Talk:Malaysian Chinese

Sinocentric bias and Ignoring South-east Asian perspectives on Chinese diaspora

A certain editor insists on including the term 'Han Chinese' in reference to Malaysian Chinese even though most reputable South-east Asian scholars do not use this term. The copious number of references below and in national libraries in Malaysia should be able to verify this. Request for experts on Chinese diasporic communities in South-east Asia for input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nameless123456 (talk • contribs) 11:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Discriminate and wide changing changes to previous topics

Many important topics were removed by someone and were replaced by superficial topics.

Eg. The difference between the first wave, second wave and third wave and the various demographic figures and much more.

I hope somebody will revert back to the well-established articles that was written for many decades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:9800:B900:9AFE:D121:466A:19AA:D662 (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@2405:9800:B900:9AFE:D121:466A:19AA:D662: Hello. I see you recently changing the text in the article archive talkpage as seen from this edit as well. Just want to reminding that editing someone comments is against the talk page guidelines even though if you are "connected" to the said user. As for the data, we actually don't need so much data table as seen in the previous version of the article since all the data can actually simply be provided in one single source PDF document by the Department of Statistics, Malaysia. You can see other well written Overseas Chinese articles like Chinese Indonesians and Chinese Mexicans. Is overly much statistical data are very necessary than the content on their history and situation in present country? On the difference, it is already stated that the people from the first migration tends to be able speak more localised language with their culture also different than those who recently coming from the recent wave. Please be noted that Wikipedia content tends to change from time to time, there should be no content ownership. Night Lantern^halo? 04:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I have no strong objection to the changes and in general I would say they are an improvement, but anyone is free to object to changes in the article, especially when the changes were done without discussion first and without explanation for the removal of some content. I do think some of the content could be restored. It is very much irrelevant whether the data can be seen in the sources, it is whether they are relevant to the article or not (it is unhelpful to say "we actually don't need" since it is only one person asserting this). I would suggest restoring some of the content provided they can be adequately sourced. Hzh (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. There is no problem on improvement suggestions and the user are welcomed to make any contribution to the article if he feel something more need to be added. However, keep in mind that although everyone is welcomed to make any improvement and based on my observation into several Malaysian articles along the article history log, it is not surprising to see some of the articles seemingly to be "strictly controlled" by a particular of editor (especially the blocked one) who seems spending much of their time eyeing any modification made there. As seen carefully from the request made by the above anonymous IP itself for a whole "revert" to the version he could possibly previously work in alot → I hope somebody will "revert back" to the "well-established articles" that was "written for many decades". I did not deny the presence of the sense of belonging seems to be still controlling much of the article. More exactly as seen from one of the comments the IP trying to change in the archive talkpage, the sock master and his sockpuppet have been indefinitely blocked in other Wikipedia language for harassment. So the presence of sockpuppetry also cannot be ruled out. Night Lantern^halo? 20:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

There have been no major changes in the last two months apart from those made by you, who is the one who "strictly controlled" the article? Why do you think this anonymous IP editor is the person you think? I only see someone who made a complaint and changed some Chinese simplified characters to traditional ones in discussions involving five different editors. If you have a serious complaint about sock puppetry and the evidence to show it, there is a proper channel to do it. You should stop making random accusations here and deal with the actual issue raised. Hzh (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Sir, if you ever encountering some of the similar sockpuppetry case, they can be reoccurring at any time of the year, no matter if the user had been blocked much longer in 2008, 2009, 2011 or even 2013 (for examples), the said user can still return at anytime he want usually by using a new different IP from the one he used to (especially if it has been included on range blocks list for an indefinite of time by some administrator). There have been a list of anonymous IPs mingling around "some" Malaysian topics other than this one that has been included in range blocks. Regarding the user above, it is correct to say that he is just modifying the text to Traditional ones but the "possibility" is still there since I had seen similar anonymous IP who like to modifying every Simplified Chinese text comments in talkpage that was written by other users for no reason. Indeed I will start to filed a case when there is enough evidence to connect them all since I don't simply accuse someone of sockpuppetry and like I said above everyone is welcomed to make contribution without the need to "controlling and over guarding" any article. I hope as well this matter should not be prolonged as a result from the comment made by anonymous IP in here and if you feel you can help the user, you can lend a hand without depending on me alone to deal with the issues raised. Regards. Night Lantern^halo? 02:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

What evidence is there that the IP editor has been range-blocked? I looked at a wide range of IP addresses here in Chinese Wiki [1] (only 1 edit, probably the same person because he also change simplified to traditional scripts), and English Wiki [2] (a narrower range because the wider range gives a lot of irrelevant edits, therefore likely not by the same person, also no evidence that these IP editors are engaging in significant edits on Malaysian topic even on a wider range of IPs that covers a much large number of IP addresses - [3] - a few on the Malaysian Chinese article, one on Orang Asli). There is also no evidence he or she has been blocked in either. Please don't throw accusation against other editors without evidence. Note also that the Chinese discussion was copied over here by someone from Chinese Wiki [4], and not an actual discussion here, therefore should have been deleted (I have no idea why they don't properly archive discussion there, but that's their business, and we are not here to archive discussion for them). Hzh (talk) 11:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually it is merely arising "suspicion" more than a real accusation like the one you keep repeatedly saying to me. I did not say the user "has been confirmed" to be the said user unless a sockpuppet investigation has been opened with the presence of various evidence collected from many of the suspected IPs. As you can see from the article history log itself even before the starting of my massive modification towards the content, the article contribution logs have been flooded with various edits by random IPs and from newly created account. I believe from much of your time being spend on the article reviewing their edits (I've seen you already patrolling the article since 2016), you may having encounter some of the anonymous user who keep forcing their point of view to the article. As with your question on the range blocks, my suspicion is not only limited to one account along with the list of IPs been mentioned. If you come across several articles relating to Malaysia (not limited to the article we've been discussing now), have you realise there have been many of the IPs with Malaysia location were blocked (with ranged block) for their persistent block evasion? Some of these are not even blocked for simple reason like vandalism but also for "long-term block evasion". Not only that, the blocked IPs location seems to be tricky as well when it is located from different states in Malaysia although the IPs intention remain the same as it was like the edit patterns coming from one single user (Well, I did not need to provide a list of all the said IPs yet for now until I get a complete sets of evidence to start the investigation as the user may also watching this discussion now). Based from what I learned on other similarly cases seen from the sockpuppet investigation case page, it is not impossible for the involved user to use other IPs in other countries as well. Having said to you that I did not wish to prolonged this matter further even if you are in the opinion that I am accusing the anonymous person above related to a previously blocked user in Chinese Wikipedia, my replies ended here. It is up to you to think otherwise but my suspicion will remain to stay. If you want to help the user, then you are welcomed without any interruption from me since my original reply are solely directed to the user as a response to the sense of ownership seen from the user comment. Farewell and have a good night! Night Lantern^halo? 14:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Recent changes by Night Lantern

I was looking for a specific number about the Chinese population in Malaysia during the 20th century and I realized this user has deleted that information along with other vast swathes of the article. Why is this allowed? No offense to this person but judging from their user page they seem to be biased against modern China so I don't know if THEY should be allowed to rewrite a whole article about Chinese people just like that and specially I don't why they're being allowed to delete information from such article 177.242.228.117 (talk) 04:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Given that a few people have expressed unhappiness with the edits by Night Lantern, I will probably try and restore some of the content some time in the future. Unless someone else wants to do it now, I won't do it at the moment - it will take some time to check the sources (and find alternative sources if necessary) and deciding which bit to restore and how to integrate into the article. If you want to check the old version of the article, just look into the edit history and choose any version before the major edit by Night Lantern e.g. - [5]. If you have specific parts of the old version that you think need to be restored, let us know. Hzh (talk) 11:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Original research by Nameless123456

Nameless123456 (talk · contribs) is trying to eliminate references to Han Chinese in this article, according to their unique perspective that there are no people of Han Chinese ethnicity in Malaysia. They have been edit-warring to force references to "Han Chinese" out of the article. (This is also going on at other articles: see here.) Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 11:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Citations and surnames

Please note the surnames of the following individuals when you are citing their works. (Note as stated in the documentation at Template:Citation#Authors: last: Surname of a single author. (large formatting added)).

• TAN Chee Beng (陳志明 [6])
• LIM Teck Ghee (林德義)
• Danny WONG Tze-Ken (黃子堅 [7])
• VOON Phin Keong (文平强 [8][9])
• ANG Ming Chee (洪敏芝 [10])

Refer to Malaysian names#Chinese names for further information. In general, if you are unsure which part of another name is the surname and which is the given name (e.g. "Fujio Hara"), you can also check if Wikipedia has index pages for the individual parts of the name, e.g. Fujio — these pages generally clarify whether something is a given name or a surname. If you need to cite works by different authors with the same surname published in the same year, you can affix a letter to one of the years. Regards, 59.149.124.29 (talk) 05:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Crowd attendance during the Malaysian Solidarity Convention, 1965.jpg
• Malaysian Solidarity Convention meeting in Singapore, 1965.jpg

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jtey3.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Huaqiao

Please don't remove commonly used term or to claim that is rarely-used when it is commonly used. There are sources that tell us it has been used for a very long time (Google book search gives results from 1930s to the present-[11][12] and it is likely to have been used much earlier. Huayi is used locally only relatively recently. If you want to add term huayi, do that but with sources, but don't remove another term that is commonly used. Wikipedia article is here to inform reader worldwide what terms are used, it is not about what you or what you think. Hzh (talk) 04:49, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

You just said what I wanna say. but even "recently" it is also our name. I know that I can't come up with so-called "strong evidence", but I know "華裔" is used in many aspect. Although the term "overseas Chinese" has the similar in meaning, but it is no longer suitable for us today. That's all.

本人英文能力有限，詞窮了，就以中文再次説明我想説的：

以上您所説的、所表示的便是我想説的了，但是就算是最近那也是我們稱呼自己的一種方式。我知道我無法搬出一些能讓人們、或您所表示的外界，信服的所謂“鐵證”（有力證據）。但是我知道，這種稱呼方式已經用於各方各面，我只是根據我們，在馬來西亞自稱的方式，才做出次編輯，真是有勞您了。我想表示，“華僑”一詞雖然也有相近意思，但是已經不適合用於如今的我們了。這就是我想表示的了。祝君編安。 28daniel (talk) 10:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

We are not really interested in the opinion of any single person, whether you think it is suitable or not is irrelevant. If you have sources that says that Huayi is now a widely used term, then add the sources. Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy, we simply describe things as they are. Hzh (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)