Talk:Malays (ethnic group)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

malaysians, Blumenbachs outdated racial concepts and outdated desert concepts

malaysian historians/revisionists/"academics" will reject any notion that does not tie the malay ethnicity with their outdated religious concept, therefore they reject filipinos & east timorese use of "malay" since a majority are not adherents of the outdated desert religion, whilst according to malaysians the natives of brunei and those mohammedans of siam are "ethnic" malays.

obviously their historically tense relations with their co-religionist southern neighbour also has them rejecting blumenthal's racial concept and would never consider themselves being of the same ethnic stock as indonesians.

malaysians also reject the outdated concept of what was known as "malayo-polynesian" languages as it used malay and covered a wide geographical region where a large number of speakers ate pork and dont adhere to the outdated religious concept.i believe now the term now is "austronesian" languages, a politically correct term that does not offend malaysian followers of the outdated desert concept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.120.16.133 (talk) 01:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

This IP address points to Indian location. Better to ignore the racist troll.Quixodon (talk) 12:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Woo, relax dude, dont get stress

Its not the Malays (here "Ethnic Malays") who rejected the Blumenbach's racial concept and the term "Malayo-Polynesian" languages (I think it is still in use) , but in fact these so called "co-religionist southerners" and filipinos themselves. Check out the very long discussion about the real "Malays" above, and you will know, only few Malays (or perhaps none of them) involved in it. The term Malay race (to include the other ethnics in Malay archipelago) was in fact quite popular before in Malaysia, kids were thought that Javanese, Bugis, Banjars, Bataks and others in Malaysia are all "Malays". Initially, we Malaysians tend to apply such classification in a broader sense to include all the same ethnics in Indonesia too. Only then we realized that Indonesians have a different view about Malays, which according to them only refering to coastal people of Sumatera and Malay peninsular. This article is in fact follows this definition which is more correct, while the term "Malay race" is explained further in a separate article, Malay race.

However, there was a problem to classify a large group of Malays in Malaysia whose forefathers came from Indonesia from various ethnic backgrounds hundreds of years ago and not included in any native sub-ethnic Malay groups of peninsular (the Kedahans, Kelantanese, Perakians, Terengganuan, Pahangites, Pattanis), while at the same avoiding the use of the outdated term "Malay race". Further studies show that these various ethnic groups from Indonesia in Malaysia have been for hundreds of years heavily assimilated into the Malay society of Malay peninsular, and no longer similar to their brothers in Indonesia. Perhaps thats the reason why the term Javanese Malays, Bugis Malays, Minang Malays are more acceptable in Malay peninsular, thus have been included under sub-ethnic Malays in the article to differentiate them from those "originals" in Indonesia.

Furthermore, it is important to understand that the current traditional Islamic cultures and values of Malays was first in place, during the golden age of Malacca sultanate. It was from this era that the "Ethnic Malays" that we know today first appeared, inclusive those Bruneian Malays and what u refered as "Mohammedans of Siam" (which is historically incorrect term since "Siam" is the old name of Thailand, and the Pattani Malays were never referred as "Siamese" in any Thai history books, and was in fact often potrayed as a people of different ethnic than Thais/Siamese.)(Orhanghazi (talk) 05:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC))

I'm Filipino, and agree. To add my two cents, the reason why "Malay" is still being used by some Filipinos to describe any person of non-European or non-East Asian lineage is because of the American education system, which used Blumenbach's "racial classification" early on. We were taught (and are still being taught) wrongly that what the Spanish called indios (which means us), should be called "Malays". It has nothing to do with religion, it was more about Europeans seeing people with similar cultures and then lumping them all together as one word (cf. calling Native Americans "Indians"). See the highly racist entry on Malays in Encyclopedia Britannica above.

The truth is, while Malaysian Ethnic Malays and Filipinos share a lot of similarities in culture and language, they are very distinct peoples. Even the Tausug, Bajau, Samal, Maranao, etc. peoples of Western Mindanao and the Sulu archipelago of the Philippines and northwestern Sabah in Malaysia, who are also Muslim, do not consider themselves Ethnic Malays.

But yes, all of us - Malaysians, Indonesians, Bruneians, Filipinos, East Timorese, Indigenous Taiwanese peoples, Madagascans, Micronesians, Polynesians, and Maori peoples are all Austronesians (from Greek for "south islanders") - sharing the same cultural and linguistic roots, the most obvious of which is that we were all historically islanders and sailors. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 06:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Lead pic

Nine men, three women. Discuss. --Merbabu (talk) 08:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

That's right, need more example of Malay woman. Or probably follow the style of main pict in Javanese, Minang, and Sundanese, just one picture of nobody (common people), not necesarily a myriad collage of celebrities or important person.Gunkarta (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

French people, 22 men, 5 women(18%)

English people, 16 men, 5 women(24%)

Scottish people, 16 men, 5 women(24%)

Russian people, 30 men, 6 women(17%)

Tamil people, 8 men, 1 women(11%)

Serbs, 15 men, 1 women(6%)

Malays; 9 men, 3 women(33%)

I dont see the problem with that, the gap between the number of men and women is quite small compared to the other above mentioned articles. As for the suggestion for one picture, i dont think its necessary, a myriad collage of important persons is good to show different faces of the ethnic group, and it has been applied in many ethnic groups articles(Orhanghazi (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC))

I change my mind, displaying notable famous people ia a great idea, it gave pride to the people. Gonna do the same to Javanese and Sundanese people. (my own ethnicity).Gunkarta (talk) 09:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, please don't. Wikipedia not about giving pride to peoples. Just because other articles, even most, do it doesn't mean it isn't crap. sorry --Merbabu (talk) 09:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I used to think that it would be nice for main picture to have only a colorful picture of a couple in traditional costumes (a bride and groom maybe), but that kind of picture is currently unavailable in commons, well not to any ethnics. The previous image in Sundanese and Javanese article displaying old colonial monotone photograph or painting of; Javanese woman in kemben and Sundanese woman sitting on the mat. I can't help to sense the early 20th century colonial romanticism of Mooi Indie in those pictures. Neglecting the fact that the ethnic's culture is dynamic and ever changing, today many embrace modern lifestyles. Displaying collage of its people, notable persons from ancient times to modern era reflects the diversity of faces and occupations of those ethnic group. In this case I'm switch sides to Orhanghazi's. It has been done in other ethnic groups/nationalities articles anyway.Gunkarta (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

about malays coming from the philippines

I quote from the front page: This misconception is due in part to American anthropologists H. Otley Beyer who proposed that the Filipinos were actually Malays who migrated from Malaysia and Indonesia. This idea was in turn propagated by Filipino historians and is still taught in schools. However, the prevalent consensus among contemporary anthropologists, archaeologists, and linguists actually propose the reverse; among these are scholars in the field of Austronesian studies such as Peter Bellwood, Robert Blust, Malcom Ross, Andrew Pawley, and Lawrence Reid.

Could somebody point out a reference (book or respectable internet source) to validate the sentence? I feel this kinda inaccurate, especially when it's tagalog that imported malay words instead of vice versa. I'm not an authority but that doesn't sound right. In fact, I remember about a paper saying that the Malay might have originated from Yunan, China. __earth ^(Talk) 16:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Malay words did indeed come into Tagalog, but that was long after the Malays settled into their current location. As an example, one of the words that Tagalog "borrowed" from Malay was dalamhati which has to do with feeling sorry. The words dalam and hati are cognate with the Tagalog words lalim (depth, interior) and atay (liver). In any case, one of the sources I recommend to you is the 1995 The Austronesians: Historical and comparative perspectives edited by Peter Bellwood, James Fox, & Darrell Tyron. There are contributions in there by other experts in the Austronesian field I mentiond above like Blust, Reid, and Ross. --Chris S. 19:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC) PS - See the Bibliography section at the Austronesian languages article.

DNA evidence along with anthropological studies are showing a migrationary path for Austronesian peoples as originating from Southern China to Taiwan and then south to the Philippines and beyond. As opposed to coming from the other direction - Thailand/Malaysia.

The CIA FactBook listed all ethnic groups in Philippines as Christian Malay, Muslim Malay, Chinese and Other. Only recently, the categorisation seems to have changed. See http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=267237 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quixodon (talk • contribs) 20:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

New Malay race article

I've created a new article called Malay race, which encompasses everyone in the Philippines and Indonesia. Hopefully this will make our Filipino editors happier, though it does need some work (as this article does). (Caniago 11:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC))

To Caniago: I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve by promoting Blumenbach's outdated and racially offensive classification of the Malay race as it is adequately covered under Blumenbach. It is clear you are trying to deliberately cause offense. I am reporting you to the Adminsitrator. Either remove this article or provide a more unbiased article that doesn't so gratuitously promote Blumenbach's offensive classification.FRM SYD 15:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

And how is it different than Caucasian race? You are skating on thin ice. (Caniago 15:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC))

As I have said, you have created a new article that adds NO VALUE to anything as it is already clearly defined under Blumenbach's article. Furthermore, you have chosen to base the main argument in the article on an outmoded and racially offensive definition specifically to cause offense to me, but actually to other people as well. Please take some pointers from the Caucasian race article and see that here, Blumenbach's definition is relegated to a small paragraph under a sub heading and not as the principal argument which you choose. FRM SYD 22:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

FRM SYD, I am confused about you position here. Firstly, you have stated in the section above that you support the notion of the "greater Malay race" (Presumbaly including the Philippines and Indonesia), and in reply it has been suggested that this article include mention of that definition. Now that an article to desribe just that has been created, you don't like that either. What is it exactly that you want? As for you getting all upset, that i will discuss on your talk page. Merbabu 23:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: I've actually removed your personal attack comments from here. No place on an article talk page (or anywhere for that matter). Merbabu 00:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

To Caniago: Thanks. To FRM SYD: It was necessary to separate the article since "Malay" refers to at least two different concepts. I do agree with you that Malay in reference to Filipinos is outdated. However, it is of historical and encyclopedic value (just like Nigger or , and that's a highly offensive word). The article should give a biased treatment of the subject at hand. Many Filipinos will type in "Malay race" on Wikipedia and they should know the information presented therein. --Chris S. 01:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Caniago here. If the Filipinos consider themselves Malays, then we need either a seperate article or we need to mention in this article this definition and concept. Regardless of whether you find the concept offensive, I would argue it's more offensive to ignore a concept which a significant number of people apparently embrace. 203.109.240.93 12:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

okay. Filipinos are NOT ethnic Malays...however.

No. A few Filipino ethnic groups are closely related to Ethnic Malays, but the vast majority of Filipinos are only distantly related to Ethnic Malays, in the same way that Ethnic Malays and Filipinos are only distantly related to the aboriginal Taiwanese Austronesians.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 19:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The Tausug people are already there. "Moro" is a wider autonym, spanning several ethnicities bound only by religion but not necessarily closely related culturally. The Bajau (including the Samal) and the Tausug are perhaps the closest to the ethnicities in Borneo with significant populations in the Philippines, Malaysia, and Indonesia. The Tausug are the closest to ethnic Malays, being once part of part of the Sulu Sultanate (which included Sabah). But the rest (including the Maranao) are more closely related to the Lumad and Visayans.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 20:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, actually you're right. Most of us Filipinos are more closely related to the Chamarros from Micronesia than we are with Malays. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

Are Bugis people Malay?

Are Bugis people Malay? Some sources say they are some say they aren't. Is the Buginese language a branch of Malay? PacificWarrior101 (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

In Indonesia no, in Malaysia yes. In Indonesia Bugis are the people that inhabit Southern peninsula of Sulawesi (until now). After the war with Dutch VOC and the fall of Gowa kingdom in late 17th century, many of them migrate to other parts of Archipelago, including Malaysia. Bugis sailors exercise major influence in Johor Sultanate affair. In Malaysia Bugis are intergrated as Malay Bumiputra, while in Indonesia they retained their own etnicity identity as Bugis. Bugis languange is quite different than Malay.Gunkarta (talk) 08:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Ethnic Malays similarities with other ethnic groups

This edit war is getting a little tiring. You added a lot of references to support your claim "and to some degree Javanese culture; however it differs by being more overtly Islamic than the Javanese culture". Yes, it is true they are similar to "some degree". But you could also say that Malays are similar to "some degree" with many other Austronesian cultures, of which there are thousands. If you look at the language classification [1] the Malay language and Javanese have over 1000 languages in the same language group. Out of those, the Malay language is in fact closer to many other languages such as Ibanic, Kendayan, Balinese, Madurese & Sundanese than it is to Javanese. So why have you mentioned Javanese specifically and not one of those other 1000 cultures, especially those which are more closely linked to Malay culture? You can of course find elements of one culture which have been adopted by another culture, but does that make them similar enough to mention? Its like saying American and Japanese culture is similar since they both like to play baseball. You could just as correctly say that Malays and Thais are similar "to some degree". The second part of the claim "however it differs by being more overtly Islamic than the Javanese culture" is wrong since it implies that religion is the only, or even the main differentiating factor. This is total nonsense.

The other part of the article you keep reverting about Malays being present in Southern Myanmar is wrong, and I suggest you do some research to find out which languages are spoken in Southern Myanmar to find out why. (Caniago (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC))

It is merely to demonstrate the similarities with other neighbouring groups. yes, the malays does have some numbers of similarities with other cultures such as those ibanic, kedayan, balinese, madurese & sundanese. but compared to those, the influence of the javanese culture is more prevalent compare to many of those. with the exception of kedayans, can you pinpoint other obvious similarities between those ethnics (ibanic, balinese, madurese, sundanese) compared to the malays? and for that matter, the cultural similarities with the banjarese and kedayan is also supposedly to be mentioned in the article.

and yes, the islamic cultural influence is more prevalent with the malays compared to the javanese, mainly due to the fact that islam adopted to be ethnoreligion of the malays becoming part and parcel to the malay culture, compared to the javanese that despite a huge proportion of muslims, there are also many christians and religios syncretism with kejawen is still being practised by many of them (which is well reflected on their culture itself, i.e from their mythical batik motives to their wayangs and their sanskrit driven names)

and no, the relation of the American and the Japanese is not really applicable with the article at hand. the relationship between the Malays to the Javanese may be comparable with the English to the French. culturally almost similar with several obvious differences (linguistic and "religion" i.e. protestant english vs. catholic french) that sets them apart, nonetheless they are still culturally related in several ways.

they are present in the southern myanmar, i remembered watching a documentary on RTM1 some time ago. and several travel blogs does support this community (and yes, i am well aware that it could not be considered as a reference in wikipedia, nonetheless it is a considerably point of source to support the fact.) here. and the community does reside close to Phuket which does have a considerable number of malays (c. 30%), plus the influence of the malay does reflected by the name of the places (google map).

p.s and i wonder why you never improved the malay ethnic wikipedia with the exception of your act to trim down this page? (compared to the expansion on minang's article by you-know-who - which also has a considerable number of "unreferenced" claims on the topics which might as well as "some certain person's" "random personal opinion".) *cough* bias/double standard*cough*

--Egard89 (talk) 01:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)(Egard89 (talk) 1:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC))

I've been stand back and witnessing these edit war between you two, and it is get tiring. Enough already guys. My suggestion, compromise: remove Javanese section from the lead and move it to Malay culture section to demonstrate shared cultural similarities in the region (keris, wayang, batik), making note especialy on the influences of Javanese culture. While keep Minang and Aceh section on the lead; culturally and lingusitically Malay are more closely connected to Minangkabau and Aceh. Javanese cultural influence are quite common across archipelago with differ degree of adoption; Javanese origin/influenced cultures and artforms eq. wayang, batik, keris was not an exclusive phenomena in Javanese-Malay ethno-relationship, therefore not that special and unworthy on special recognition in the lead. Sundanese, Balinese, Madurese, Banjar, too have their own batik, keris, wayang artform, all can trace its origin to Javanese influence. Yet because of their proximity, Sundanese, Balinese, and Madurese demonstrate more striking similarities with Javanese than Malay. Actually it is worthy to note that Malay as coastal-trading-wandering ethnic are open to various influences in the region from all directions: India, China, Java, Arabia.Gunkarta (talk) 13:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

LOL :D , in a way the Javanese and Malays are like the British and French, strange bed fellows. Historically their rulers tried to invade one another. Yet young French people prefer to work in Britain, and the Brits admired the French for their fashion, wine, cuisine, and cities. But I think highlighting religion as the point of difference is somewhat not very appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.1.137 (talk) 14:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, the Javanese is probably seen as somewhat imperialistic, hence the reaction of Malays to reassert it's identity. This attitude goes way back at least during Malacca Sultanate era. Reading the Sejarah Melayu and Hikayat Hang Tuah, the writers tend to see the Javanese as some sort of aggressive bully, not surprising considering Parameswara ran away from Majapahit, although by the time Malacca reached it's golden period, Majapahit was already severely weakened by civil wars. Interestingly, according to the hikayat, the famed Malay admiral/warrior Hang Tuah learned his martial arts from a Javanese guru, and his Taming Sari keris belonged to a Javanese warrior. Sometimes when you read these articles, you'd think the writers got issues with Javanese people, lol. In real life though, both ethnics get along pretty well, much like the love-hate between English and French. Whatever animosity that existed on the Internet are fanned by trolls and people with penis issues.

Shouldn't there be note of Malay Buddhists from Thailand and Malay Christians from Singapore?

I just checked the Thai Malays and the Malays in Singapore articles. Apparently there's a Buddhist minority with the Thai Malays and a Christian minority with the Singaporean Malays who seem to undergo discrimination. Can I add a note of these in the religion section of this ethnic Malays article? There should also be a note of Lina Joy in the article. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 03:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)PacficWarrior101

Can I add Parameswara and Sharif Kabungsuwan?

Parameswara was the first Sultan of Malacca, then there's Kabungsuwan credited for spreading Islam up north from Sulu to Manila. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 07:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

More information on the origins of Malays

MALAY ORIGINS: Evidence suggests otherwise (DATUK Dr Ananda Kumaraseri). Komitsuki (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Malay nationalist politics in Indonesia

Polticized Malay nationalist sentiment led to Malay violence against the Madurese in the 1999 Sambas riots. Muslim Malays massacred and rape 3,000 Muslim Madurese in 1999, with some help from animist or Christian Dayaks.

http://books.google.com/books?id=OrdM8X7CBTAC&pg=PA299&lpg=PA299&dq=dayaks+malay+madurese&source=bl&ots=uZeyxBWjTh&sig=HJgReO2XzQEeybz5g8k2mMqTKXk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=e8_vUpXQJqvJsQTvt4GYDA&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=dayaks%20malay%20madurese&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=mk-nXY3HQfoC&pg=PA83&dq=sambas+riots&hl=en&sa=X&ei=01YWU6nOMK3I0gHosIDwDg&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=sambas%20riots&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=wJ0pCgm5xS8C&pg=PA186&dq=through+anti-Madurese+violence,+Malay+proves+indigeneity+part+politicized+field+ethnicity&hl=en&sa=X&ei=EVkWU8fHF8qU0QHGt4CoBg&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=through%20anti-Madurese%20violence%2C%20Malay%20proves%20indigeneity%20part%20politicized%20field%20ethnicity&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=wpJGooepEMYC&pg=PA143&dq=Sambas+1999+violence+Malay+claim+indigeneity+Koebillah&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0VgWU-7ABsWf0QGTzYHACg&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Sambas%201999%20violence%20Malay%20claim%20indigeneity%20Koebillah&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=mPLgeU6K6pMC&pg=PA138&dq=through+anti-Madurese+violence,+Malay+proves+indigeneity+part+politicized+field+ethnicity&hl=en&sa=X&ei=EVkWU8fHF8qU0QHGt4CoBg&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=through%20anti-Madurese%20violence%2C%20Malay%20proves%20indigeneity%20part%20politicized%20field%20ethnicity&f=false

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/asia-pacific/1186401.stm

http://www.culturalsurvival.org/ourpublications/csq/article/violence-indonesian-borneo-spurs-relocation-ethnic-madurese

http://indahnesia.com/indonesia/SAMPEO/people.php

http://books.google.com/books?id=EUDii8kvQYAC&pg=PA73#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=IUet7tl_j90C&pg=PA90&dq=Afu+Chinese+Dayaks+Malays+senasib&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tN0KU_yOF8buyAHTzIHwCw&ved=0CCsQ6wEwAA#v=onepage&q=Afu%20Chinese%20Dayaks%20Malays%20senasib&f=false

http://www.library.ohiou.edu/indopubs/1999/03/24/0128.html

http://www.library.ohiou.edu/indopubs/1999/03/21/0047.html

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/1999/04/20/the-solution-sambas-riots.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=JWQqTQUrHTwC&pg=PT24&dq=chinese+peaceful+dayak&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OtsKU6eFNOeayAGK5oHABg&ved=0CFAQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=chinese%20peaceful%20dayak&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=gZU0jbXt5MkC&pg=PA62#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=Gr3IAVnqmvQC&pg=PA34&dq=Since+1950+in+west+kalimantan+there+have+been+thirteen+conflicts&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Wd0KU7HeAqLCyQGTqoDoDQ&ved=0CDYQ6wEwAg#v=onepage&q=Since%201950%20in%20west%20kalimantan%20there%20have%20been%20thirteen%20conflicts&f=false

Ethnic Malay nationalism in Indonesian Kalimantan is tied to the Sultanates of Borneo and especially to Sultan Hamid II's image.

http://books.google.com/books?id=EUDii8kvQYAC&pg=PA83&dq=Raden+Winata+Kusumah+Crown+Prince+Malay+rehabilitate+Sultan+Hamid+II&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-CFDU_7xNOmkyQHJ4IDQAw&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Raden%20Winata%20Kusumah%20Crown%20Prince%20Malay%20rehabilitate%20Sultan%20Hamid%20II&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 08:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Infobox photos

How come there are only 20 photos of Malays in the infobox? Isn’t there at least 5 million Malays. They all need a photo, and in the infobox. 20 is just not enough. Can someone please fix this, and include a photo of every Malay please. Thank you --Merbabu (talk) 02:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Stupid Indon with some cheap sarcasm detected. The collage in the Malay article is more diverse compared to some cheap Indon ethnic collages, which only filled with some politicians and celebrities. There are Politicians, Royal figures, an Explorer, an ancient Warrior, celebrities, a cartoonist, a sportsman, an astronaut, a diplomat, a National Bank Governor and poets in the collage. Indon, dont get buthurt please.

Because using the word "buthurt" [sic] is soooo much more intelligent.

Actually, I was merely commenting on the execessive number of pictures. Not what or who was pictured. I was not making any comparisons between Indonesians, and I presume, Malaysians.

PS - I'm not Indonesian. --Merbabu (talk) 23:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh really?, your username sounds too Indon to me though. Maybe u are a citizen of a particular country but of Indon descent, but that doesnt make u less Indon in nature. With only 20 photos in place, for me at least, its not that excessive compared to other ethnic groups e.g - Sinhalese (15 millions people with 25 photos) or Serbs (10.5 million people with 30 photos). I suppose maybe its time for you to do some sarcasm there too for having "excessive number of pictures". What or who was pictured was exactly the main reason why we have the current collage, which is a diverse one. It represents Malays of different time, genders, professions, nationalities, and most importantly of various Malay sub-ethnic groups (3 Kedahans, 3 Malaccans, 2 Bruneians, a Pontianak Malay, a Terengganuan, a Perakian, 2 Singaporeans, a Johorean, a Pattani, a Pahangite, a Bugis Malay, a Minang Malay, a Deli Malay, a Bangka-Belitung Malay) . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.133.196.89 (talk) 11:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Why is Mahathir Mohammed pictured in the infobox as ethnic Malay when he is half indian, at least, from the paternal side? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.186.207.155 (talk) 12:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The one who is half Indian is his father, not him. His paternal grandmother is a Malay, and so his maternal grandparents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:E68:4406:B0FB:3409:BAB8:E226:5302 (talk) 12:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Come on guys, let's no take this to Burger King. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.206.241.41 (talk) 06:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the articles about ethnic groups

Seemingly there is a significant number of commentators which support the general removal of infobox collages. I think there is a great opportunity to get a general agreement on this matter. It is clear that it has to be a broad consensus, which must involve as many editors as possible, otherwise there is a big risk for this decision to be challenged in the near future. I opened a Request for comment process, hoping that more people will adhere to this proposal. Please comment here. TravisRade (talk) 23:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

That is not an RfC and it doesn't follow the RfC process. It's just a collection of opinions and has no authority. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The RfC was opened correctly. please comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#Proposal_for_the_deletion_of_all_the_galleries_of_personalities_from_the_infoboxes_of_articles_about_ethnic_groups. Dkfldlksdjaskd (talk) 09:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Malays (ethnic group). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100610190114/http://www.hbp.usm.my/conservation/malayvernacular.htm to http://www.hbp.usm.my/conservation/malayvernacular.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121010191042/http://kcm.co.kr/bethany_eng/p_code3/1892.html to http://kcm.co.kr/bethany_eng/p_code3/1892.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120718130911/http://kcm.co.kr/bethany_eng/clusters/8101.html to http://kcm.co.kr/bethany_eng/clusters/8101.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100404150912/http://www.kkbs.gov.bn/html/pakaian_tradisi.htm to http://www.kkbs.gov.bn/html/pakaian_tradisi.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121029105406/http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=%2F2008%2F8%2F26%2Fnation%2F22168989&sec=nation to http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=%2F2008%2F8%2F26%2Fnation%2F22168989&sec=nation

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) 02:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Malays (ethnic group). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160514083428/http://www.bt.com.bn/golden-legacy/2011/10/24/search-brunei-malays-outside-brunei to http://www.bt.com.bn/golden-legacy/2011/10/24/search-brunei-malays-outside-brunei
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100609082019/http://www1.american.edu/TED/malayprk.htm to http://www1.american.edu/ted/malayprk.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100623000015/http://us.detikfood.com/read/2010/06/21/160229/1382992/908/gulai-ketam-asam-asam-pedas to http://us.detikfood.com/read/2010/06/21/160229/1382992/908/gulai-ketam-asam-asam-pedas

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) 10:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Proto-reconstruction for the ethnonym "malay"?

Is there a proto-reconstruction (Austronesian) for the ethnonym "malay" ? and who provided the reconstruction ? Gustmeister (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of the Gauteng Province.png
• Flag of the Western Cape Province.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

"Old theories" and "New findings"

The paragraph on the Human Genome Organization study, and the material surrounding it, is not an accurate reflection of the source. Besides the fact that a better source is needed than a news blurb, the study and its conclusions related to the initial settlement of Asia, many thousands of years before the events and theories discussed in this article. There is nothing on when the Malay peninsula itself was settled, or on whether that was as a single migration, or how this related to the peoples currently living there. These could all be explained by a misunderstanding of the material. However, later additions like Malays being older than "Mongoloids" (what can such a thing even mean?), Malays having an older civilization than others in Asia, or this study supplanting any other theories of Malaysian settlement are the invention of later editors, completely unrelated to what is in the source. There is certainly no support for 18th century racial theories, and from what I understand of the Lenggong site, the early skeletons there are more like the populations grouped together as Australoid. So, if any of this is to be re-added, it needs reliable sourcing, has to actually state what the source says accurately, and be relevant to the topic. Ergative rlt (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Further on the above: it's not my "POV" that the HUGO source is being represented - the BBC article simply does not make the claims that are being attributed to it. The Oppenheimer source, while giving a theory that Malays have always been there, is again a news item, says nothing about civilization ages, and gives no sign of being the current standard view on the subject. While it may be useful to include Oppenheimer's theory, treating it as true in the editorial voice is a clear violation of WP:UNDUE unless evidence that it is the standard view is provided. It also says nothing about 18th century racial classifications - that is pure WP:OR. As for the Lenggong link, that is to descriptions of Paleolithic sites that don't support the surrounding material in this article - there is certainly nothing there that claims that say the Bukit Bunuh or other sites were populated by people who would be considered Malays. So again- better sources, do not include material not backed by the sources, and don't present speculation as though it is the currently accepted theory on the settlement of the peninsula and surrounding areas. Ergative rlt (talk) 02:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

This comment is 7 years old but that this is also what I'm getting from reading that section. Reads like a Malay nationalist edited it. Even the genealogy section states that the Taiwan model is probably the most accurate based on genetic dating data. Chicbicyclist (talk) 06:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Bangkok Malays = Thai Malays?

I wondered on the section about sub-ethnic groups of Malays, are Bangkok Malays different with Thai Malays? Or Bangkok Malays are a part of Thai Malays? On this section, Bangkok Malays lives in Bangkok and its surroundings, while in the Thai Malays page, Thai Malays lives in southern Thailand. Could someone explain it? So that, we can fix the section. —Ibra Bintang (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Bacan, Batin, Papuans, Larantukans Malays.

Kindly provide credible sources that the groups involved are constitute as Malay sub-groups (i.e. journals, news article, verified articles). Rather than a questionable single source, these groups are not even considered as Malays (nor its sub-etnics) by the Indonesian National Sensus. The only sources that we can find that the areas used Malays as a lingua franca by various local etnicities. --د بڠساون (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@The Bangsawan: Agree. This a conflation of ethnicity and linguistic affiliation. Vehicular or Creole Malay languages emerged as contact languages. Their speakers shifted from local languages to superregional Malay-based creoles, but do not self-identify as Malays, nor do self-identifying Malays from Sumatra and Borneo consider these Vehicular Malay speakers as Malays. Most of them retain their local ethnic affiliation in spite of the language shift.

But you have thrown out one baby with the bathwater: the Batin people are generallly considered a Malay sub-ethnicity. With better (i.e. ethnographic, not just linguistic) sources, they can be reinserted here. –Austronesier (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the insights @Austronesier:. Yes, the Batin people may be can be considered as Malay subgroups based on these factors.--د بڠساون (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@The Bangsawan: and @Austronesier: Thank you for bringing this thing to the talk page and correcting the misinformation. Batin people are considered as Malay subgroup, then how about Burmese Malay people? Are they same with Kedahan Malay people or distinguished by their region or another factors? —Ibra Bintang (talk) 03:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ibra Bintang: Oh yes, the Burmese Malays are indeed a subgroup of the Kedahan Malay people, they speak with a thick & classic Kedahan accent, although they hold Burmese citizenship. You can view an interview on the local Malay community in Myanmar - here, a news article about the community published by the New Strait Times - here and their facebook group here. Quite interesting actually.

On other note (I noticed your other inquiries on the Bangkok Malays), yes, speaking about the Malay diaspora, there are also a few Malay subgroups in Thailand as well (aside from the Patani Malays). There are Satun-Trang Malays (culturally Kedahan, but they hold Thai citizenship), mainly concentrated in Satun Province; and Bangkok Malay, of creolised origin with ancestry from Kedah, Kelantan, Patani and Terengganu that living in Bangkok since the 18th century. Among the research that was conducted on the community can be accessed -here, and quoting from the first paragraph of the research:

"Bangkok Melayu are descendants of Malays who were taken prisoners and forcibly brought to Bangkok by the invading Thai forces during several raids into Pattani and Kedah between 1786 to 1838. They were settled in small communities and distributed to several parts of Bangkok and surrounding areas. Until 1930s, with the wave of Thai nationalism followed with implementation on the policy of forced integration, the rural Bangkok Malay lived apart from the mainstream Thai society practicing Malay culture." — Umaiyah Haji Umar in Language and Writing System of Bangkok Melayu (2007)

Hope this helps on the clarification. :) --د بڠساون (talk) 05:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'm sorry to interrupt this intellectual discussion, but I am wondering if some Banjar people are considered Malay? For example, Singapore considers Banjar Malay as a sub-ethnic of Singaporean Malay here and here. Lulusword (talk) 13:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

No, that's not an interruption, but fits well in here. In their home area in South Kalimanatan, and in Indonesia in general, Banjar people do not identify as Malays, inspite of the close linguistic and cultural links. It's quite similar to the case of the Minangkabau people. In the Malaysia and Singapore diapsora, Banjar people are classified as Malays. –Austronesier (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)