Wikipedia

Talk:Demographics of Malaysia/Archive 1

< Talk:Demographics of Malaysia
Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Archive 1

Citation needed

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I hope that the wikipedians would include citation for this article, esp. the figures of the ethnic poeple.141.213.178.161 20:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Template

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

i made 3 templates here Template:Ethnic groups in Malaysia. its not really complete though. any comments? kawaputra 13:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the first one. It is the most organised. Comment about the second one- the number of population is dynamic (meaning changing a lot), so it is not good to keep it as a template. The 3rd one is unorganised. My 2 sen. --Zack2007 13:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
hi zack. i suddenly have reservation on having separate class of "indeginous" and "non-indeginous". i think there shouldnt be a separation. its gonna get political. we should start looking at ourselves as equals. in the end, everyone is a Malaysian. what u think. i'll try find other templates. kawaputratok2me 05:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Can anyone provide a source for the 2006 pop for malaysia? The article states 24mil but the statistics dept rounded it at 26.64. A margin of 2.25 million people is quite a number, isn't it ? Cheers --Bukhrin 15:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

yes. i also have 26,640,200 in 2006, according to "Key data (2006)", Department of Statistics, Malaysia. kawaputratok2me 05:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Income between races in Malaysia

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Anyone knows where can i get the statistic for income of each races in Malaysia? I think people should add it in this article because it is a very important fact.155.198.13.80 (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Income is a particularly political issue in Malaysia. After independence economic disparities between races bubbled over into riots. The "Malay First" policy was designed to lift the economic levels of Malays (who tended to suffer from lower economic indicators compared to Chinese) and achieve greater parity across races and thereby help neutralise this discontent. However, progress to that end has been uneven. Having census income data revealed on a regular basis would result in these figures becoming a political football and potentially very inconvenient to UMNO if progress was not sufficiently demonstrated. Hence, unlike most countries, Income/Race figures are harder to come by. kawanku (talk) 10:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ancestry of Malays

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

If no citation is given in this section, I suggest deletion. All contents must be verifiable and not just some random claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.76.193.129 (talk) 11:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Malays are not a race - where is there any documentation contrary to this belief. The idea of the 'bumi' is predicated on this very fact. If there was an identifiably Malay race then the bumi notion would be unnecessary. The entries on this wiki page are in line with all available evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.193.37.126 (talk) 07:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Definition of "race" versus "ethnicity" is difficult at the best of times. However, there are unifying aspects across the varying "Malay" ethnicities that make them closer to each other than to other racial/ethnic groups, hence creating a racial grouping of "Malay" is valid. For example, Minangkabau & Acehnese ("Malays" from what is now Indonesia) and Malays of the Malaysian Peninsula, have more shared characteristics with one another than with the Orang Asli of the Malaysian Peninsula or Tribal groups in Borneo. Minangkabau, Acehnese, and Peninsula Malays (and others) together are "Malay" even though some linguistic and cultural variations exist between them.

The issue emerged primarily during independence. Chinese and Indians are not "native" to the area and were largely brought in to work for the imperial economic machine. Malays regarded themselves as the "original" inhabitants and wanted a term to affirm that differentiation and to create criteria for affirmative action policies to address economic imbalances at the time of independence (i.e. Malays, despite being indigenous had a smaller share of the wealth). The term "Malay" could not be used because Malays are not the only indigenous group - as mentioned, there are, for example, the Orang Asli in Peninsula Malaysia (which arguably have an even longer heritage in this geographical area than the Malays). Hence a term needed to be found that covered all the groups (whether Malay or not) that were indigenous to the borders of Malaysia and were not living in that area due to (primarily) colonial interference. Thus the notion of "Bumiputra" was found. "Bumiputras" are not a racial group, it is an umbrella term. Malays are a racial group, though within that group a number of ethnicities do exist. kawanku (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Historically, anyone can find a race with the name of Malay? Most of term for Malay race was created by the colonist? the colonist included all Muslim into one racial group? and and later on consolidated by the Federal Constitution, a constitution race or constitution Malay?. The nearer is Deutro Malay was the term for race created from intermarriage of Persia, Chinese, Arab , Indian, Siamese and other sea traders with the local native, may be Proto Malay(now the orang asli). It may be a general classification for the inhabitants from the traders of various nationality who married local people or Proto Malay. In the colonial time, initially some classification according to their homeland or racial background, like Minangkabau, Acehnese, Javanese, Bugis, etc, but later on all group them under Malay classification to reflect their homeland are from Malay archipelago and Malay Peninsula,and having the same religion(Islam), a race created administratively or politically by the colonist.It continued constitutionally after independence. One point to remember, the natives of Sabah and Sarawak are not included, even they are from the Borneo, but are separately classified along tribal lines, may be of different religion background. The topic is politically sensitive in Malaysia, a historical evidence need to be cited, but it may be difficult locally,unless colonial documents, and Indonesian historical documents can be found. First to find when the world " Malay" first appeared as a race in official documents.......that need citation too. But I am doubtful how 20,000 to 1,000,000 was classified as Malay; most Malay from Vietnam are with Champa background, or Cham people. Vietnamese? need documentary evidence.

I wonder why no one considers genes as a yardstick in grouping. 70.54.65.46 (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Why are you bringing this up? Recent linguistic studies traces back the Malay people and the related wider Austronesian groups from what is now the island of Taiwan. Have a read of the article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austronesian_languages#Cross-linguistic_Comparison_Chart . In fact, along with many similar words (follow the links at the bottom of the article I provided), there are many similarities in culture as well. As an ethnic group, the Malays were already a distinct culture long before the arrival of Europeans. Have a read of the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malays_%28ethnic_group%29#Deutero_Malays . So, no, Malays as an ethnicity is beyond doubt and it is not an artificial grouping set up by colonials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.11.137 (talk) 00:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Statistics

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

ET (27Sep08, 10:46pm) Please take note that the racial ratio - 65% Malays & Bumi, 26% of Chinese and 8% of Indians doesn't meet 100%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.101.155.168 (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I challenge this statement: "Unlike counterparts in neighbouring Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines, many Malaysia Chinese and Indians, predominantly those in Peninsular Malaysia, are unable to assimilate or integrate into Bumiputera society due to various discriminatory policies practiced by the government." as not NPOV. While it is true that the Malaysian government favors the Bumiputra, many significant concessions were given to the Chinese and Indians such allowing them to set up their own parallel vernacular schools. Unlike Indonesia, Malaysia does not force the integration of migrant communities. For example, until recently, Indonesian Chinese could not even have Chinese names. There is also a perception among the Bumiputra, that the Chinese and Indians are resisting integration themselves as evident by their poor command of the national language. I propose that this statement is removed from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.11.137 (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Chipmunkdavis

Latest comment: 13 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

User:Chipmunkdavis is revert warring on this article. He has introduced rigmarole, duplicating long essays and details here that are already available in separate main articles. Saravalttbs (talk) 13:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It takes 2 to edit war, and as I reverted your edits per WP:BRD you need to stop reverting and discuss your changes here. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I just explained to you in the above para about what you were doing to this article.
Just stop duplicating information on multiple pages. Instead, try helping to expand the main articles if you are so keen. If you are going to put all the information here about each and every race, then what is the need for those main articles at all? Saravalttbs (talk) 13:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Also, try to have some balance in writing essays. The section on Malays, being 50 per cent, is smaller than Indians. This is unrealistic. Saravalttbs (talk) 13:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
The information that was on here in no way can be argued to be a duplication of the whole main article. In fact, you're removing some information that is not on any other article, and adding that sentence back to the lead for no adequate reason. Furthermore, this is not an essay, it is an encyclopaedia. If the section on Malays is small, it could use reasonable expansion. Just because one part of an article is short doesn't mean you cut the rest of the article to match it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I repeat I removed only redundant data like plantation workers, Punjabis, Bengalis,... I have retained all refs that are not available in main articles. Saravalttbs (talk) 14:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Redundant how exactly? For example. You removed a whole section on profiling of those with mixed parentage, which appears nowhere else. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Are you referring to Chindian? It is a neologism used particularly by media of India. Such inter-racial marriages are more common in Singapore. Even there, the offspring is assigned dual identity - Chinese and Indian - only. Nevertheless, this term is linked and explained in both Malaysian Chinese and Malaysian Indian articles. Saravalttbs (talk) 15:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm referring to the section you removed. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The mere fact of article content duplicating content in another article isn't a problem - many articles overlap and will partially cover the same areas. I think the question of balance within this article is a good one. This is an article on demographics, not culture. So I'm not sure why the article needs to explain the cultural practices of each group in any real detail. Compare for example Demographics of Australia and Demographics of the United States which are focused on population statistics and analyses. Even the special article Race and ethnicity in the United States doesn't go into cultural practices: it focuses only on ethnic and racial population growth and movement. That's not to say the content shouldn't be somewhere - it should. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Saravalttbs is not a new user. He is a known sockmaster/troll/pov pusher User:Anwar Saadat. Here is the relevant SPI- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shinas. He has been doing this (boiling everything down to muslims vs rest) for years in India related articles, but has been caught and blocked there. Now he has moved to the SE Asian articles.--Sodabottle (talk) 20:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Malacca city

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

How come Malacca City isn't listed as one of the top 20 cities of Malaysia?

Yeah, its article has the population as almost 500,000, so based on that, it should be. 85.217.47.157 (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Cities section

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The section "Major cities" should be rewritten. Or otherwise the template should be changed to match the text.
There reads: Kuala Lumpur is the capital and largest city of Malaysia. and Johor Bahru is the second largest city and George Town is the third largest city.
But the template has Subang Jaya as #1, Kuala Lumpur as #2, George Town as #3 and Johor Bahru #4. So the text and the template don't match at all. Accidentally, George Town is on right spot because it has moved past Johor Bahru. 85.217.47.157 (talk) 00:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

malaysia article

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

states that it is 43rd in population. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

New Ethnicity in Malaysia

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Estimate: 600,000 Bangladeshi imported overnight for voting purposes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.95.68 (talk) 10:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Ethnic groups

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"In 2010, the Malays were 60.3%, Chinese 22.9%, and the Indians 7.1% of the total population." This figure is in conflict with the table given later in the article, which shows Malays 44%, Chinese 34%, Indians 7%, East Malaysian Bumiputera 11%, others 3%. Either the sentence or the table is wrong. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 09:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean the table in the Ethnicity section? This is from a different source than the 2010 data, and hasn't been updated in awhile (haven't done the maths on the current data in the source though), and doesn't appear to include some of the Malay groups in the source. Checking the source of the 2010 statement, the 60.3% is all bumiputera, not just Malays, which would add the 11% in the Ethnicity table. It also says Indians are 6.8%, so something has changed there. Both could use cleanup. CMD (talk) 14:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

2000 census figures

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Anyone has the source for the census figures of 2000? The figures given for Kuala Lumpur appears to be different given in some books, so I would like to check if the figures given here are correct. For example here it gives the population of Chinese at 43%, but Bumiputras at 38%, which is at variance with the figures given here. It may just be a difference how they define the boundary of KL, but I would be interested to see the original figures. Hzh (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

number of Orang Asli

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Where I can get number of Orang Asli(Semang, Senoi, and Proto Malay) and dayaks by Districts of Malaysia by census?--Kaiyr (talk) 11:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Demographics of Malaysia

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Demographics of Malaysia's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "CIATONGA":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Demographics of Malaysia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The term Filipino is NOT a race NOR a Ethnicity

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Therefore it has to remove from the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.84.66.236 (talk) 19:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

It is sourced, please don't remove sourced content. Read the source, the source says Filipino, Tagalog, therefore adjust if you want, but don't remove it. Hzh (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Demographics of Malaysia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Demographics of Malaysia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Demographics_of_Malaysia/Archive_1&oldid=1176460033"