Talk:Malaysia/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Page is now protected

After a request at page protection I have fully protected the page for a brief time of 3 days. I see that discussion is occurring on this talk page and I encourage it to continue. If the editors cannot resolve the issue among themselves then we may need to advance to another level of resolution. Note to other admins: Please feel free to change or lift the protection if I am unavailable. A note on my page would be nice. JodyB _talk 14:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary and heavy handed. I've requested on your talk page you remove protect as you suggest. Or, other admins please do so. It's stopped a major improvement drive dead in the water. or other admins please action this. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree; I think it was necessary. I count around 8 editors who were adding/reverting back and forth regarding the infobox headings. Protection has enforced the above discussion to consensus; it's a short-term measure, to prevent the edit-warring.

If there are any edits that you wish to make, in the very short term, simply request it here with an {{editprotected}} note.  Chzz  ►  00:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

"Around eight editors adding/reverting" - not at all. There were exactly 6 editors involved - all but one edited to an identical position to restore the infobox to it's longstanding version. Ie, there was an anon who reverted 3 times, and then a suspiciously brand new account that made a partial revert - I'll put my money on them being the same person. So, that is 3RR territory and a call for a single editor to be blocked. You've made 1 edit to this article, and then rush off to get the page tied up for a weekend by an admin who has never edited the article. I think "heavy handed" is perfectly apt description of the page protect.

As for the discussion, it's actually not about the specific versions, but has gone beyond that and with persistent anon editor, and seemed to be very much in agreement. Do you really think it was worth tying up the whole article from editing for that tidbit of info?? Looks like we have very different ideas on how wikipedia works - {{editprotected}} is not "simple" as you suggest - it's a pain in the ass and a poor substitute. --Merbabu (talk) 04:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The page protection will shortly expire on its own. It was kept short so that the issue could be resolved. Edit warring is never productive regardless of how insignificant the portion being warred over may be. If you are suggesting some level of sockpuppetry then there is a proper place to note that for investigation. JodyB _talk 17:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Really disappointing - three days too long. So you're basically saying that the whole article should be locked from all editors because one anon editor is edit warring. So much "for the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". I think you've shown very poor judgement here - or you just don't want to admit it by lifting the block. Well, the weekend is over now. --Merbabu (talk) 20:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

Something is wrong with the infobox, the emblem is not displaying properly, could somebody please fix that. Gryffindor (talk) 14:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It was deleted, as a non-free image with no fair-use rationale - see log entry.

I do not know if it is the same as File:Coat of arms of the Federation of Malaya.svg, or if we'd need to re-upload it and add a rationale.  Chzz  ►  00:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It's different, it needs to be reuploaded. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it. The official coat of arms/emblem is not in the public domain, like in other countries? Gryffindor (talk) 17:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

how do i nominate this article as a good article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.71.225.163 (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It already is, but generally it is through a process on WP:GAN. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Changes to Politics

The recent changes to politics are in my opinion for the worst. Brings irrelevant economic information into it, and has a large amount of unsourced POV language, written in a way to criticize the British and make the Bumiputra seem pitiful and victims. I have integrated some of the more relevant points elsewhere in the article and in more specific articles, all of which are accounted for in this version. Third opinions? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

These things (especially politics POV) can be found in many Malaysia-articles, albeit in various different ways. :/ Anyway, is the NEP information necessary? It is one of the many government policies. Can the IP justify why the NEP is very important and the other policies not? A group might think it is important but another group might not. My opinion is that remove the NEP unless we wish to add other policies in the section. Furthermore, much of the mention of NEP seems to point to racial conflict and promotion of anti-racism. The politics section is not the right place for that. Bejinhan talks 14:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The original form of that paragraph was placed in economy, I adapted it and moved it to politics as I felt that the racial drivers of Malaysian politics are important, especially now that UMNO appears to be losing its power for the first time in history. NEP is the most obvious and well-known examples of racial laws, and the effects could be directly stated. However, I suppose it's fine to have it more generalized. I suppose the 1Malaysia policy could be mentioned, to balance it out. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'll remove the excessive detail there now and possibly rewrite to make it less NEP specific. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks good now. Bejinhan talks 11:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis undid a big edit I made, for only two of my changes. I'm reinstating them, with the two changes (s)he disliked removed. Please check the full extent of changes before you undo a big edit! 217.204.247.185 (talk) 14:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I undid the edits which I felt didn't improve the article. I fully checked the extent, and noted basic reasons in my reversion summary.

• Subsections are unneeded, they interrupt the flow.
• Adding another picture is not okay. The addition of the Agong already means there are too many pictures, even on my small screen. Adding the judiciary building makes the text sandwiching simply terrible.
• Detail on Ruler court I feel is unnecessary on this article, especially as it seems unsourced (If I've missed something in the constitution, I apologise)
• Somehow you've messed up the references, adding random strings to the title. Although they appear on reflinks, these strings (eg. BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | ) are not part of the title
• Most of the copyediting interrupted flow, and added things previously edited out (such as the word Malaysia). Readded one change, about Islam vs Secular.

Anyway, those are my arguments. Cheers, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You didn;t give me the time to remove the things you had trouble with! I had reverted to the original to conserve that editing which I wanted to put back in.

Here's my thruppence:

• I agree that subheadings may be unnecessary, and was removing them myself
• Likewise, the court picture is unnecessary (I hadn't thought of the issue of smaller screens)
• As to the sourcing of the Rulers' Special Court, the main constitution page is out of date, as the new art. 182, which creates the Special Court, is not reflected. That's for a future edit.
• Apologies for the messed up strings. I can't remember how I put them in - my mistake.
• I take the view that some sort of reference should be made to the various courts in Malaysia, and that any references should be clear and accurate. The "Federal Courts" is not a clear term, as it may be confuded with the Federal Court itself. There was no mention of subordainate courts, which I think is fairly important. It is also particularly interesting that Malaysia has a separate court for the Rulers - on that basis, some reference - even minor - should be made to it.

There we go - I hope that's helpful. Perhaps it's just my lawyer's brain being pedantic. I'll reinstate what I think are the essential edits tothe courts, and you can see what you think then.

Cheers! - "Concision & precision" 217.204.247.185 (talk) 14:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. Alright, so if you have good sources for the courts, add them into the current paragraph of the judiciary. I'm not fully familiar with the ins and outs of the judicial system. If the separate court for the rulers comes with a good source, a brief mention would be useful. I seem to remember one prince beat his golf caddy to death with a club because he missed a hole once, but whether that's true or not... Also, if you add things here, and they aren't in Politics of Malaysia, be good to have it in both!

Lastly, do you think that the picture of the Agong or the Prime Minister is more important? I'm thinking one may have to go. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering about that myself. I'm not sure. I'll come back on it if I come up with anything.

I also see you shifted the reference to cover the Special Court as well, which works. I'll add a ref to the revised constitution if I get around to fixing that. (I'm the same editor as above, fyi!) AStannard (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The current reference covers everything in the paragraph, but if the constitution has changed it should be fixed anyway. Welcome to wikipedia! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Vernacular languages

Is there a reason why it's there? If yes, why are there just English, Tamil, Mandarin and Cantonese? __earth ^(Talk) 23:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Deleted, much more trouble than it's worth. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Well i guess its meant to give outsiders more clarification that the country's multicultural. I have a suggestion: state the 4 main languages. All other chinese/indian dialects grouped under one. and indigenous languages labelled as "Dusunic languages".

So there'll be 6: Malay, English, Mandarin, Tamil, Chinese dialects, Indian dialects, Dusunic languages. What do you think o.o?Fookjian95 (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I see issues arising. Three examples:

• 1) Define "main language"
• 2) Why Mandarin and not Cantonese, especially considering southern languages are more widely spoken?
• 3) Stating dialects is tricky, some would say these are languages.

The outsider is more then welcome to see it is multicultural, they can read the lede. Throwing languages around in the infobox adds nothing. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Vernacular languages are basically mother-tongues. Mandarin and Tamil are basically recognized as medium of instruction in school systems of national level which are currently permitted under vernacular school system. Hence vernacular Mandarin, Tamil alongside official and semi-official Malay and English should be allowed atop the infobox. I shall proceed with a vernacular section in the infobox as we continue discussing.Acecon (talk) 12:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It's the general standard across country articles that only official languages belong in the top of an infobox. Can you source the designation of Tamil and Mandarin as Malaysian vernacular languages? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Seeing that this is the case, why don't we just throw in every language spoken in Malaysia? Honestly, what has languages used in school to do with the official language? Just because a language is used in school doesn't mean that it has to be in the infobox. And come on, this is the English Wikipedia. This is not a directory of languages. Bejinhan talks 12:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no 'legislation' against the use of vernacular languages in infobox per se. We should encourages efforts that aren't counter-productive. Wikipedia encourages democratization, hence its guidelines are flexible on such matters relating to petty stuff like placing of names on infobox. I suggest a collapsible list is appropriate here. Bejinhan, what are your reservations? Many other wikipedia english pages place vernacular languages in their infobox. languages of national importance should be allowed.

The Malaysian government have been for decades pursuing systematic marginalization against its minorities including culturally. Nevertheless, Mandarin and Tamil are still the medium/language of instructions in National-type vernacular schools nationwide which are under direct purview of the Ministry of Education, the vernacular system is integrated into mainstream education system which however does not include Chinese Independent schools and Islamic religious schoolsAcecon (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

If that's the case, why stop at Chinese and Tamil? Why not include every other language that's provided for under the national school syllabus? Of course that would mean Arabic, French, German, Iban, Kadazandusun, Punjabi et al. See the problem? The general consensus to date has been to use the English (at least for Wikipedia English) and the national language. Consensus can change, that's without a doubt, but until it does, I suggest no changes. - Bob K | Talk 01:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Acecon: firstly, no political agenda here, please. And like what Bob K says, why stop at Chinese and Tamil. We should have a list consisting of 10-20 other languages. I'd suggest you read [[1]] if you haven't. We have had a discussion on this before and unless the infobox rules clearly states that vernacular languages is a must inclusion, only the common or official name should be used. Besides, I don't really see the point of such changes. What is to be gained from it? What is your ultimate aim/goal regarding this? Bejinhan talks 03:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there are 3 languages taught in schools as elective subjects in addition to Tamil and Mandarin. (namely, Iban, Kadazandusun and Arabic). However that is inconsequential to my previous statement. I would like to reiterate that the vernacular school system under the Integrated Malaysian education system is exclusive to only Mandarin and Tamil. Mandarin and Tamil subjects are compulsory in such schools. Maybe I was unclear sorry, Vernacular in the sense that the main language used in schools (medium of instruction) are the two languages mentioned, whereby subjects are taught in mother-tongue;not malay.

Basically, there are no English, Iban, Arabic more so French or German vernacular streams under our national education system. International schools etc. are not government sponsored unlike Chinese/Indian vernacular schools. If i have not mistaken, about a quarter of all national schools are vernacular.

At the start of this discussion, Chipmunkdavis said he needed a guideline/standard and criteria for a dialect/language to be deemed vernacular and i think i gave him one. Acecon (talk) 10:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

This still makes the whole thing very subjective. The basic guideline of using the language of the Wikipedia edition and the official name should be retained. The other languages, while commonly used in Malaysia as well as in the school systems, have no official status in Malaysia. Anyway, this matter was previously debated here and I personally am not convinced of the merits of adding on two additional vernacular languages that serve no major purpose other than inviting controversy. - Bob K | Talk 10:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair Use for image of Malaysian Ringgit?

As i do not want to start a complete review, i put this comment to the talk page. Most images look fine copyright-wise, but http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1d/100_malaysia_ringgit_front.jpg has a very vague fair use rationale and its information is not directly relevant to the "economy" section, where the image is placed (actually the image of a currency has little information value except maybe for a currency article itself). ==> Could it be replaced with a better copyrighted image, which is related to the content of the economy text (f.e. photo of central transportation hub or maybe one of the core industrial facilities in Malaysia)? GermanJoe (talk) 13:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Palm oil taken from plantations form a significant part of the Malaysian economy

Would something such as the image to the right be more appropriate? Palm oil is regulated by a government body, and still plays a significant role. Also released into public domain. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks good for me, thank you for addressing the concern. A quick note though, the statement "At one time, it was the largest producer of tin, rubber and palm oil in the world" in the economy section isn't fully covered by source 115 (only tin is). I don't doubt, the fact is accurate, but you may want to add an additional source for the rubber and palm oil part. GermanJoe (talk) 16:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Malaysia/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SilkTork *^YES! 17:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I will look at this later and then start to leave some comments. SilkTork *^YES! 17:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• I note quite a few reverts of IP edits. I'll look more closely into this later to see if this article gets an undue amount of vandalism and so might benefit from semi-protection, or if there is some underlying edit warring going on. SilkTork *^YES! 23:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I note that differences of view are discussed on the talkpage, which is good. There may be a temptation to revert the work of IPs too quickly. IPs are valued contributors - and most Wikipedia editors started out editing as an IP. We must be careful not to revert them too quickly with an edit summary telling them to take any complaint to the talkpage. It may be better to have the discussion first. The only stuff that should be automatically reverted should be vandalism. It's a good mindset to get into. If unsure about a new edit, discuss it before reverting it. And if possible, edit out the edit rather than simply reverting it. That has less of an off-putting impact on the other person. We want to encourage people to take part, not chase them away. Anyway, as this is not a major issue (many articles have minor disputed edits), it's not going to hold up the review. SilkTork *^YES! 13:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• There is a problem with File:Yang di-pertuan agong ke-13.PNG, all other images are fine. SilkTork *^YES! 23:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

As the image has now been removed, the article passes on that criteria. SilkTork *^YES! 12:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Prose is clear and readable, conveying a lot of information in an immediate, attractive, authoritative yet neutral form. It is of a very high standard. SilkTork *^YES! 00:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Meets criteria for MoS issues. The structure/layout may need to be looked at to ensure a more logical organisation. Transport is not generally grouped under Economy, and the demographics sub-sections are normally sections in their own right. But these are considerations for further development - they are not serious enough to impact on the GA criteria. SilkTork *^YES! 12:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Sources. I'm checking sources, and I'm not sure [2] is a reliable source, and I'm uncertain about the use of a powerpoint slide to support popular sports in Malaysia - is there something else? These are my only quibbles - all other sources I checked were fine, and did support what was said in the article. I like when sources are available online, as that means readers can quickly confirm the contents and so gain confidence not only in this article, but in Wikipedia as a whole. I would suggest though, as part of ongoing development, that high quality sources be sought out. There are book and scholarly sources that could be used. SilkTork *^YES! 12:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Sources that I checked, such as BBC, World Desk, and CIA, covered largely the same information, and little significant material has been left out. Mention of these facts - such as that Malaysia has the death penalty - should be looked into, but that is fine detail, more appropriate for the comprehensive requirement of FA, and this article more than adequately covers the GA requirement of broad coverage. Indeed the selection and presentation of the material is very professional, and everyone involved should be commended. My quibble is the amount of material in some sections. That is always a careful balancing act - providing "enough" information, but not throwing too much at the reader, who essentially only wants an overview (more details can be found, after all, in the linked articles). Demographics, Governance, Geography and History may be rather large chunks, and all have sub-articles. The History section may be improved purely by breaking into two or three subsections. However, these, again, are questions for further development rather than something that will impact on this review. SilkTork *^YES! 13:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Pass

This is a very useful, readable and professionally presented article. One of the best articles I've encountered. Thanks and respect go out to all those involved, and an encouragement to get working on building up other articles. Well done. SilkTork *^YES! 13:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Disagree with the term "Melayu" origin

I am disagree with this:- "The word Melayu derives from the Sanskrit term Malaiur or Malayadvipa which can be translated as "land of mountains", the word used by ancient Indian traders when referring to the Malay Peninsula.[13][14][15][16][17] The term was later used as the name of the Melayu Kingdom, which existed between the 7th and the 13th centuries on Sumatra.[18]"

This is because the term "Melayu" is still debatable among historians and intellectuals. Besides, there are many theories regarding the origin of "Melayu".

Apart from claiming it derived from Malaya word in Sanskrit, there is also a theory that mentions the Melayu word originated from the Malay/Javanese word that is melaju/melayu(mlayu).

"Melayu or mlayu" in Javanese means "run", while in Malay, "melaju" means "to accelerate/fast". This was supported by the history record in the Malay Annals mentioning about the river name in Sumatera that is "Sungai Melayu" (Melayu River).

This was believed to be the river's characteristic, that simply meant the "swift/running river". From that characteristic of the river, it might be used by the tribe along the river and finally they raised a kingdom named "Melayu".

So, this article is biased. This is because the word "Melayu" is still debatable. If it is debatable, one should put some other theories and not taking one but rejecting the other theories. Master of Books (talk) 05:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Provide WP:RS and the information, if in compliance with WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE, can be added in. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for the origins of the term Malayu

I would like to propose the the most plausible origins to the word Malayu or any variant as below, please discuss to add to the main article.

The Etymology of Malay or Malayu goes back to the 7th century and is derived from what the Kshatriya ruling class of the Srivijaya Kingdom (the bunts and the Nairs), who were from South West region of India speaking Malayalam a Dravidian dialect named from Ancient times from Malaya Mountains where it originated. This is evidenced by the Balinese Kshatriya's who claim ancestral origin from south west India Kshatriya casts. Some historian promote that the word Melayu derives from the Sanskrit] term Malaiur translated as "land of mountains" which is erroneous since Sanskrit nor any other Prakrit has a similar word in context. During the time of the first unified Kingdom of the region the local people must have identified with the rulers and started to refer themselves as such, So when the European colonist first arrived the must have proclaimed themselves Malayu or any such other similar variant.--NoeticOne (talk) 09:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Cool story, but doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Refer to WP:OR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.80.118 (talk) 12:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

NoeticOne please provide reliable sources for that paragraph. Bejinhan talks 02:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Come on. The word Malay comes from Sanskrit, among with other plethora of words in the Malay language that we are using. The word Bahasa is also from Sanskrit by the way. We can't deny those roots. It is part of history. Yours faithfully, Kotakkasut. 14:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

::::Unless you can provide reliable sources, please note WP:OR. Bejinhan talks 10:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not original research, mind you. The statement is already in the article duh. Yours faithfully, Kotakkasut. 01:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I had you mixed-up with the IP poster. My bad. Bejinhan talks 06:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Holidays

Can any one find better sources for this chunk of text? I can't find any online, although I assume something must be out there somewhere, maybe in Malay?

"Muslim holidays are prominent in Malaysia, the most celebrated being Hari Raya Puasa (also called Hari Raya Aidilfitri),[200] (Malay for Eid al-Fitr). Hari Raya Haji (also called Hari Raya Aidiladha, the translation of Eid ul-Adha), Awal Muharram (Islamic New Year) and Maulidur Rasul (birthday of the Prophet) are also observed. Malaysian Chinese typically celebrate the same festivals observed by Chinese around the world, with Chinese New Year the most important. Hindus in Malaysia celebrate Diwali/Deepavali, the festival of light, while Thaipusam is a religious rite which sees pilgrims from all over the country converge at Batu Caves."

Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hari Raya Image

I see there's a bit of an edit war formenting here. The argument is that the established picture (showing the three children) does not accurately represent traditional Hari Raya dress. I'd be interested to know why that is. As an aside, there is a free image available at Flickr which might be a suitable alternative (although unfortunately the subject lacks the "cute" factor of the other two ).  — Amakuru (talk) 09:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there an alternative picture of a group of people or kids wearing traditional clothing during a festival? That way, we'll avoid all the hassle of having multiple pictures of the different races in their traditional clothing during holidays. Bejinhan talks 11:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The picture of the Malay boy holding a toy is low-quality and I don't think it'll be good to have it in the article... and the "cute" factor really doesn't have a place here because we want to show the costumes and not the child/children. Bejinhan talks 11:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I would propose Bejihan to recommend some photos because the first kids photos does not represent proper malay outfits for Hari Raya while the second one is very close despite the toy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.174.158.22 (talk) 11:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Please could you tell us in what way it does not represent the proper outfit? What is wrong with it? I have located another free Flick image here, which seems to be quite good quality. Would be intersted to hear if that, or the one linked above, represent the proper outfit as you see it?  — Amakuru (talk) 12:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I dislike the photo mainly for the toy. If that was removed, I'd probably accept the new picture even though the lighting is worse. It's just showing traditional dress with a chile holding some cheap lump of plastic is just weird, in my opinion. I believe the IP's problem is showin in this edit summary, meaning the original picture is missing, well, the hat for a start. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

As Bejinhan points out, the photo with the toy is of poor quality, so it should be removed.

Given that we don't have any articles that even mention what "proper outfits" might be, the argument is irrelevant as far as I can see. --Ronz (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Note the edit-warring is also occurring at Public holidays in Malaysia. --Ronz (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

What's With The Hatnote Edit War?

Seriously, its a standard template. 'nuf said. - Bob K | Talk 13:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Hatnote

Dear all, Malesia is not Malaysia biogeographical region Wikipedia:Hatnote, with regards IAN 125.166.182.92 (talk) 13:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand what that hatnote is for. It is not to say that the biogeographical area is called Malaysia, but to direct those who may erroneously search for it under the name "Malaysia" (they do sound similar) to the appropriate article. What part of WP:Hatnote are you referring to? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

This is common practice on Wikipedia - if two terms sound similar we place hatnotes, just in case a user ends up at the wrong one due to a spelling error. It does not imply that the two terms are actually related in any way. See, for example. Columbia and Colombia. Each one has a hatnote to the other, but they do not mean the same thing. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

What is so hard to understand? The template says: "This article is about the country." – Correct statement. It then says: "For the biogeographical region, see Malesia." – So if you were looking for Malesia, but spelt it incorrectly as Malaysia, you click the link. Why all the additions? Nothing else is needed. It's so simple. Please stop changing this. – SMasters (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

History

The reference(s) is/are required for this statement in the article under title 'History' --> Traders and settlers from India and China arrived as early as the 1st century of the common era, establishing trading ports and towns in the area in the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE. Both had a strong influence on the local culture. 61.8.222.58 (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)M; 10th march 2011

World War II

Can we get this hyperlinked to the article? World War II 71.100.179.107 (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to bring to attention on the last sentence under the subtopic history with following statement:

"In November 2007 two anti-government rallies occurred, precipitated by allegations of corruption and discrepancies in the election system that heavily favoured the ruling political party, National Front, which had been in power since Malaysia achieved its independence in 1957"

First of all, Malaysia was non existent in 1957. Only Malaya existed. Malaysia was formed in 1963. You cant give independence to a country that does not exist

115.134.239.63 (talk) 01:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC) Dr Sattian

 Done, thanks Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Removal of the line "The government discourages the use of Manglish, and has established fines for language it deems incorrect."

source: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003643.html

According to the source (which is a blog), public signs written in bad Malay can be fined after a single warning. This is just a case of the govt discouraging bad public signs and not bad English aka manglish.

The govt does not discourage manglish at all. You can use manglish in school, at home, in private, anywhere even in your work presentations, even on public signs as long as there is no broken Malay in your signs. I.e. you can write on a public sign "restaurant open big lah!" or "restaurant good food hor" or any computations of English with Chinese or Tamil as long as there are no broken Malay inside you will not be fined. The law is to discourage the use of bad Malay on signs and not bad English aka Manglish.

Manglish is pidgin English (where Eng is the superstrate) not pidgin Malay (where Malay is the superstrate). This law does not target signs with "manglish" but signs with bad Malay.

Chalk and cheese.

In fact I feel tempted to remove the mentions of Standard Malaysian English as well. As far as I know, English is not an official language in Malaysia so how can there be any Stnd Msian Eng when English is a foreign language in Msia.

If you can show me any campaigns to specifically eradicate Manglish which is bad ENGLISH, not bad MALAY, and not just on public signs but in all sectors of society, we can rv it back.

Cheers. Smilingfrog (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• Have you read this? Language log is a reliable source.

• In the source, it is clearly stated that In the case of Malaysia, the attempt to ban salad language. As you can read, it is the attempt to ban salad language and not public signage.

• The govt does not discourage manglish at all Please keep in mind WP:ORS and WP:RS.

As per those, I'm going to revert your change. Please check through all the facts before making erroneous claims. Thank you.

Bejinhan talks 02:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

What is written in the wiki does not even match what is written in the source. Read it. The salad language in the source mainly refers to bahasa rojak (malay superstrate with some english) and not manglish as written in the wiki. (english superstrate with some malay/chi/tamil)

From the source -> Locally, such Malay-English mingling is usually referred to as bahasa rojak, or "salad language" .

The wiki should write "The government discourages the use of Bahasa rojak (not Manglish), and has established fines for language it deems incorrect."

The law is to mainly fine signs that are written in bahasa rojak (bad malay) and not manglish (bad english). They are both salad languages but they are different. One is mainly malay the other is mainly english.

Signs written in bahasa rojak aka malay with chinese or tamil can be fined as well and these are definitely not manglish aka malaysian english as there is zero english inside. Signs written in pure manglish such as "Come in lah!" or "Nice food leh come hor!" will not be fined as long as there are no malay words inside. It is obvious the msian govt is just interested in protecting the use of its national language -- Malay. It doesn't care about discouraging manglish aka bad english at all as english is not even an official language in msia. In fact, they would rather you not use english, even pidgin english, at all.

At push, this can only be construed as the government discouraging bad signs or bad malay, nothing more.

Smilingfrog (talk) 07:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

"The particular offense that will be penalized is the commingling of Malay and English, which the AP notes is sometimes referred to as "Manglish" ..." Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Buddy, read the whole line. I quote from the source:

The particular offense that will be penalized is the commingling of Malay and English, which the AP notes is sometimes referred to as "Manglish" (a blend of Malay and English which implicitly suggests that any such mixture is a mangled version of one language or the other). Locally, such Malay-English mingling is usually referred to as bahasa rojak, or "salad language" (rojak being a spicy mix of fruits and vegetables popular in Malaysia).

The offense is USUALLY referred to as bahasa rojak and only SOMETIMES referred to as Manglish. I would take USUALLY over SOMETIMES, won't you?

Anyway, this is really a common sense thing. It doesn't make sense at all to say the Msia govt discourages bad English aka Manglish. They don't care if you use bad English aka Manglish on signs as long as it does not butcher the national language Malay. They are just interested in protecting the proper use of Malay that is all.

Cheers. Smilingfrog (talk) 11:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I did. I'm taking both sometimes and usually as statements of use, as well as paying attention to the word locally. If you can source your statements about the Malaysian government and bad english, please do. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The mistake you are making is you keep confusing Manglish (pidgin English) as Bahasa Rojak (pidgin Malay). They are two different languages with different superstrates. The law targets Bahasa Rojak and not Manglish. You also wrongly interpret the fining of badly written public signs as discouraging the use of a language in all aspects of daily life.

Buddy, I like most of the edits you have done but I think it is obvious that you do not have a basic knowledge of linguistics and probably are not getting my point anyway. I leave this to other more linguistically endowed people to judge.

Cheers, Smilingfrog (talk) 14:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

If you know much about Linguistics, you should know there is no concrete definition for what "Manglish" really is. We have a reliable source stating that Manglish is the same as Bahasa Rojak, so at any rate I'm not the one confusing the two, I'm just following the source. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Wrong, Manglish is well defined. Wrong again, you are not following the source, you are completely and utterly warping what is written in the source, that is my issue. The author (a lingust) of the source has already corrected the AP article that it is not Manglish and that "such Malay-English mingling is usually referred to as bahasa rojak". The author then goes on to dedicate the entire article about how the law is used to purify the national language Malay (not Manglish or English)

The main problem is you confuse Manglish as Bahasa Rojak and seem to think they are the same thing. They are not, one is based on English, the other is based on Malay. You are basically saying Singlish and Singdarin are the same thing as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahasa_Rojak The term Bahasa Rojak (Malay for "mixed language") defines the Malaysian practice of code-switching among two or more languages on a Malay base.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manglish Manglish (or sometimes Malglish or Mangled English) is an English based creole spoken in Malaysia.

I am sure a google search on both terms will find many more sources telling you Bahasa Rojak and Manglish are different and have different languages as their bases. Hope that helps!

Cheers, Smilingfrog (talk) 09:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

A quick google search finds sources saying the usages are mixed, so it doesn't help your case. As for the source, it doesn't correct AP at all, simply notes its statement. In no place does it say that what they are talking about is not Manglish. Once again, I'm not the one confusing anything, I'm directly reading the source. Maybe the Malaysian government thinks the English based creole will damage the use of Malay as well, who really knows. Not me, that would be WP:OR. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

As a PS, please properly indent your talkpage messages. It should go out each time to keep track of the conversation. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been watching this conversation. Smilingfrog, please, please stop that patronizing tone. Throwing wild accusations is not helping your case. Unless you can provide reliable sources, please do not attempt to push through a removal of the line. Bejinhan talks 12:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

English as an official language

Can anyone give references to the statement that says "English may continue to be used for some official purposes under the National Language Act 1967." If I'm not mistaken, I took Malaysian history last time and from what I learnt, English is official only until the year 1973, which is ten years after the Malaysia Day, after that date, the Malay language is the sole official language. I'm not sure about this though, will find sources later... Actually I'm confused myself, can someone clarify? Sorry and thank you so much in advance. Yours faithfully, Kotakkasut. 14:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Best source is to go back to the Act in question. Anecdotally, English was retained as an official language in Malaya from 1957 until 1967 when the National Language Act 1967 came into force. Nonetheless, the Malaysia Agreement signed by the Borneo states provided for the retention of English as an official language in those states until at least 10 years after the formation of Malaysia (Article 161 of the Malaysia Bill). - Bob K | Talk 16:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Economy

Text under ECONOMY says "29th largest economy in the world by purchasing power parity" but when clicking the link Malaysia is listed as 39th or 38th. You may also either use this link instead which is in line with the text statement: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)" Kindly have this corrected as it is misleading. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.211.218.253 (talk) 11:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The link in the Ecomony section appears to be the one you mention above, linking to the GDP (PPP) page:

In 2007, the economy of Malaysia was the 3rd largest economy in Southeast Asia and 29th largest economy in the world by purchasing power parity with gross domestic product for 2008 of $222 billion

And that page does indeed list Malaysia as 29th on the list from all three sources. The 39th/38th ranking is on the nominal GDP list, but I can't see any link to that list anywhere on the article.

Please could you clarify what is the problem here? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

In economy the statement is made that "In 2010 the GDP per capita (PPP) was $414.400 billion, the 3rd largest economy in ASEAN and 29th largest in the world." The use of the term "per capita" is incorrect in this context, as it refers to the total economic output of a country divided by the number of its inhabitants. The statement should instead read something like: "In 2010, GDP (PPP) was $414.400 billion, the 3rd largest economy in ASEAN and 29th largest in the world." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leudkiet (talk • contribs) 18:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Add Chinese and Tamil Language to the Country Name.

Could someone please help me to add Tamil to the country name ? Malaysia = மலேசியா

Thanks ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shatish (talk • contribs) 22:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

We have had this discussion a couple of times (or more) before. Please read Talk:Malaysia#Vernacular_languages. Bejinhan talks 02:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

That discussion doesn't seem to indicate any form of consensus. Why have the official languages been omitted? One would expect to see the name written in Malay, Jawi, Mandarin and Tamil (and their romanised forms), as well as in English. See the list of sovereign states for example. Nightw 11:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Malay is the only official language, and with English occasionally used. As Malaysia has no official long form name (it disappeared somehow), and as its Malay and English names are the same, the infobox just has "Malaysia". Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The Jawi script article states that it is official in Malaysia. Should it be added to the infobox? Nightw 11:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Malaysian National Language Act point 9 (found on page 7): "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." Jawi is allowed, but the official script is Rumi, which is basically the Latin alphabet. The Jawi script article is oversimplifying. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for clarifying that. Nightw 09:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Reference dates

Currently the article references are a mix of day month year written out (such as 7 May 2011) and year month day in numbers (such as 2011-05-07). I think most of the second kind are my fault for excessive use of reflinks early on. At any rate, they needs to be standardised. Is there any preference between the two? I'd prefer a change to the first option, more easily understood. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

First option, by all means. It's more commonly used. I can help change them. Anyone else disagrees with the first option? Bejinhan talks 11:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

First option then. I'll shift them as I edit, although of course anyone is free to edit! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Emblem of ASEAN.svg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Emblem of ASEAN.svg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?

Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Science and Technology in the Malaysian Economy

When I think of the Malaysian Economy, something I don't immediately think about is Science and Technology. The current Science and Technology subsection, I feel, is WP:UNDUE. If it needs to go into detail of military technology, it shouldn't be in a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE country article that is already above the WP:SIZERULE. The question is, should it be replaced by a more appropriate subsection or should there just be a summary of the different facets of the Malaysian economy? (what there currently is + maybe small expansions in some areas) I'd prefer the second option, especially as the Malaysian economy has diversified since the Mahathir era. Any strong opinions? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Asean Rail Express

I have again removed the line, "The Asean Rail Express is a railway service that connects Kuala Lumpur to Bangkok, and is intended to eventually stretch from Singapore to China." because the source given doesn't say this. If a reliable source can be found, please feel free to reinsert the text. Qwerta369 (talk) 14:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The source given is supposed to be http://www.mida.gov.my/en_v2/index.php?page=developed-infrastructure, but due to a reference name duplication (my fault) it was misplaced. Fixed now. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 110.159.146.12, 9 July 2011 (Change on largest city of Malaysia)

110.159.146.12 (talk) 08:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

 Not done please provide specific inclusion that requires changed. Monkeymanman (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Sultan Mizan Zainal Abidin visit Chile.png Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Sultan Mizan Zainal Abidin visit Chile.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 110.159.146.12, 9 July 2011 (Change on largest city of Malaysia)

Can we remove the text below from the biodiversity section? I doubt the reliability of the 80% estimation and the 2020 prediction (both sourced from the same book). Deforestation is indeed a problem, but it is unbelievable that 80% of Sarawak's 'rainforest' (undefined) has been cleared (from when to when? What about the protected areas, which are around 40-50% of forest in the region?). The section is fine without the estimates.

Over 80 per cent of Sarawak's rainforest has been cleared.[92] Floods in East Malaysia have been worsened by the loss of trees, and over 60 per cent of the Peninsular's forest have been cleared.[103] With current rates of deforestation, the forests are predicted to be extinct by 2020.[92] - 81.136.172.52 (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Sourced information isn't generally removed unless either a counter-source is found, or the reliability of the existing source is in doubt. Patently absurd statements and statements that aren't actually supported by the given source may also be removed. Do any of the preceding apply here? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 17:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Malaysian Squads.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Malaysian Squads.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Total Area

Malaysia is the 66th largest country by total land area. NO, it is 67th, pls update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.9.11 (talk) 03:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source for this. Bejinhan talks 04:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is 67th in the linked Wikipedia article. List_of_countries_and_outlying_territories_by_total_area Aidfarh (talk) 09:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Ethnicity

As much as I appreciate the recent Malaysian census statistics update, I think that ethnicity information in the infobox should be reverted back to the CIA source. As much as the Malaysian government would love to promote the Bumiputra as an ethnicity, closely related against those outsiders, it is not an ethnicity. It is an ethnic classification yes, but an umbrella one which includes groups which aren't closely related to each other. Malays should be separated from the Orang Asal. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Definitely. I did not notice this earlier. Thanks for pointing it out. Bejinhan talks 03:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

National Language Act 1967 and the status of English in M'sia

National Lang Act -> http://www.agc.gov.my/Akta/Vol.%201/Act%2032.pdf National Language Act 1967

According to the National Lang Act, English is not an official language, neither is it official for any purposes. It is therefore wrong to state that 'English may be used for some purposes' (denotes that English definitely can be used) or that 'English is official for some purposes' as previously written in the article.

The Language Act states very clearly that only Malay has official status and that English has zero official status. However, English may be permitted for (ad hoc) use for some purposes, such as during parliament discussions, or for other purposes within the state, if the speaker or the yang di pertuan agong agrees to let it be used.

Therefore, it should be written as 'English may be permitted for use for some purposes' i.e. English cannot be used in parliament unless the speaker explicitly agrees to it. These are important semantics differences. Therefore, I have made an edit.

Please feel free to discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smilingfrog (talk • contribs) 10:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've gotten your English grammar all mixed-up. If English usage may be permitted, this means that English may be used. Furthermore, I'd like to remind you that we are not supposed to copy directly from sources (copyvio, etc.). That was a paraphrase. I have reverted your edits. Bejinhan talks 10:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I have not got my grammar mixed up. If you had read the Language Act you would realise that I did not copy directly from it, but paraphrased it. And you have edited it to 'used for some purposes' now which denotes that it has official status and causes it to now become original research and unverifiable. That is wholly untrue and even worse than 'may be used for some purposes', which I can grudgingly accept. Please read WP:OR, Wikipedia:Verifiability. Many Thanks, Smilingfrog (talk) 15:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Smilingfrog, if you think "English may be used for some purposes" means that "English definitely can be used" than you have got your grammar mixed up. No official status is denoted, other than the fact that there are legal rules for how it may be used (which there are). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I have not got (yes 'got' not 'gotten', that is what the M'sian teenagers who have not got their grammar 'mixed-up' write. ;)) my grammar mixed up, that is exactly what the law says. The law states that the Speaker and King may permit the use of English in a few areas (English may or may not be used. The discretion lies with the Speaker of parliament and the King). However, if the law states that 'English may be used for these areas' without any further qualifications, which was how you wrote it, then it implies that if one chooses to use English in those areas, then English will be accepted. (English will 100% be allowed for use in those areas). It's about semantics. The best way to write it would be 'English may be used in some areas provided the King or Speaker allows it' or simply 'English may be permitted for use for some purposes'. I can grudgingly accept 'English may be used in some areas' although it implies the wrong thing. Cheers, Smilingfrog (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that you berate me for colloquial talk and then use "M'sian". Anyway, it currently doesn't say anything about usage in areas, just that it may be used. Further explanation does not belong in the infobox. We already have three other huge notes, which probably don't belong in the infobox either, no point adding a fourth. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Since when have I berated you for colloquial talk? That was directed towards Beijinghan, not you. And the current edit states 'Used in some areas' not 'May be used in some areas'. I can accept 'May be used in some areas' grudgingly.

It is quite a simple grammatical concept. If the law states 'You may drive with your eyes closed' (like how you have written it), then I can drive with my eyes closed whenever I want to. So if you write 'English may be used', then it means I can use English whenever I want to. However, that is not the case. If I want to use English, a foreign language, I have to be granted permission from the Speaker or King first, I can't just use it whenever I want to, hence, 'English may be used in some areas provided the King or Speaker allows it'. Peace out, Smilingfrog (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

You compared my grammar to a Malaysian teens! :p Although that could be a compliment, depending on the specific Malaysian teens. The current edit is "Used for some purposes", not areas. Are you proposing the change to the field or footnote? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I compared your grammar to a Malaysian teen! But I was referring to Beijinghan! Haha. Yeah, I am referring to the field not the footnote. At least change it to 'May be used in some areas' not 'Used in some areas' as it is now. Peace out, Smilingfrog (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Area

The infobox states Malaysia is 66th, whereas the article List of countries and outlying territories by total area states 67th. Surprisingly, others iwiki are in the same situation... Zandr4^[Kupopo ?] 07:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I suspect this was never updated after South Sudan. Thanks, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Official scripts in Malaysia

I am changing the official scripts to the 1. Rumi and 2. Jawi scripts, as per written in the M'sian constitution here -> http://www.agc.gov.my/Akta/Vol.%201/Act%2032.pdf

The Rumi script is almost entirely similar to the Latin script however there are a few slight differences. The constitution states Rumi is official not Latin, so for M'sia's case, Rumi is more appropriate.

And yes Chipmunk, Jawi is 100% official as well, and Jawi is very much used in signboards all over Malaysia.

Malaysian National Language Act point 9 (found on page 7): "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."

Smilingfrog (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

By bolding the second part you must have missed the first part which says "The script of the national language shall be the Rumi script". The fact other scripts can be used doesn't make them official. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I am glad you agree it states Rumi not Latin is official, so I am changing it to such.

The constitution does not state that Rumi is official, it simply states that Rumi shall be the script used, provided it does not prohibit the use of the Jawi script. In plain simple English, both scripts are official. Rumi can be seen all over Malaysia, especially in some states.

Smilingfrog (talk) 14:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You have a very tenuous understanding of plain simple english. That clause provides an exception, not a rule. Furthermore, Rumi script is basically just latin. Read the Rumi script page (i mean redirect). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

Firstly, you have broken the 3 revert rule by reverting my edit 3 times within 24 hours. WP:3RR

Secondly, the constitution does not state any official script, but it states that Rumi shall be used only if Jawi is not suppressed. Both scripts are official.

Thirdly, Rumi is the word used in the constitution, not Latin. Why do you insist on writing Latin? Bahasa Malaysia and Bahasa Indonesia are almost the same as well, do you want to write Malaysia's national language as Bahasa Indonesia?

Smilingfrog (talk) 14:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Opps, mistake, seems like you are one edit short of breaking WP:3RR. I will rv you one more time, if you rv me again, you would have broken the rule.

Smilingfrog (talk) 15:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree that these changes are "pointy" and unnecessary. That's not the important point here, though. There's a discussion going on right here - and no consensus has been reached. When consensus is reached, some (or no) changes to this material may be made. Until such time, they should not. That's fairly clear, I would think. Counting reverts, and playing brinksmanship with 3RR is not the way to settle a disagreement. Read WP:BRD. You may wish to familiarise yourself with this, too: "The three revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." (from WP:WAR) Begoon ^talk 15:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not the one starting an edit war. I am the one who started this discussion to reach a concensus and have posted most in this discussion. If I wanted to edit war, I wouldn't have started the discussion, much less post so much to attempt to reach a consensus, would I? While the other editor, User:Chipmunkdavis, has only posted one illogical line and been reverting all my edits at will since.

I am not following the logic here. Rumi is the same as Latin so Malaysia's official script becomes the Latin script despite the constitution stating:Malaysian National Language Act point 9 (found on page 7): The script of the national language shall be the Rumi script. Bahasa Indonesia is the same as Bahasa Malaysia, so why not you change Malaysia's national language to Bahasa Indonesia as well? Smilingfrog (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

My apologies - I misread the diffs - I thought the edit I reverted changed quite a bit more than "Rumi" related stuff - it didn't really - it just added a sourced passage on conversion and Sharia Law that seems perfectly reasonable. That makes me the idiot here. You can look in the history of this comment to see what I thought had changed when looking at the diffs - that should reveal the full extent of my idiocy here...

My comments on edit warring were inspired purely by the posts seeming to imply that reverts were being counted so as to leave someone in the position of needing to "break a rule" to revert again.

I don't know if "Rumi" should be stated as "official". That's what this discussion is for. I do know that I hate to see any kind of edit warring on a good article like this. My sincere apologies for my stupid error. Begoon ^talk 21:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Just wish to point out that Chipmunkdavis seems to be showing signs of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles on a few articles including this one (Malaysia). And I was concerned about Chipmunk showing signs of [wikihounding] for a bit when he [reverted these edits of mine on another article with an illogical line)] on 16:29, 5 December 2011, which is just minutes after he reverted four of my edits [revert 1] [revert 2] [revert 3] [revert 4] on this article (Malaysia) just 1-2 hours outside the 24 hr window period ([Please note the 3 revert rule...any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation.]). But he seems to have stopped and I think that is a good thing. Smilingfrog (talk) 11:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok - but since we're all talking now, and we obviously all just want a better article, let's just all carry on taking User:Yk Yk Yk's excellent advice below, and look forwards, instead of backwards. I think we'd all prefer to be making some good edits than wikilawyering. Again, sorry for the "pointy" comment I made above - based on my own silly misunderstanding. Begoon ^talk 11:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion 2.0

Ok, let's tone down the condescension on both sides here and give the discussion a fresh start. This is the bone of contention:

Script of national language
9. 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.

–National Language Acts 1963/67

It certainly does imply that Rumi is the primary script, though to call it official would seem a stretch, unless a source from a legal expert can be quoted. However, I would also note that Islam is called the "religion of the Federation" in the Constitution, and this is taken by nearly everyone since 1957 to mean that Islam is the official religion. So it really depends on what the conventional wisdom is. Without any additional sources, I would strongly hesitate to call the Rumi script "official". —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 19:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I take anything in the constitution to be official, and so officially the script of the national language is Rumi. But yes, you're probably right sources would help. From scholar I got "In this paper we explore young children’s spelling errors in Rumi, an alphabetic syllabic script used to represent Bahasa Melayu (also known as Standard Malay), the official language for writing in East and West Malaysia" in full view. From a google snippet I get "it was replaced by the "Ejaan Yang Disempurnakan" or "Perfected Spelling", the official spelling system in Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei (Vik~r 1988: 11-27). Although far less widespread than the Roman script (or "Rumi ...", which also shows the Rumi script is basically the Roman script. I'm sure others are out there, but national scripts probably aren't that much of a topic of interest. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

There are slight differences between the Rumi and Latin script. The Latin script can have Diacritics like these: à, á, â, ã, ç, é, ê, í, ó, ô, õ, ú (as in the case of French etc) and Typographic ligatures like these: Œ and œ. The Rumi script for Bahasa Malaysia on the other hand, obviously can never have such things. At the end of the day, the constitution states Rumi, I personally don't see how this can be controversial. But I will respect any general consensus reached. Smilingfrog (talk) 10:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The latin script is old, and has many variants, of which Rumi is one. Diatrics differ between each form of the script used. Anyway, you have never asked to change what is in the infobox to Rumi, but to change it to both Rumi and Jawi, which is controversial. Do you want to change it to Rumi? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a reliable source that provides a neutral POV?

I made an edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malaysia&diff=464240739&oldid=464239993[| here] stating WP:NPOV but User:Chipmunkdavis reverted it stating something irrelevant -- 'WP:NPOV has nothing to do with sources'.

There source is from an opposition leader, which is used to support the line 'there is very little freedom of the press, leading to very little government accountability'.

I am just curious, does User:Chipmunkdavis think that the words of an opposition leader 'there is very little freedom of the press, leading to very little government accountability' is from a neutral point of view? WP:NPOV. And does this source satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability? Cheers, Smilingfrog (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your removal. Political parties are not reliable sources about governance standards in their countries. If we could find the same thing said by a range of reliable academics, it might be different. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree. A middle way would be to say "opposition figures argue that there is lack of freedom of the press..." Btw, legislations is incorrect, it's legislation; can you correct that please, Mkativerata? —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 19:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Done: I've simplified "legislation(s)" to "laws". --Mkativerata (talk) 19:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe 'Legislations such as the Printing Presses and Publications Act has also been cited as curtailing freedom of expression' as I have edited [| here] is correct grammar. You can't write a singular noun before 'such as', it has to be plural, i.e. legislations. If there is only one legislation, then you should just write 'the legislation Printing Presses and Publications Act has also been cited as curtailing freedom of expression'. Feel free to discuss and edit. Cheers, Smilingfrog (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

No, legislation is singular and plural. But the change made by Mkativerata works. —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 20:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, feel free to look at [this (Singapore article)] if you are free and leave me your comments. It was reverted by Chipmunkdavis and Dave1185 without any discussion as usual. Esp Yk Yk, since you are knowledgeable about M'sia and it concerns M'sia. Many thanks. Smilingfrog (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

To satisfy your curiosity Smilingfrog, sources don't satisfy WP:V, they satisfy WP:RS. WP:V is satisfied by a correct representation of the RS in the wikipedia prose. NPOV is also related to the prose on wikipedia, not to what someone says outside of wikipedia. Legislation is plural.

While there is the urge to take with great suspicion the DAP statement, there's no real doubt Malaysia is not a very transparent country. This source sums up a few studies, "The state of affairs of Malaysian government transparency and accountability have been captured by several worldwide studies...generally indicated Malaysia needs to put rigorous effort into improving its accountability and transparency...this makes it quite difficult for citizens to hold the government accountable for its management of the public's money." (pg 136)

I do see room for a change, although removing the entire source and only part of the sentence isn't that productive. Would it be worth replacing that sentence with Malaysia's freedom of the press index position ([http://freedomhouse.org/images/File/fop/2011/FOTP2011GlobalRegionalTables.pdf 143, not free)? I think Yk Yk Yks idea of noting the oppositions claims would be beneficial for showing a political viewpoint in addition to removing any undue weight I have given to the DAPs statements. I remember Najib Razak made a statement about reforming media controls etc a a few month ago, due to the economist incident, so the government doesn't deny censorship. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, like editors Yk Yk Yk and Mkativerata, I disagree that an opposition leader's words can satisfy WP:NPOV no matter one tries to spin it. I guess we have reached a general consensus on this one.

PS: You seem to be showing Wikipedia:Ownership of articles on a few articles including this one (Malaysia). And I was concerned about you showing signs of [wikihounding] for a bit when you [reverted these edits of mine on another article with an illogical line)] on 16:29, 5 December 2011, which is just minutes after you reverted four of my edits [revert 1] [revert 2] [revert 3] [revert 4] on this article (Malaysia) just 1-2 hours outside the 24 hr window period ([Please note the 3 revert rule...any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation.]). But you seem to have stopped and I think that is a good thing. Smilingfrog (talk) 10:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring the Ownerhips/hounding/3rr warning you seem to have placed in multiple locations, Yk Yk Yk and Mkativerata have not made any comment in regards to a sources NPOV, as that relates to our text, not the sources. They have questioned the source as an RS in regards to the statement made. Do you have any comments on Yk Yk Yk's suggestion or mine above? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

New king is crowned on December 12, 2011

I do not have the privileges to edit this article, it seems. Sultan Abdul Halim of Kedah was crowned as the king of Malaysia on December 13, 2011, succeeding Mizan Zainal Abidin of Terrengganu. I hope those who have the privileges update this page quickly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thljcl (talk • contribs) 16:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Constitution

The lead originally said that the "The secular constitution declares Islam the state religion while protecting freedom of religion", but secular was removed. I think that the contrast of the constitution based off secular laws (based largely in fact off English law) with a state holding an official religion that is becoming completely islamised is one of the more important points of Malaysia. Removing secular removes this contrast. Now while there is some debate about it, from what I've read the debate isn't about the constitution per se. There is a general agreement that the constitution is written in a secular fashion; the debate is whether it prevents Islamic legislation, or whether the country should take on an Islamic identity despite its secular constitution. The government historically noted Malaysia as an Islamic secular democracy (although with recent election issues it has changed tack slightly), which is the contrast including secular showed. I think secular should stay to illustrate this contrast. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree. Look up the meaning of secular. It means being separate from religion. A perusal of the Malaysian constitution clearly indicates that this does not apply. Not only is Islam the official religion, the constitution also empowers Parliament to make laws regulating Islamic religious affairs. It also allows public money to be spent in establishing and maintaining Islamic institutions, and restricts propagation of religions other than Islam. These are all features contrary to secularism. Aidfarh (talk) 02:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

So far all judicial interpretations by Malaysian courts have upheld that the Federal Constitution is a secular document. Its not about personal interpretation and understanding of what "secular" mean or doesn't mean, but how the Federal Constitution functions as the supreme law of the country. Ie. IMHO, there is space for religion and the public exercise thereof within a secular framework, but that's just my personal opinion. I can't use that as a basis for asserting that any document is secular without some verifiable sources. - Bob K | Talk 11:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

"So far all judicial interpretations by Malaysian courts have upheld that the Federal Constitution is a secular document." - Citation needed. Aidfarh (talk) 01:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Che Omar bin Che Soh v. Public Prosecutor (1988) 2 MLJ 55, Teoh Eng Huat v. Kadhi, Pasir Mas & Anor (1990) 2 MLJ 300, Minister for Home Affairs, Malaysia & Anor v Jamaluddin bin Othman (1989) 1 MLJ 418, and Shaik Zolkaffiky Shaik Natar v Majlis Agama Islam Pulau Pinang (1997) 3 MLJ 281 are some examples in which the primacy of secular interpretation of the law was established over Islamic law. In Shaik Zolkaffiky v Majlis Agama Islam Pulau Pinang, the judgement explicitly upheld the separation between the civil courts and the Syariah courts, a separation that was imposed by secular civil law - specifically the Constitution (Amendment) Act 1988. Copies of the Malayan Law Journal can be found at any decent public library. And one also has to take into account the following from the Reid Commission:

We have considered the question whether there should be any statement in the Constitution to the effect that Islam should be State religion. There was universal agreement that if any such provision were inserted it must be made clear that it would in any way affect the civil rights of non-Muslims. In the memorandum submitted by the Alliance it was stated – “the religion of Malaya shall be Islam The observance of this principle shall not impose any disability on non-Muslim nationals professing and practising their own religions and shall not imply that the State is not a secular State.”

as well as Article 8 of the Federal Constitution that states that "all persons are equal before the law and entitled to equal protection of the law" and "there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground only of religion, race, descent or place of birth", giving no specific preferences to any persons by virtue of religion. The provisions on Islam in Federal Constitution merely acknowledges the cultural and historical significance of Islam in Malaysia and provides for the framework for the state's funding and administration of such. - Bob K | Talk 03:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Presumably none of the above cases you cited are available online, and I don't foresee myself going to a library and skimming through law journals just to clarify a point in Wikipedia, so I'll give this matter a rest for now. Maybe in 20 years after I retire and have lots of free time I'll make the trip and then we can resume this debate. I just want to say for the record that I still think the word 'secular' as adjective to 'constitution' is unnecessary and serves no purpose other than propaganda. Cheers. Aidfarh (talk) 09:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, although I am pretty sure that wasn't your original contention and I would surmise that the deliberate removal of the adjective secular could also serve only as propaganda. - Bob K | Talk 16:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

So what do you think my original intention was? Honestly, my only intention is to keep the article neutral. If the word 'secular' is removed it would simply read, "The constitution declares...". It's completely factual and non-emotive. How is that propaganda? Aidfarh (talk) 02:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The perception was most probably coloured by your original response above. - Bob K | Talk 03:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what you mean by that. Probably? You're not sure what coloured your own perception? Aidfarh (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Minor Edit

I'm a newbie and I'm not really sure where to put this, but I found a typo in the second paragraph of the Religion section after the word "Penang" There is no space between the period and the first word of the next sentence. I would fix this myself but I don't have authority to do so. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AsphyxiateDrake (talk • contribs) 03:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Space added, cheers, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 05 January 2012

Add foreign language to the name of the country, ie, in Mandarin Chinese, in Arabic, and in Tamil

Edit request on 7 February 2012

I notice there is some minor error on the information given about the drivers' position.

Drives on the: Left .

The correct drivers side should be on the Right.

120.140.72.89 (talk) 15:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, unless it recently changed and this is out of date: [3] seems to say the Left. Begoon ^talk 15:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Ahh... I think I see what you meant now. No, it doesn't refer to the side the driver sits on - it's the side of the road you drive on in the country. :-) Begoon ^talk 15:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Etymology

Just to clarify for those who are not aware of Indian languages. The words for hill in Sanskrit are either giri (see giri) or aga (as in the sage Agastya). The word 'malai' is of Tamil/Malayalam origin as in Sabarimala or Tiruvanamalai, the word malai in Indo-aryan languages mean 'cream', (see malai). Furthermore, the word dvipa is of Sanskrit origin as in Maldives or Laccadives while ur is of Malayalam/Tamil origin as in Malaiyur or Tiruchendur. I can confidently say that the cittations given are either inaccurate or misguided.

I am sure you can get quite a few references from here:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=malai+dravidian&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest#q=malai+ur&hl=en&client=opera&hs=rN7&rls=en&channel=suggest&tbm=bks&psj=1&ei=utlLT6bVOZHY0QWWmNDJBw&start=20&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=efb2f06df9485725&biw=1067&bih=598

Hope I was of help.

--90.216.67.137 (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistency in Cities Population

I have read Malaysian entry for a few times and I found out that the population of cities changes very often. Just last year, they said that Johor Bahru is the second largest city, with population close to 1 million. Now, it has been changed to less than 5oo,ooo. What's with the big fluctuation? Noteworthy too, Johor Bahru is not the unique one. Almost all cities population in this page is different from the number of population in their individual entry. For example, in this page, Kuantan has population of 356,153; however, in the Kuantan entry, it has population of 1 507,778! Could someone fix this inconsistency because it's just misleading readers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.52.27.17 (talk) 02:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Panoramic view of Kuala Lumpur

File:Http://www.chessbase.com/news/2010/kualalumpur03.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.48.168.99 (talk) 04:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Panoramic view of Kuala Lumpur

I would like to suggest we should upload more panoramic view of our cities especially the night view of Kuala Lumpur. The pictures should be more quality to attract confidence in our beloved country. Please upload more pictures and perfect it with love to our country. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jianee89 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

To upload such pictures, they must be taken and uploaded to Commons under the free use category. If you would like to take the panoramic pictures, you can upload them to Commons. I can help you if needed. Bejinhan talks 13:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Just as a note, wikipedia articles are encyclopaedia articles, and are meant to inform. If a picture is informative, it should be included, if not, it shouldn't, as pictures aren't just for decoration. If a panorama does nothing more than show a pretty picture, it can be included on commons, but in no way should be placed into any article other than perhaps one of its specific subject. CMD (talk) 13:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not right

"(Islamic laws passed by the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party in state legislative assemblies have been blocked by the federal government.[63])"

The above sentence are total defamation. Federal government had never blocked it, not in the parliament, not by judicial action, just never211.25.129.2 (talk) 06:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The source is about a specific incident in which the federal government vowed a veto, reported by the BBC. If you have sources that state otherwise, please present them here. CMD (talk) 10:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

For me its really wrong to write that "have been blocked by the federal government" since the BBC itself do not wrote that word. The use of vowed are not confirmatory which make the sentence use inside the wikipedia seems to me rather defamatory toward the federal government. Well its also not the practice of the federal government to vetoed any state laws. It is the power and interpretation of the court which is more encouraging facts.thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.38.136.2 (talk) 02:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

How is blocking something defamatory? Anyway, myself and others would be happy to change if you can provide a news report or official document and the like with another take on the situation. CMD (talk) 07:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Its defamtory when we accuse people something of what they did'nt do. Federal government had never blocked it as what written in the wikipedia. This had never judicially proven or supported by any parliament motion. And if the article of the BBC stand as support for your writing in wikipedia, I supposed that the word use of "vowed" again does not reflect confirmatory act of "blocking" suggested through wikipedia.I cant provide such document or material that support the government "did'nt do something" while there are no such evidence to support that government had "done such thing" in the first place as written in the wikipedia. I beg you to consider this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.38.136.2 (talk) 01:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, the federal government considered it unconstitutional. There was some sort of court case on it, and apparently the law has been suspended indefinitely, although some still want to implement it. CMD (talk) 07:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 August 2012

File:Metropolis kuala lumpur.jpg

Kuala Lumpur is a metropolis city

Description: Just adding more beautiful picture, because this picture shows Kuala Lumpur is like a metropolis city. Mimiaww (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

 Not done. This article isn't meant to just be beautiful, but informative. Such images are available on the Kuala Lumpur article. CMD (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Closing as not done per Chipmunkdavis. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 18:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Olympic medal

Malaysia's Olympic medals are not all from badminton anymore. Pandelela is the first woman to win an Olympic bronze medal in the 2012 London Olympics in the 10m platform diving event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexacsf (talk • contribs) 10:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

How about a "Malaysians" article?

I know "Malaysians" are a nationality, not an ethnic group. Wikipedia has articles on other "national" groups such as Americans and British or even Indians, why not make one for Malaysians/Indonesians as well? PacificWarrior101 (talk) 16:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

I can't think of anything that wouldn't fit in Demographics of Malaysia. There is an ethnic Indian identity, and a British one of some sort, although politics have changed them both. CMD (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

40% of world trade

From the Geography section: "The Strait of Malacca .. is one of the most important thoroughfares in global commerce, carrying 40 per cent of the world's trade". I find this impossible to believe, even though it accurately reports what is in the source cited. Maybe with the words "international" and "maritime", it would be credible. Maproom (talk) 15:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Etymology: "Malaiur" CANNOT be a "Sanskrit term"

I was puzzled by the reference to "Malaiur" as a Sanskrit term, grouped along with "Malayadvipa", with the meaning given as "land of mountains". "Malai" is clearly of a Dravidian origin. To the extent that it has been found in Sanskrit literature (such as the word "Malayadvipa"), it has clearly made it there from one of the Dravidian sources, if it is to refer to mountains.

I request that this section be modified suitably. I also think that the sentence "Other theories propose it originates from the Tamil word Malai, meaning "mountain".[19]" needs to be changed, since the Dravidian root for the word "malai", meaning "mountain" seems to be primary.

Therefore, this section, needlessly (and incorrectly) referring "Malaiur" as "Sanskrit", and then mentioning "Other theories ...." has to be rearranged accordingly. "Tamil" can safely be substituted for "Dravidian", since the use of "malai" in other languages such as Malayalam clearly has a Tamil origin. Also, if "Malaiur" is to be mentioned, it is more correctly spelled as "Malai-ur" or "Malaiyur" so as to match the pronunciation.

Thank you for the consideration. I am not at all familiar with the correct "format" for requesting such a change, so please excuse if this is not the correct "format" for such a request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harishkr (talk • contribs) 05:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Changes should only be made if they are supported by outside WP:Reliable sources. If you have any, please provide them here. Thanks, CMD (talk) 12:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)