Template talk:Ethnic groups in Malaysia

Edit request on 11 November 2015

Please remove "Ubian" as it is not identified as one of the ethnic groups in Sabah per [1]. Thank you. ~ Muffin Wizard ^;) 23:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Although only suggestively supported by that reference, I have  Removed it for now — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. ~ Muffin Wizard ^;) 11:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Ethnic Indians and Native Indonesians in East Malaysia

The Indians aren't a nationwide ethnic group, they are only concentrated in the west coast of Peninsular Malaysia. Outside the area, formed less than 1 percent in the largest territories of Malaysia.

The article has already provided data from the national census - 0.3% in Sarawak (an area that sized 124,000km), 0.3% in Sabah (74,000km), 0.3% in Kelantan (15,000km) and 0.2% in Terengganu (13,000km), collectively the areas formed 2/3 of the Malaysian territory. The situation in the east coast of Peninsular Malaysia and Malaysian Borneo can be accessed here and by the official national sensus by the Department of Statistic, Malaysia here.

Even the population of the Malaysian indigenous people are higher than the Indians, the indigenous peoples can also be found nationwide, but the groups are not being listed as such in the list.--Native99girl (talk) 05:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

All I can see is that your edits are POV pushing and you intend to POV push, your last sentence above actually epitomizes it, and this is coming from a user that has no Indian, Malaysian Indian or Malaysian ancestry. So I don't have a bias at all. (121.214.123.72 (talk) 09:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC))

Read this and this, the entire thing from start to finish. Just because you claim that they make up less than 1% of the population doesn't mean there are no Malaysian Indians there. Since when did 0.3% or 0.2% mean 0%? Can you answer that? If you can prove to me that 0.9% and anything less than that means 0%, then I'll revert my edit. That's not possible. Your edits are literally telling me that you think the number 6000 actually equals 0. How does that make sense? Find me a source that explicitly says that there are zero Malaysian Indians in East Malaysia and then come back to me. (121.214.123.72 (talk) 09:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC))

The article also interviewed the experience of Malaysian Indians in Sarawak as well.

Practically all of the ethnic groups and expats are available in each states in Malaysia, there's even a small number of natives bornean in the small town Sungai Petani (mostly government servants), even the local-born Pakistanis, Japanese, Koreans, local portuguese-eurasians can be found in each and in every state in Malaysia. Would they constitute a nationwide minority? The schedule only register them in the "regions with a significant populations" - similar to how the native borneans are represented in the schedule as in east malaysia, despite they can be found nationwide, since they form large population in east Malaysia.

The national census conducted by the Malaysian government is a stronger testament of the reality in Malaysia.

I already refer the matter to the administrator.--Native99girl (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Well I see that the discussion ended before it even started. @Native99girl: Do you have any other options for solving this issue? You need to provide sources, do you not understand me? Please find a source that explicitly states that there are zero Malaysian Indians in West Malaysia. I'm sorry but all I see is that you want to POV-push. I think you made it very clear with your initial post on this talk page. You're going to have try a lot harder to convince me that it should not be listed in the "Nation-wide" subheading because your arguments are not convincing at all. If you can find me a source that says there are zero, or something akin to that, then I will accept your argument. Have you read the sources I have given you? I don't think you have with the way that you're speaking. (110.149.137.35 (talk) 05:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC))

I had a look at the admin noticeboard and they said it was content dispute so I guess this is the right place to solve it. At least we have a discussion going, hopefully we can come to a consensus on this. (110.149.137.35 (talk) 05:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC))

In regards to Native Indonesians, do you have a source that states that they are found throughout Malaysia, both east and west? I think they are similar to Malaysian Indians, meaning they have small numbers as well. That's another issue I noticed with the template. It would be good if we can come to a consensus on both issues. (110.149.137.35 (talk) 05:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC))

Right I understand what you are saying about the indigenous populations of Malaysian Borneo but do you have a source, similar to the ones I presented yesterday, that discuss the population of Bornean Malaysians that are found in the west? I want to compare them with the sources you provided and the sources that I have. I don't think the opinion piece is allowed for such a topic, because it's an academic topic. I read the article and I can understand their view but it would mean that someone will have to explain why Deepavali is a public holiday in Sabah. I think we should stick to academic sources to solve this matter, like the PDF you presented yesterday. (110.149.137.35 (talk) 05:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC))

Pakistanis can also be found thoughout Malaysia, you can see the community numbered few and far in between, but they can be found thoughout the country.

Here's a credible source from Antara, a respected news agency in Indonesia. The news quoted the stastistic from the Indonesian Consulate in Sabah, that the number of Indonesian citizen in the territory to be 425,000 individuals here, the number doesn't include Indonesians who have obtained Malaysian citizenship. While the number of Indonesians in the state of Sarawak to be 400,000 individuals from Detik, a credible Indonesian news agency - here. Both far exceeding the number of Indians in the state.

I remember there was a statistic for each constituency for every ethnic group including for the indigenous Sabahan and Sarawakian in every Malaysia district back in early 2000s. But based on the current report, all groups are now categorised in the others category.

Plus, I been to Sungai Petani where I studied before and found out there was also a small number of East Malaysians in the area, it is a small town, second largest in Kedah. But to set it as a nationwide ethnic group is rather unreasonable.

A close correlations can be taken from the Pakistanis in Malaysia, they can be found nationwide - even based on their page we can found the prominent Malaysians of Pakistani ancestry includes people from Kelantan all the way to Sabah - Neelofa to Musa Aman. They are not first generation Pakistani, can the pakistanis be considered as a nationwide ethnic group?

Rather than discussing this matter between two users (with a random IP address from Australia), it is better if this matter be forwarded to wikiproject Malaysia to reach a consensus between all the users.--Native99girl (talk) 07:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@Native99girl: I am trying, you don't have to call me a random user. The dispute involves the both of us and nobody else so now that I think of it we should solve it by ourselves. Now if we actually get back to the discussion, we can solve this without letting it drag on and on. Are you willing to do this? After all, the administrator said the issue should be solved here. I am sure you want this solved as well, so let's actually solve it. (110.149.137.35 (talk) 10:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC))

Well I don't think we're discussing Indonesian citizens here and that should not be addressed in the upper half of the template. The information about Indonesian citizens should actually be addressed in the "Foreign ethnicities/expatriates" section. Could you find a source that speaks specifically about the Malaysians that have native Indonesian ancestry in Malaysian Borneo? (110.149.137.35 (talk) 10:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC))

Okay, we'll see how it goes here and if it is necessary we can open the discussion up for users within WikiProject Malaysia. (110.149.137.35 (talk) 10:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC))

@Native99girl: I don't think the "Pakistanis in Malaysia" example is substantial. The reason I say this is because Pakistanis are a much smaller group, so small to the point that they are probably regulated to the "other" section in the censuses for the East Malaysian states and territories. The Indians are obviously large enough that they would be recognised and treated as a separate category. Am I right on this or is the reason why the numbers for Indians revealed because they are the third largest ethnic group in the country? If that is the case, ignore what I said earlier on. I am offering this version of the template as a compromise. In acceptance for you keeping "Native Indonesians" in the "Nation-wide" section, we should add "Indian (Tamil)" to the "other" sections of Sarawk and Sabah. With that it means we are still acknowledging that there are Indians in those parts of Malaysia but not large enough that you can consider them a "nation-wide" ethnic group where they make up significant numbers in all parts of the country. What do you think? If you don't agree, we can open the discussion up at WikiProject Malaysia. (101.160.149.138 (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC))

Yes, I think to categorised Indian in the others category in East Malaysia is good enough to be honest.--Native99girl (talk) 00:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

On other note, I think we should set Minangkabau as an ethnic in Peninsular Malaysia, compared to the Banjarese, Bugis and Javanese communities that have their own association in east Malaysia, the Minangkabaus are only concentrated in the Peninsular.

Great, thanks for cooperating @Native99girl:. Yes I agree with your suggestion about the Minangkabau and thanks for making the changes. (101.160.149.138 (talk) 00:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC))

This template's initial visibility currently defaults to autocollapse, meaning that if there is another collapsible item on the page (a navbox, sidebar, or table with the collapsible attribute), it is hidden apart from its title bar; if not, it is fully visible.

To change this template's initial visibility, the |state= parameter may be used:

• {{Ethnic groups in Malaysia|state=collapsed}} will show the template collapsed, i.e. hidden apart from its title bar.
• {{Ethnic groups in Malaysia|state=expanded}} will show the template expanded, i.e. fully visible.

Reference in template

Hello to anyone who just editing this template, please note that there should be no "cite reference" should be added to this template as this would affects all articles that were using this. Regards. Night Lantern (talk) 08:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Orang Asal list for Sabah

User:Sabahbah, KadazanDusun is not a unanimously accepted nor majority accepted term by indigenous Sabahan particularly non Muslim natives, there are alternative term that is more neutral and unbiased such as KDM (Kadazan Dusun Murut), KDMR (Kadazan Dusun Murut Rungus) and more recently Momogun. This is not a political forum for one to spread ideology for unity of non Muslim Sabahan Bumiputra nor supremacy of Kadazan Dusuns over other term. Instead the categorization is based on ethnology and linguistic study. Just using linguistic study, there are Dusunic (where Kadazan, Dusun etc), Paitanic, Murutic (Timogun, Tagal) which belonged to Southwest Sabah language family, Northeast Sabah language family (eg. Idaan), and much further North Sarawakan family (where Lundayeh/Lun Bawang belong).

Moreover, here elaborated that KadazanDusun is not well accepted by the Rungus, Murut and Lundayeh/Lun Bawang community as it is not an all encompassing term https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kadazan-Dusun#Etymology Danazach (talk) 12:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I agree with you, let's use the non-controversial term "KDMR" instead. It is never about the supremacy of Kadazandusun.Sabahbah (talk) 23:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)\

By the by User:Sabahbah, the list of ethnic names generated in 1961 KDCA convention is by no means binding forever, and the spellings of some has gone out of used. For one, no Lundayehs nor Lun Bawang would attest to be called Lundayo at this day. In addition, I believe the term "Kadayan" back in 1961 is not referring to Kedayan ethnic, instead was a variation of Kadazan, which has no relation to the Kedayan ethnic. Kedayan ethnic is more closely related to Brunei Malay ethnic and are almost all Muslims. These are just 2 issues that I detected in your list referenced to the KDCA constitution. I myself originated from Sipitang district where these 2 ethnics mainly resides nevertheless you can just refer to the list of name of each ethnic society registered to Registrar of Society (ROS) to find that out.

I will remove the link to Kedayan (maintain Kadayan) and put it outside of KDMR, and respecting latest spelling accepted by the ethnic group themselves --Danazach (talk) 10:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)