOT a part of an encyclopaedia. Verifiable facts. Now please stop POV pushing, or demonstrating a SPA attitude. docboat 08:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

"I would like to address the matter of Arabianisation slowly creeping into and destroying the ancient and rich heritage of the Malays of this world where some Malays either out of religious inclinations or just plain ignorant to know how to differentiate between cultural assimilations and just copying each and every bit of the Arabian way of life....This Arabianisation is slowly eroding the Malay culture and norms. I for one think it's not right....The advent of the wearing of the 'tudung' here in Malaysia started with the 'Jama'ah Al Arqam' a movement started by Hj Ashaari Muhammad who started to dress in the signature Al- Arqam green robes and turbans, which was followed by his male followers and the all encompassing black colored or sombre looking robes by the female Al Arqam Muslimahs and their unique 'tudung labuh's', a longer form of tudung that distinguishes them from the ordinary Muslim females. Before the advent of the Jama'ah al Arqam led by Ustaz Hj Ashaari, the general Malay populations dressed as the ordinary people of those times. The ladies used to go about bareheaded or with hairdo's like beehives. Perms and coiffures were the fashions of the day and they used to compete with each other as to who had the latest hairdo's etcetera. This is a reality that the Malays must accept. That the Arqam folks have caused a revolution in their life....a bit discomforting is to see the culture of the Malays fast being eroded by the creeping in of the Arabian way of dressing into the mainstream way of life that we have enjoyed all these years here in Malaysia....I am all for the raising of our kids properly and teaching them to cover their modesty well and all that but why do we have to dress them as Arabs?....We are Malays and no matter if we dress ourselves with Arabian garb, we will always still be Malays!..." http://mahaguru58.blogspot.com/2007_03_01_archive.html This is a good reliable source about Arabization in Malaysia KCKaySee 11:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me, is a blogger reliable source? Anyone can be a blogger. I am a blogger. THis is the blogger's view. A reliable source doesn't take account personal view, unlike this blogger. What I can see here is you are researching a source that is only justifying your opinion, without looking at a balance view of the issue. Hence, your source is rather unverifiable, not reliable enough, unbalanced, and biased.--Zack2007 12:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That is your personal opinion. Not everyone think like you, user __earth share the same view as me (read what he wrote in http://maddruid.com/?p=697). KCKaySee 12:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's count, I have at least 5 Malaysians supported this view (including Justice Abdul Hamid, Malaysian bloggers, Wiki-Users). And we have only one, one Zack2007 opposed. KCKaySee 12:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me be clear, I do not agree to including opinion into Wikipedia article. In fact, most people here disagree with your effort to include opinion into Wikipedia. You are confusing yourself. Stop using somebody name to support your stand. You already did it by manipulating docboat's name and now you are manipulating my words to give the impression that I support you, which is the false impression. Be careful where you tread. __earth (Talk) 13:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Finally, if both of you want to discuss Arabization is particular and has nothing to do with Wikipedia, please do it somewhere else, like at your talk pages. I will attract an admin if the discussion persists, in pursuant of WP:FORUM. __earth (Talk) 13:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes I want to stop this forum based discussion. Therefore I will end my discussion here. --Zack2007 13:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, Zack2007. There is absolutely NO concensus for KCKaySee's POV. I would call for an administrator, but also suggest RFC, suspect him of being SPA and disruptive. Can we agree on this, and if so, who would like to make the start to this? docboat 00:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

__earth wrote: "I do not agree to including opinion into Wikipedia article. In fact, most people here disagree with your effort to include opinion into Wikipedia." You are confused, I said you shared same opinion with me in your blog, I did not say you agreed including opinion into Wikipedia. So you are confused, not me. In fact most people agree with Arabization in Malaysia and Arabized-Malays (you wrote in your blog). As for docboat, sorry I don't understand what you talking about, too many RFC SPA codes, but I know you want to report me to admin which I think is unreasonable because I have local newspaper and bloggers supporting and sharing the same viewpoint as me including __earth.

Anyway, I will send this entire discussion to some international forums so that other peoples can see it and discuss. I will collect enough reliable sources, books, etc and come back to start article Arabization in Malaysia. KCKaySee 02:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malaysia/Archive_3&oldid=1140126595"