Talk:Malaysia/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Chinese, Jawi, Tamil scripts

We need a proper consensus on what to include in the lead and infobox. Previous discussions on this matter in this talk archive seem to be hanging. Personally i think there should be no other scripts in the lead section cos it will look MESSY, with 3 different scripts probably using up one paragraph of the lead. In the infobox i might be open towards including Chinese, Jawi, Tamil, etc. But i still prefer having no alternative scripts. kawaputra^torque 04:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It has already been discussed. The discussion could be read at Talk:Malaysia/Archive_2#Official_languages.3F __earth ^(Talk) 10:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah sorry for my edit. I didn't check the talk page - just saw "(Chinese: chinese characters)" <--- that's a mess and so I thought something's wrong with that hence the wikification. — Yurei-eggtart 10:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

HINDRAF link

To user Earth: I am sorry; I am new to wikipedia. Why should we not link to the HINDRAF article when we mention it in the history section? I thought this was a minor correction when I made it yesterday, but I see you have reverted it back without any comment. Can you help me understand why you did it? Thank you very much! Kltiger (talk) 02:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

There was a flurry of edit on the GDP which doesn't match citation as well as an useless sentence on language. When I saw the edit history, I just reverted back to the user which I most trusted just to save time. I apologize for reverting your edit if it is legitimate. __earth ^(Talk) 04:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I made the edit again. We'll see how it goes this time haha Kltiger (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Summary cleanup

There was a "clarify" tag on part of the summary at the top. I tried to clear it up to make it easier to read while maintaining the same level of information. As this is a summary it's tough to judge how much information should be here; the area certainly has a long history and we don't want to leave out a critical detail, but the summary should be clear and logical enough that a reader knowing nothing about the area or previous colonies/federations can understand how the parts of the modern country came together. This still needs a copy edit and a bit of cleanup, but please try to keep it short and readable. There is an entire history section below, and details can and should go there. RabidDeity (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Arabs Arrival

as i know and according to what i read in the Islamic universty of Malaysia that there is an arab people in Yemen called Hadrami, broght the Islam to malaysia, and i can't see here something about that. just wondring !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egyption 4eva (talk • contribs) 01:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Those of Arab (mostly Yemeni) origin identify themselves almost exclusively as Malays now due to long history of inter-marriages with Muslim Malays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anggerik (talk • contribs) 15:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Education

Just a passing comment, there is no such thing as British Curriculum or British A levels. The 2 primary education systems within Britain are the Scottish and English systems which have numerous differences right down to exam types, end qualifications and teaching requirements. This means that there is no such thing as a "British" Curriculum and the Malaysian references will probably mean either English or Scottish systems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.8.248.2 (talk) 13:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Demographics

Shouldn't the article mention the Dutch community in Malaysia? Source on the Dutch Malay community: dutchmalaysia.net/malacca_and_ceylon_dutch.html--69.234.188.144 (talk) 19:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be okay to add on, not Dutch though, but Eurasians in general might be more suitable.Mhching (talk) 10:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Cuisine

At the cuisine section, I found out they put 62% of the population is Malay. It shouldn't be 62%. From what I know, Malay accounts for less than 60%. If Bumiputeras = 62%, it's logical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinangjawa (talk • contribs) 22:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Peninsula vs. Peninsular

I've skimmed through the article and I've noticed some confusion over the usage of Peninsula versus Peninsular. Peninsula without the 'r' is a noun and Peninsular with the 'r' is an adjective. It is the Malay Peninsula, not the Malay Peninsular. It is Peninsular Malaysia, not Peninsula Malaysia. Also, capitalization is inconsistent whenever the Peninsula (not Peninsular) is mentioned. Please be mindful of capitalization. Keep Peninsula capitalized even on its own, i.e. without "Malay" in front of the "Peninsula". Peninsular standing on its own should be spelled with lower case. __earth ^(Talk) 01:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Religion

I think it is best to mention that the religions are widely divided into ethnic groups, for example Malays are Muslims, Chinese are Buddhists and Indians are Hindus, it is really an important information, which shows Malaysia is also a diverse multi religious ethnic society. I provide that information with sources, but gets removed instantly! You can challenge the source by putting unreliable source?, but you cannot remove an information. Mohsin (talk) 12:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The source which you offered is promotional in nature, in direct violation of WP:QS. Besides, how could a travel site of unknown reputation be an authority in demographics? __earth ^(Talk) 12:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The information is actually correct, plus there are probably sources present of that information. If you do not want that information for a reason we will never know, then please do say so. Mohsin (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. It is a bad stereotyped over-generalisation at best. The 2000 Population and Housing Census Report published by the Department of Statistics would show a much more diverse religious affiliation. Take for example Christianity. It's adherents consists of Bumiputeras (63.74%), Chinese (27.47%), Indians (6.59%), and other ethnicities (2.20%). This is quite a significant variant from the stereotype where between 8-10% of the main ethnic communities would be included in the number, with those communities collectively lumped under Others counting up to 17% of their population as adherents. You will see similar variants from the report in all religions, albeit with different quantums. - Bob K | Talk 13:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

For Christianity it is different. The main ethnic groups are the Malays, the Chinese and the Indians. In all of these three groups, they mainly follow a different religion. Mohsin (talk) 13:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You will find that that Islam is mainly followed by the ethnic Malays. You will find that Buddhism is predominantly followed by the Chinese, and Hinduism of whom majority are followed Indians. That is based on the statistics and facts. Mohsin (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Who's fact? Travel website's fact? Kindly find more credible source, like from the government, recognizable organizations or from reputable publications. And you haven't answer the question: how could a travel site of unknown reputation be an authority in demographics? __earth ^(Talk) 13:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The travel organizations probably obtained that information from the government statistics or something. It is very well known information in Malaysia. Buddhism was obviously brought from China, and that followed by the Chinese. Hinduism brought by India, which is followed by the Indians. Islam was brought to the Malays by the Arabs. 5 sources provided. Mohsin (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I have provided another source focusing on the Chinese minority in Malaysia. The Census does not record information between religions and ethnic groups. But currently has data of Chinese, mainly following Buddhism, Taoism and Chinese religions (at over 50%), a few Confucianism and Christianity as well. They are very well backed with sources. Mohsin (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The official statistics from the Department of Statistics (with the latest adjustments released in 2005 - newer than the stats I quoted above) indicates the following :

Religion	Citizens						Non-Citizens
	Bumiputra
	Total	Malay	Other Bumiputra	Chinese	Indian	Others
Islam	88.7%	100.0% *	36.3%	1.0%	3.8%	64.9%	82.1%
Buddhism	0.1%	NA	0.8%	75.9%	1.2%	17.1%	3.4%
Christianity	8.9%	NA	50.1%	9.6%	7.7%	13.6%	10.6%
Hinduism	> 0.05%	NA	0.1%	0.3%	84.5%	23%	1.8%
Confucianism/Taoism	> 0.05%	NA	0.1%	10.6%	0.1%	0.2%	0.3%
Folk Religions	1.2%	NA	7.0%	0.1%	0.1%	> 0.05%	> 0.05%
Other Religions	0.2%	NA	1.4%	0.2%	2.1%	0.7%	0.3%
None Reported	0.8%	NA	4.3%	2.3%	0.6%	1.1%	1.5%
* Note: To be recognised as a Malay under Article 160 of the Constitution of Malaysia, a person must be an adherent of Islam. This figure may not reflect the actual numbers if applied to people who self identify as Malays.

The situation on the ground does seem more complex than what your original paragraph would imply. I would suspect that the Department of Statistics trump other anecdotal sources in terms of verifiability and reliability? - Bob K | Talk 16:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Mohsin, you said "The travel organizations probably obtained that information from the government statistics or something. It is very well known information in Malaysia. Buddhism was obviously brought from China, and that followed by the Chinese. Hinduism brought by India, which is followed by the Indians. Islam was brought to the Malays by the Arabs. 5 sources provided". Technically Buddhism and Hinduism predated the introduction of Islam by Indian and Arab traders and missionaries in the Nusantara, Malaysia included, and some indigenous practice of those faiths still existed when the Chinese and Indian immigrants began emigrating to the Malay Peninsular and Borneo from the beginning of the First Millenium CE (if you're considering small scale emigration) or the 18th - 20th century (if you're considering large scale emigration). - Bob K | Talk 16:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Great finding on the statistics Bobk. Looking from those statistics, it clearly does show that the Chinese are mainly Buddhists and the Indians are mainly Hindus. Is there source to those stats? Mohsin (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The information I have provided clearly reflect on those statistics. I have said that all Malays are Muslims. The Chinese are mainly Buddhists and Taoists, and a few Christians. The Indians are mainly Hindus, and a few Muslims and Christians. What other data have I missed out on. Mohsin (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes I think these statistics should be used then for reliability definitely. Mohsin (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The weakness in the original paragraph that you posted was the nuance. A lay reading would give the reader an impression that religious affiliation was exclusively determined by ethnicity, which it isn't. Ethnicity plays an influential role but the actual situation in the ground remains very complex. Even in the case of Malays, while constitutionally, a Malay is obliged to be a Muslim, not everyone who can generally be identified as a Malay ethnically are Muslim. We have an opportunity here to provide another source of generally objective information about Malaysia relatively un-encumbered by national or ideological mythos (at least here in Wikipedia, we can openly identify them as mythos). We don't have to make the article sound like another bad imitation of Information Malaysia 2007 or Sejarah Malaysia KBSM. The source for the figures above is General Report of the Population and Housing Census 2000 (ISBN 9839044265) - Bob K | Talk 04:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a proposal. Why not just reproduce the table above with minimum editorialisation. Just add one more column for total % nationwide. - Bob K | Talk 06:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, that will probably work. Mohsin (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have edited the section using the Stats: All ethnic Malays are Muslim as defined in the Malaysian constitution. The official statistics from the Department of Statistics view that, ethnic Chinese are predominantly Buddhist (75.9%), also large adherents to Taoism (10.6%) and Christianity (9.6%). Majority of ethnic Indians follow Hinduism (84.5%), and also a few Christians (7.7%) and Muslims (3.8%). I hope this solves the problems, because it does cite the official figures and stats. Mohsin (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. I have reworded it a bit for clarity's sake and made it into a stand alone paragraph as well. I have also included the table above with an additional column indicating the national statistics and a mention of the small Jewish community in Malaysia. - Bob K | Talk 19:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there a branch campus of the University of Abertay Dundee in Malaysia?

I'm not too sure, but I don't think the University of Abertay Dundee has branch campus in Malaysia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.93.152.34 (talk) 13:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Protection?

I think this article needs a request for protection, because it has received persistent un-constructive edits and vandalism by IP users, many include deleting sections of the articles and adding unrelevant informations, which are seen as vandal. Mohsin (talk) 10:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Ditto the above. Busy reverting and undoing edits that are nonsensical. Strongly agree to protect it, or at least semi-protect it. Anyone who want to take action now can proceed here. If no reply within 3 days, I'll have to be bold, then. Hytar (talk) 10:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's getting a little troublesome/exasperating to revert vandalism, which is primarily perpetrated by IP-address users. I believe this article should be semi-protected indefinitely (at least until the article is under control). Acs4b ^{T C U} 15:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Malayan Emergency and the Chinese terrorists

Your article failed to state that the 'insurgents' during the Malayan Emergency were almost entirely made of the Chinese and were called 'terrorists'. They committed lots of barbaric acts against the local population (Malays) as well as the European settlers in Malaya. My grandfather was part of the Commonwealth troops (Australian division) and told me many stories about the Chinese atrocities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.34.140.223 (talk) 01:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the 'Malaysia' pronounciation is wrong!!!

there is two way to pronounce 'sia' Malayan style, that is:

1.as 'sya/sha', like 'sha' in 'shaman';

2.as 'siya', like 'see yaa' ;

NOT 'zja'.Azar2804 (talk) 14:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It's Malayshire! =p __earth ^(Talk) 01:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

malay to english

maka dengan ini, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.62.191 (talk) 08:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

About the Language again

Alright, I've seen the discussions about the official language. And as a Malaysian, I totally agree. Malay is the official language. Still, to not mention that our country speaks other different languages really does not justify our status internationally. Malaysian Politicians speak English during interviews shown on our National TV Channels. Many of our radio stations broadcast in Enlgish, or Manglish. I could go on and on, and so could many others. What I do suggest that the person who made this entry, make a new entry under language. For example two entries: "Official Language: Malay" and "Unofficial Languages: Tamil, Hindi, English, Chinese..." I really think just stating Malay as an official languages projects the wrong idea about Malaysia. Any Malaysian or person who has been to Malaysia would say that. If you don't change it, many others who come accross this will comment on it and try to change it. Something needs to be done. Please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.187.80 (talk) 06:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is addressed at Languages of Malaysia. Of course the link to it from the "Malaysia" article is in the Infobox way below the article. I admit it's quite small for others to notice, but it's there nonetheless.

I think it's wise to briefly mention the variety of languages spoken in Malaysia in the main article, and then link to the subsequent page if the reader wants to know more. Hytar (talk) 22:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I also agree it is well addressed now. It has to be clearly stated that the national language of Malaysia is Malay - nothing wrong with that, everyone knows that Malaysia is predominantly Malay and this is the local group that lived in Malays for centuries(unlike Chinese/English/Indian etc who came from somewhere else and have countries with their own language). Then you can follow up with other not official languages in Malaysia. Have a look at other countries. Mostly one official language. If two or more official languages - it is stated (see: Switzerland or Canada). If any other languages - it is stated after the official language is mentioned. For example - in Australia the official language is English, but many people speak at home in different languages due to high migrant number. There is a table showing number of people speaking other languages than English. The same should apply to Malaysia - one official language - then the rest like Chinese spoken by Chinese migrants etc. Gino —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.129.20.9 (talk) 07:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I do have to clarify that Wikipedia is not for original research, and (sadly -_-) as mentioned in the constitution of Malaysia, Malay is the sole official language of Malaysia. Therefore I'm editing the infobox after this. Sigh. kotakkasut 11:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not vandalism this article

Please do not vandalism this article!! Some editor are trying to wrote offensive words!! So, be careful.--Woad85 (talk) 06:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Chinese and integration

During my visits to Malaysia I notice how little the Chinese living in Malaysia try to integrate with the local Malays. I think this should be stated in the article. You talk about the 'discriminatory' laws etc (like bumiputras) but you don't mention the problem that chinese cause by not assimiliating with locals (bumiputras) within Malaysia. For example - chinese live in their ghetto communities, speak only chinese, go to chinese schools only etc. And during the Merdeka Day (Independence Day) they don't want to celebrate it, and rarely display national Malaysian flags on their houses. David Stenlow —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.30.51 (talk) 06:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

What an absurd idea. With the same justification one could "observe" how little Malays have assimilated to Chinese culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feindfahrt (talk • contribs) 19:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Quite a sweeping statement, eh? The jury is still out as to whether multiculturalism or assimilation is the best way forward but discrimination is institutionalized in law in Malaysia. That's what is being presented in this article as a matter of fact, not opinion. - Bob K 12:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

How long did you spend in Malaysia and what kind of Chinese people did you meet? I'm Chinese and I speak Malay, English and Chinese. I have Malay friends. Many of my Chinese friends interact with Malays too. Merdeka Day is celebrated in our school and lots of the enthusiastic ones who are 'ghetto' Chinese boys who only speak Chinese. So, yeah. Different people different attitudes. 'Discriminatory' laws, however, apply to everyone. What happened to that section, btw. Meezzy (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Persatuan Bekas Tentera Malaysia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.111.27.39 (talk) 03:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Noticed the same about the Chinese. Not just in Malaysia. Quite interesting considering Chinese get more freedom than at home in PRC. If someone would bite my hand while I feed him - I would also implement some laws.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.129.20.9 (talk • contribs) 07:33, 12 April 2009

Just want to remind that this talk page is not for discussing about the subject of the article; Wikipedia is not a forum. Talk pages are meant to be used for discussing how to improve the article.--Joshua ^{Say "hi" to me!}_{What I've done?} 12:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

immigrants

The article ignores the fact that Malaysia's economic boom was possible because of the Indian and Chinese, and that the recent economic downturn is due to the displacement of these industrious parts of the population by Malays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feindfahrt (talk • contribs) 19:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Southern Indian was brought in as rubber tappers and laborer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.163.70 (talk) 03:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

First time for beating a woman, coming soon!

A new case here. They say they don't have much experience in beating women like they do men. They are working on it right now, I'm sure they will figure out a way to do it! This applies to the local Muslims and she is one. The woman drank a beer!!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090826/wl_time/08599191842400 Ykral (talk) 04:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not beating. It's caning (whipping). [[1]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cavingliz (talk • contribs) 02:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. Why are women treated differently to men? Andrew Oakley (talk) 10:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Good question. Caning is a legally sanctioned form of judicial corporal punishment under federal legislation in Malaysia but women are specifically exempted from that punishment; except for offences under the Syariah enactments of some states. So why are they treated differently? - Bob K | Talk 12:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Too many refs

There are too many refs ([2]) for this point, Anthropologists support the notion that the Proto Malays originated from what is today, Yunan, China. at here. It's rare that something needs more than 3 refs. Can an investigation be made through the refs and whatever that is not needed be removed please? BejinhanTalk 03:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Demographics

The demographics section doesn't agree with the subarticle. Specifically, the other article gives 50.4% Malay, this one gives 62%. Also indigenous is 11% there 7% here. The 11% sounds more plausible to me since according to this article the non-Malay indigenous population in Sarawak is over 50% and 66% in Sabah and the population of Malaysia in Sabah and Sarawak is 5.5 million so some simply maths (yes I know this is OR) tells you 11% is much more likely. Also the figures given on this page add up to 101% (rounding error I guess) but makes no mention of 'others' meaning that there are no others or it's a very tiny percentage. It sounds to me like someone may have confused Bumiputera (which includes non-Malay indigeneous people in Sabah and Sarawak) and Malay since if you add 50.4+11=~62%. If you do this the figures here agree with the other article except that indigenous here is actually others not indigenous (and the percentage is right). The figures in the other articles is sourced to the CIA world fact book, this one isn't sourced at all Nil Einne (talk) 09:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Descrepency now solved using data from Census of Population and Housing Malaysia 2000[3], Department of Statistics Malaysia. --Anggerik (talk) 09:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the article now is getting clearer, more robust and more "Malaysia". Previously, it's always repeated that "Malay constitutes 60%", "Malay is considered Bumiputera while others not" bullshit. You guys from Peninsular should have already cleared your mind up that it's not only Malay, Chinese and Indian who live in Malaysia. I'm pleased to see this Malaysia article has stressed more on Eastern part of Malaysia where most of you guys forgot.

I'll be more pleased if we could include statistics on religion/faith demography of Malaysian. Pinangjawa (talk) 11:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

A more detailed breakdown in religious demography can be found at Demographics of Malaysia. - Bob K | Talk 06:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

What happens if you don't want to be Muslim?

The article needs to clearly explain: What happens if a Malay person has Muslim parents, and then when he grows up, decides that he doesn't want to be Muslim any more? Andrew Oakley (talk) 10:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It depends on which state's jurisdiction the Muslim person falls under. Syariah laws are State laws and are not applicable uniformly throughout the Federation, only within the State where its jurisdiction falls. Different States in Malaysia have different regulations when it comes to engaging conversion out of Islam - ranging from punitive penalties (eg. Syariah Criminal (Negeri Sembilan) Enactment) to a mere administrative formality (eg. Administration of Islamic Law (Johor) Enactment). Until 1992, at least 2 states in Malaysia (Johor and Perak) had provisions for conversion out of Islam in their respective Syariah enactments. Perak repealed that provision in 1992 and apart from Johor, most states are silent on the procedure of converting out of Islam. Nevertheless, not all states make conversion of of Islam a punishable offence - currently only Sabah, Melaka, Terengganu, Pahang, Negeri Sembilan, Perak, and Kelantan specifically make conversion out of Islam a punishable offence. So it really isn't that clear cut. - Bob K | Talk 12:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Do note that most states have provisions that make the propagation of non-Muslim religions to Muslims an offence. However, since Syariah laws in Malaysia only have jurisdiction over Muslims, theoretically only Muslims found to be doing so can be subject to the offence. - Bob K | Talk 12:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Although presumably that legal category would include say, a Malay Muslim who converted to Christianity and then tried to preach it? --129.11.12.201 (talk) 13:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It would depend, I believe, as to whether the convert had his conversion legally recognised by the system. If it was, then technically the Syariah legislations would have no jurisdiction over that person as what he did would not be construed as illegal under civil law. - Bob K | Talk 06:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Nominating article for FA status

BejinhanTalk 14:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Singapore is not the only developed economy in Southeast Asia

In the article under the economy section, it says:

"Malaysia is also one of the region's top education and healthcare destinations. Malaysia is recognised as a newly industrialised country.[63] In 2008, GDP per capita (PPP) of Malaysia stands at US$14,215, ranking her 48th in the world, and 2nd in Southeast Asia, lagging far behind neighbouring Singapore, the only developed economy in Southeast Asia, with a GDP per capita (PPP) of US$49,288, ranking 3rd in the world. By comparison, Thailand has a per capita income of US$7,703 (ranked 81st) and Indonesia with US$3,975 (ranked 106th)"

Singapore is not the only developed economy in Southeast Asia. Brunei is also a developed economy, as said in the Southeast Asia article.

LordThrall (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

User "Earth"

This user continues to revert my edit, despite sourcing and re-sourcing by me. The current source does verify the edit. I request user "Earth" to re-read if unsure. Qwerta369 (talk) 13:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

First, you continue to use a blog as a source. And not a widely known blog at that. Secondly, you added "citation needed" to an already referenced statement. Thirdly, you wrote that the word Malaysia was invented in 1963. In fact, your edit stating that it was invented in 1963 directly contradicts the first referenced statement in the section which clearly indicates that the word Malaysia was used before 1963. Fourthly, the speech by Lee does not touch the name of Malaysia. It was stated in the comment section WHICH IS NOT PART of the speech. That removes its credibility as a source. Therefore, the sources you provide should be removed. If you are unsure what makes a reference credible, I'd suggest that you read WP:CITE.__earth ^(Talk) 13:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Please refrain from typing in all-caps. It is considered on the internet as shouting.

Using your numbering:

1. The "blog" sources were removed, thank you for your suggestion.
2. There appears not to be a source which confirms "other names were considered" for Malaysia.
3. If you feel that the word "Malaysia" was not invented in 1963 at the time of the creation of the State, please edit this text and cite your source.
4. You are correct, the speech by Lee does not touch on the name of Malaysia.

While the creation of the word "Malaysia" by inserting the "Si" from "Singapore" in to the word "Malaya" is commonly known in Singapore and Malaysia, so relevant to this article, I accept that reliable sources are required in order to verify facts. I will continue to locate reliable sources. Thank you. Qwerta369 (talk) 13:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I was shouting. I bite. kidding. I was highlighting it.

1. Thank you for listening.
2. There is a source. It's number 20. If you want to verify it, I believe you could go to Amazon and search the name of the book. There's a preview. I checked it long ago. Else, the library is excellent.
3. It has already been cited in the first paragraph. Did you read the section? It writes, a map published in 1914 has the name Malaysia in it. It is ref'd. It has a photo there too. In fact, source number 21 indicates that the name may have existed in one form or another as early as 1850. So, it is not my opinion (I don't feel). It is a fact. Clearly you added your statements without reading the section closely.
4. Commonly known knowledge does not suffice. Many supposedly commonly known knowledge are inaccurate and wrong. Documents from the British library regarding negotiation on the name Malaysia does not say anything about SI being Singapore. In fact, papers from the negotiation in the 1960s suggest the name was proposed by UMNO and has nothing to do with Singapore. I know some documentary says that si represents Singapore, but documentary is a third source, not primary.

In any case, until reliable sources are provided, contentious edit should be removed. __earth ^(Talk) 13:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

name in modern orthography

What would the name be in modern Bahasa orthography, transcribing the sounds according to its phonology? ‘Meleisia’? – Kaihsu (talk) 13:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Churches hit by firebombs over 'Allah' ban

This American site: [Foxnews] has an article about churches hit by firebombs over the name Allah was ban.Agre22 (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)agre22

See Malaysia v. The Herald __earth ^(Talk) 07:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Parameswara - originally a Hindu prince from Palembang

Would it be more accurate to say :

"In the early 15th century, Parameswara, a Hindu prince from Palembang from the once Srivijayan empire, established a dynasty and founded the Malacca Sultanate"

rather than just

"In the early 15th century, Parameswara, a prince from Palembang from the once Srivijayan empire, established a dynasty and founded the Malacca Sultanate" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Njdinosuarnet11 (talk • contribs) 08:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Places to visit in Malaysia

KLCC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hianhoe (talk • contribs) 09:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Infobox shows details of Japanese urban areas, not Malaysian ones

It looks like the definintion in the article source shows the Malaysisan urban areas, but the article itself shows Japanese ones - anyone got any idea why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yrnclndymn (talk • contribs) 21:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Name in Arabic

Brianhardy44 recently added مليسيا as the name of Malaysia in Arabic. Is this correct? Google translate says it's ماليزيا. Qwerta369 (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It isn't Arabic. It's Jawi. __earth ^(Talk) 02:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

jojo is epic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.56.240.72 (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Malay Rights

According to Malaysian Constitution Article 153. Malays are placed in special positions due to they are lacking behind economically compares to other races during the independence time. The Article 153 states the King is responsible to safeguard the Malays (as well as others) so they are not left too far behind by other races economically. However, over the years this Article has interpreted to become Malay Rights by some politicians especially the prominent umno leaders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.74.249.215 (talk) 08:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

IS MALAYSIA A GOOD/BEAUTIFUL COUNTY??

is malaysia a nyc country meanz to say that the government is stable???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.174.76 (talk) 10:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a priviledge being connected to the great South East Asia Country 'Malaysia' I believe this is a great with all resources to excel in the world as the best of the best.

I would like to associate myself with your country if possible.

Wishing the country all the best in all her endeavours.

Oke Mutiu, Intercontinental Bank Plc, Taiwo Road Branch, Ilorin. Kwara State, Nigeria.

+2348059988206.Bold text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.128.22.249 (talk) 08:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Official languages

Why are English, Mandarin and Tamil listed in the Official language(s) box, when they have (Non-official) after them? Qwerta369 (talk) 09:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

With this edit languages other than Malay are now gone. Qwerta369 (talk) 08:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Name in Chinese

In this edit, the Chinese name of Malaysia was removed. Why? Mandarin Chinese is an official language of Malaysia, after all. Qwerta369 (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I see it has now been restored, with this edit. Qwerta369 (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

And with this edit it is now gone again. Qwerta369 (talk) 08:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

There is only one official language in Malaysia, the Malay language (re: Article 152 of the Constitution of Malaysia). The right to use other commonly used languages like English, Mandarin, Tamil, and the regional Chinese dialects, while protected, do not have official status. - Bob K | Talk 19:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Too racial

This article is way too race-based. Most Southeast Asian countries have a multi-ethnic population but their articles aren't always so racial. Every section here is basically just "Malays do this, Chinese do that, and the majority of Indians do something else...". I've also tried to separate the culture, religion and demographics sections which were unecessarily overlapping each other.Morinae (talk) 11:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Malaysia is like that. Singapore also. Race has more significance in everyday life than it does in other (especially Western) countries. Qwerta369 (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Anecdotally, I'd say its the prevalence and the mainstreaming of identity politics and client politics in Malaysia. These constructs and stereotypes are common, even in the academic textbooks of secondary schools and universities. - Bob K | Talk 19:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Malaysia and some other south east asian countries are heavily discriminating the Chinese minority, and the malaysia is challenging the chinese government over the right of south china sea. which caused great anger among the people in PRC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.73.78.62 (talk) 06:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Clarification on Malaysia's official language

Although many languages are spoken in Malaysia, Malay is the only sole official language of the country. Other native languages such as the Orang Asli languages in the Peninsular, and the native languages of Borneo such as Iban and Kadazan doesn't have official status at all. The same also goes to the minority languages like Mandarin, Tamil and English, which are not recognised as an official language. Refer to the Article 152 of the Constitution of Malaysia. I don't agree with it too, but since it's stated so in the Federal Constitution, I guess we just have to obey with that. kotakkasut 17:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The same thing I've been wondering. I thought the list of names after the country's name in English in a Wikipedia article should be of the official or national languages of that country. The only official language in Malaysia is the Malay language and for the sake of uniformity, precision and quality, (as much as this doesn't seem fair) I guess it wouldn't be appropriate to put in Malaysia's names in other languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.121.188.162 (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Is Malaysia a peaceful country ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.13.152.127 (talk) 08:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Bordering countries

I have removed Singapore and the Philippines from the list of countries which border Malaysia. Firstly, it is unsourced. Secondly, Singapore and the Philippines are islands - there is no border to Malaysia from either state. Qwerta369 (talk) 11:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

There are such things as maritime boundaries however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.121.188.162 (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't the Philippines share a maritime border with Malaysia, while Singapore arguably has a land border with Malaysia via the Johor-Singapore Causeway. Malaysia and Vietnam share a maritime border as well in the South China Sea. - Bob K | Talk 06:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Island Southeast Asia

This term appears at least twice in the article, and in the references.

To me, it's pretty clear that it refers to the numerous islands of SE Asia - but when it was recently changed, it gave me pause for thought.

The word "island" needs to be there because it is in the context of the spread of ethnic groups through the island region, but is it safe to assume it will be read that way, or does it need rewording to something like "the islands of ..." or "the island region of..." ?

The comment "South East Asia is not an island" worries me that others may read it that way, too - although I personally wouldn't - Begoon (talk) 14:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Another term which could be used is perhaps Maritime Southeast Asia (as opposed to Mainland Southeast Asia). Donk know if thats what u mean. ќמшמφטтгמ^torque 01:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - that seems perfect. Now we just need to decide whether to simply replace the term with that, or additionally create a redirect from Island Southeast Asia to Maritime Southeast Asia. At least one of the linked sources uses the term Island Southeast Asia [4], so it could be a worthwhile redirect to avoid this confusion. - Begoon (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. I wasn't aware of that. The reason why I removed it was also partly because it is not grammatically correct. It was mentioned in the FA review. BejinhanTalk 04:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem - it certainly looks wrong as it is. I'll make the changes based on Kawaputra's excellent suggestion. - Begoon (talk) 05:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. Per my comment on User_talk:Qwerta369, if you want to use the term 'island', you'll have to rephrase the sentence then. BejinhanTalk 05:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

If anyone would like to improve on what I did, please do - it's here: [5] - Begoon (talk) 06:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Could it be put as Maritime Southeast Asia immediately? For those who are not familiar with Malaysian stuff, reading the island region of Southeast Asia might be a little confusing since the Southeast Asian region is usually not spoken of as having an island region of its own. BejinhanTalk 06:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

If you think that works - I'm all for it - but then would you change the second occurrence too, leaving it unlinked? I think "into Maritime Southeast Asia." would look odd. Maybe just "into nearby offshore areas.", because "into the region." might still be ambiguous? - Begoon (talk) 06:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You could put in either that, or "into the offshore areas of Maritime Southeast Asia". How does that sound? BejinhanTalk 06:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

To me, it sounds too wordy, given that we just used Maritime Southeast Asia 2 lines ago, with a link - and it's a bit of a mouthful - but I'm probably overthinking it now. <offtopic> - since you're obviously familiar with this article, and doing a general cleanup - fancy looking at my question in the previous section ? </offtopic> - Begoon (talk) 06:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it does sound repetitive. Any better suggestions? I saw your previous section as I was scrolling down to read your reply here. I've left a comment on it. BejinhanTalk 06:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I went with "into the Malay Archipelago, because that's what it really means, I think - Begoon (talk) 07:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Lead sections

I've shorten the lead sections. Most of the info removed are now in their respective sections. BejinhanTalk 06:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

That's fantastic - much better lead - you've done a great job. I made a couple of tiny tweaks to the last sentence just for readability, but I think your improvements are spot on. - Begoon (talk) 06:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! BejinhanTalk 07:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Notability

Something that is very obvious in this article is the number of citation needed tags and unsourced paragraphs. I want to work on them one by one. For those that I can't find any references, I would like to get them deleted. Is there anyone here who would like to help out too? BejinhanTalk 07:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Another thing, I've almost always used American English, and hence, am not familiar with British English. Is there anyone here who uses British English and who can help to look through the whole article to make sure the words are all standardized into British spelling? BejinhanTalk 05:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm English born - now living in Australia - so I'll do that - no problem at all. - Begoon (talk) 05:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Right, thanks! Can you please see my reply in the 'Spoken word' section too. BejinhanTalk 05:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been right through the article, now - there were about 9 or 10 changes for British spelling. What slowed me down was the fact that I did general grammar, typo and structure correcting at the same time, and there is a lot of that. There are still many very poorly phrased sentences - I fixed a lot, but I'll need to come back for a "second pass" later. - Begoon (talk) 07:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks great! Thank you for working on it. :) BejinhanTalk 11:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I also noticed you tried to streamline that last paragraph in the lead section. I combined the 2 statements about sectors of the economy to avoid repetition of "international" and "economy" - I think that makes it shorter and neater. (and modelled is British English - lol !! :-)...) - Begoon (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that the sentence sounded a little awkward. Thanks for fixing it up. xD Sorry, my computer is configured to American English and I left-clicked-->dictionary after I saw the word had a red underline. Lol BejinhanTalk 13:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Some odd facts

I've just checked some facts about the Malays and Malaysia on the etymology section and find some really odd statement.

Malay ethnics are originated from one of the Indonesian archipelagos, the Riau, a province in eastern Sumatra. In earlier times, Malay ethnics living throughout Indonesia, as one of the indigenous peoples of the island nation. They, then, migrated to the surrounding islands, making Malay Indonesians the origins or ancestors of all Malay ethnics throughout South East Asia. Malaysia has the second largest ethnic Malay population, the first largest residing in Indonesia. Historically, Malay language, the national language of Malaysia, was derived from the Malay spoken in Riau, Indonesia. This Malay spoken in Riau is now widely used in some Indonesian archipelagos, Peninsular Malaysia and Island of Borneo (Kalimantan, Sarawak, Sabah and Brunei), as they are starting to migrate to these places.

1) the Malays are not immigrant from Riau, They descendant of the Proto Malay and Deutero Malay - from the 3rd wave of migration from china millenias ago. - do check on Prehistoric Malaysia

2) Malaysia has the largest Ethnic Malay population compare to Malay Indonesian - with 12 million in Malaysia, compare to just 6 million in Indonesia.

3) The Malay variant that is used in malaysia is from the Johor Empire - which is spoken in half of the Malay Peninsular (from Selangor to Johor) the accent is also used in the Riau, but it is originated from Johor - which had ruled the Riau for hundreds of years.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Egard89 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 30 March 2010 (8+GMT)

Make the Treaty of 1824 an active link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.121.204.129 (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Spoken word

I was wondering if someone could record the pronunciation of Malaysia and turn it into an .ogg file. I have audacity and can do it, but I do not know how to convert the file to .ogg. BejinhanTalk 11:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this is of use to you. Qwerta369 (talk) 11:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

When I said Audacity, I meant the recording software Audacity. :) I have it but I need to know how to convert it to .ogg format. BejinhanTalk 13:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Does File-Export As ogg vorbis not work ? - Begoon (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I tried the Export function before, but somehow, it did not work. All I got was an .xml file on my desktop. I opened it and there were just some command codes in it. I have to try again, later, when I'm on the other computer. BejinhanTalk 13:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

If you get stuck you can email whatever format you've got to me [6], and I'll convert it for you - Begoon (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, thanks. BejinhanTalk 14:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I checked and got it figured out(how to convert to .ogg). Now I need to know if it should be Ma-ma-lay-sia or just Ma-lay-sia. BejinhanTalk 03:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be as per the article: "(/məˈleɪʒə/ mə-LAY-zhə or /məˈleɪziə/ mə-LAY-zee-ə)" ? The dilemma for me would be whether it's 3 syllables or 4 (with the last split into (ee-ah). I think I'd go for 3 in preference as that's the one I hear most commonly, but recording both would be appropriate, I think, since both are in the article - Begoon (talk) 06:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I heard the Knesset file, and it seems that the guy pronounced the first syllable twice. So I was wondering if I should do that for this too. BejinhanTalk 10:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

As a Malaysian, I've never heard the first syllable pronounced twice in reference to the name of my country, except by people with speech impediments. - Bob K | Talk 11:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Haha, -shrugs-. Ok, I'll try to get it done sometime during next week. BejinhanTalk 12:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that is what is meant. Malaysians generally pronounce "Malaysia" with 3 syllable: MA-LAY-SYA. I've heard "Malaysia" pronounced with 4 syllables though, mainly by Thais. The 4 syllable pronunciation sounds like MA-LAY-SI-A. I think what needs to be established is, what is the correct pronunciation as per the government of Malaysia? Whichever is the correct pronounciation should go in to the article. I don't agree that a second pronounciation should be included in the article if it is not official. Qwerta369 (talk) 12:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but since this is the English Wikipedia, that's not necessarily correct. It's the English pronunciation that is needed - and I agree with you - the 3 syllable version is most common - whereas the 4 syllable one I hear occasionally.

Seems to me, a good plan would be to do it like Germany - which is a featured article, so it's been assessed as correct. They have:

Germany /ˈdʒɜːrməni/ ^ⓘ, officially the Federal Republic of Germany (German: Bundesrepublik Deutschland, pronounced [ˈbʊndəsʁepuˌbliːk ˈdɔʏtʃlant] ^ⓘ)

- Begoon (talk) 12:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright, so the final agreement is that 2 different recordings should be made? One with the 3-syllable pronunciation and the other with the 4-syllable pronunciation? Correct? BejinhanTalk 12:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

That's what I would do - Indonesia is another featured article that has alternative pronunciations:

Indonesia, officially the Republic of Indonesia (/ˌɪndoʊˈniːziə/ or /ˌɪndəˈniːʒə/) (Indonesian: Republik Indonesia)

Another good example is:

France (/ˈfræns/ ^ⓘ franss or /ˈfrɑːns/ frahns; French pronunciation^ⓘ

In this case, the English pronunciation is followed by the French one (which is the one the French government would use...) - Begoon (talk) 12:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Just one more note: the policy at Wikipedia:Pronunciation#Foreign_names allows for multiple pronunciations in English or the foreign language. It says: "When a foreign name has a set English pronunciation (or pronunciations), include both the English and foreign-language pronunciations; the English transcription must always be first. If the native name is different from the English name, the native transcription must appear after the native name." - Begoon (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Erm, the 4-syllable pronunciation is not a foreign pronunciation for Malaysia, right? BejinhanTalk 13:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry - they are both alternative English pronunciations as far as I'm concerned - like the Indonesia example above - apologies if I confused you - I was trying to show how it is done on other pages, whether English, or foreign - Germany was probably a bad first example - Indonesia is better. - Begoon (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC) I bolded the bit of the policy I was referring to, which was to show that we are supposed to include alternative English pronunciations where they exist

I did a sample . Any comments/editing would be very much appreciated. BejinhanTalk 03:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You called it "3 syllable", but it's actually the 4 syllable variant :-)
Anyway, I trimmed the silent gaps before and after the word out, amplified it a little, and put it through a noise filter to get rid of the background hiss and buzzing.
The edited version is at: File:Malaysia(4-syllable)-edited.ogg : - Begoon (talk) 05:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Ok, I'll do the proper 3-syllable recording later. Is it alright if I put the 4-syllable recording into the article? BejinhanTalk 05:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's fine - it's clear and well voiced - I see no problem with adding it, unless you want to wait, and add them both at the same time. - Begoon (talk) 07:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll do both of it at once... hopefully within this week or the next. BejinhanTalk 11:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that's probably the best way - it might seem odd to have pronunciation of one, but not the other. If you want me to "clean up" the 3 syllable recording too just pop it on here whenever you get round to it. - Begoon (talk) 12:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please! :) BejinhanTalk 13:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

the 3 syllables version. Hope it's alright. BejinhanTalk 11:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - There's a lot of rumble and background noise on this one. I can get rid of most of the background noise - but there's one point where you must have knocked the microphone right in the middle of the last syllable. I've tried, but I can't filter the big deep "knock" out completely without distorting your voice too much. I can get rid of most of it, though - the best I can do is at File:Malaysia(3-syllable)-edited.ogg : . It was a bit quieter than the last one too - so with the extra noise reduction it loses a lot of depth. It's really not anywhere near as good as the other one. I'm afraid I can't make it any better unless you record it again - I have tried - Begoon (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't know what caused the knock sound. I'm using a built-in microphone so I certainly did not knock against it. I'll try to re-record it since the knock sound is... well, it sounds horrible. :) Sorry for the trouble. BejinhanTalk 14:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It's really no trouble - perhaps the microphone picked up a tap on the desk or computer - or something like that. If it hadn't been right in the middle of a syllable I could probably have got away with it - but filtering it out where it is just distorts the voice too much. - Begoon (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

my 2nd try at it. I hope it's fine this time. Also, I won't be online much over the next few weeks or months due to RL issues. BejinhanTalk 12:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That's much better
That cleaned up beautifully - hardly any hiss to remove, and very clear recording. I'll put both the final files below, in case it's confusing with all the different names now:

• 3 syllable final version: File:Malaysia(3-syllable)-edited.ogg :
  
• 4 syllable final version: File:Malaysia(4-syllable)-edited.ogg :
  

- Begoon (talk) 13:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: I've requested these files be renamed to File:Malaysia (3 syllable).ogg and File:Malaysia (4 syllable).ogg for naming consistency in the article - once that's done we can go ahead and add them. - Begoon (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Added: Ok - they got renamed, so I've added them to the article for you - Begoon (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing

Etymology

I tried to google for sources to cite the following paragraphs and couldn't find any reliable ones.

There are several theories regarding the origin of the word Melayu or Malay. The most commonly accepted holds that it is a combination of two Tamil/Sanskrit words, மலை/मलै Malai (hill) and ஊர்/उर् Ur (town), meaning hilltown.[citation needed] The name came into use when Indian travellers and traders began to identify the geographic area in and around present-day Malaysia.[citation needed]

Hence, the Latin/Greek suffix -σία -sia, makes the name Malaysia, literally meaning "land of the Malay people".[citation needed]

If there are no objections posted here, I intend to have them deleted after a few days. BejinhanTalk 13:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Prehistory

I'm working on the Prehistory section now. After the 2nd sentence in that section, the next few sentences doesn't seem to fit in with the first 2 sentences. Anyone has any thoughts on that? It doesn't seem deletable though... just have to find sources for them. But they seem quite unrelated. BejinhanTalk 06:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It all seems to follow through reasonably ok to me. It refers back to the Semang. Maybe there's a more chronological way to arrange it all, but since a lot of it deals with overlapping periods/theories that might not be entirely simple. I'd certainly agree the section you refer to needs sourcing, not deleting. Also, the last point in the discussion on the "big reference" above comes into play here. I think if we can replace and re-source that one sentence we can solve the "giant ref" problem. I can try and dig some refs up - but not until next week (need to do some real work to pay some bills...). If you still haven't got anywhere by then give me a nudge. Sorry if that's not really helpful right now - Begoon (talk) 08:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this was what I was referring to: The earliest evidence of human habitation in the area dates back 40,000 years.[24] These Mesolithic hunters were probably the ancestors of the Semang, an ethnic Negrito group who have a deep ancestry within the Malay Peninsula. Does it mean that the Mesolithic people are the earliest evidence of human habitation and that they are hunters? The 1st 2 sentences were about archaeological remains and human habitation but after the 3rd sentence, it seemed to have switched to ethnic groups. I'm looking towards searching for online refs(I don't have access to offline refs) to back up those statements. BejinhanTalk 11:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, Mesolithic hunters means Middle Stone Age hunters... so which tribe is being referred to? I'm a bit confused with this. BejinhanTalk 12:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This is how I read it:

• First, it seems to say that the first traces of humans date from 40k years ago, and that they were Mesolithic hunters (as you say, this is problematic, because Mesolithic should usually be c 20.000 - 10,000 years ago, but there is also Middle Stone Age, an African period much older - so maybe it just refers to the stage of development - ie Malaysia had it's Mesolithic period 40k years ago, others such as Europe/Africa more or less recent) - this bit is sourced to the Encyclopedia of Malaysia - but the weblink for the ref is very vague - just the overview - almost useless.
• Then it goes on to say that these Mesolithic hunters probably were the ancestors of the Semang - this bit isn't sourced
• So overall, that's how it says the Semang ethnic group 'arrived' - by evolution from at least 40.000 year old ancestors.

• Then the next paragraphs explore how the other ethnic groups 'arrived' by a mixture of evolution. migration, interbreeding.

So the archaeology is mentioned in passing as evidence for early habitation (though yes, it doesn't specifically date these archaeological finds or link them to the early humans other than by suggesting it), then it introduces the first humans, evolving to one ethnic group which then mixed with other migrant ethnic groups arriving later.

I can see its gist - but it could be explained far better. I should add that I have no idea if it's correct or not - that's just what I think it says. - Begoon (talk) 12:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

And very well done for [7] - great digging :) - Begoon (talk) 12:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! :) It was hard finding that bit. Most of the Prehistory section is sourced now. Going to work on the Early history section and article lead next. BejinhanTalk 14:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Treaty of relating to Malaysia

Hi Bejinhan & Begoon

Treaty of relating to Malaysia (Treaty of relating to Malaysia between United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Federation of Malaya, North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore) as to the existence of the Federation of Malaysia has relevance with this article, please don't remove it 125.163.12.207 (talk) 10:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The comment on both removals was "not an external link". It was not an external link. It's a link to a piece of text on Wikisource, and had no context in the manner of its inclusion as it had been placed here.

Please read: Wikipedia:El#External_links_section

Now that you've added it as a Wikisource link, I still think it needs context. It could be relevant to an article on the formation of Malaysia, or as properly sourced addition to a section here - but it seems at best tangential and unnecessary in the current form.

There's already a general Wikisource link in the article which will lead to all results, including this one. If this particular text needs a more prominent link, then we need some context as to why.

Why is it more important than any other Wikisource text so as to need its own separate link box ?

I won't remove what you have added again - I have no wish to edit war.

I trust that, now that you understand why it could benefit from some context, you might, instead, consider the points I have made. Many thanks - Begoon (talk) 10:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Per Begoon, and also, there is no need to add it as a Wikisource link. There are other documents in Wikisource relating to Malaysia and why not add them as links too? I'm not interested in starting an edit war with you so please stop adding that treaty link into the External links section until you've given a valid reason for doing so. BejinhanTalk 11:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Since this is a controversial thing, I think that the IP should have discussed this with us before re-adding the link albeit into a different section. Why is he so "desperate" to get that link in? BejinhanTalk 10:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC) I'm on the verge of filing a notice about this at the admin's noticeboard.

My feeling is that the "desperation" is to do with some sort of "campaign" to show that Sarawak/Sabah/etc.. are somehow "independent", which is obviously incorrect, but has been a source of edit warring elsewhere. I may be wrong, though - and as a ref where it is it's just about tenable, so I'm inclined to leave this one for now.  Begoon^talk 11:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Malaysia or Federation of Malaysia

Resolved

 – consensus seems to be - there were 14 states at Federation in 1963 - no need for irrelevant additional wikisource link

{{POV}} {{POV-check-section|Malaysia}}  Invalid Templates commented out; these notices should only be used on articles, not on talk pages (see Template:POV), thanks  Chzz  ►  13:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear - Begoon(talk), Please do not doing own edit (NPOV ), refering of 2nd paragraph of Agreeement relating to the seperation of Singapore from Malaysia as an independent and souvereign state as asserting as "Malaysia was established on the 16th day of September, 1963, by a federation of the existing states of the Federation of Malaya and the States of Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore ........." therefore it is totally cleared to etymology of Malaysia or Federation of Malaysia. regards 222.124.117.223 (talk) 09:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I find it very difficult to understand what you are saying. I assume you are referring to your link to a Wikisource copy of Agreement regarding separation of Singapore which I removed. I removed it because it bears no relation to the etymology of Malaysia. Etymology is the study of the history of words, where they are from, and how their form and meaning have changed over time. The word Malaysia didn't change as a result of this agreement, and that's all that is relevant to that section. There is already a reference to the 1963 agreement. Nor does this reference support any statement in that section. I hope that makes it a little clearer for you. There is already a general link to all Wikisource material on Malaysia in the article, which anyone interested can follow, so there is no point adding references to sections where they not relevant to the content. Thanks for taking the time to discuss it.  Begoon^talk 09:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC).

Your subsequent edit, altering 14 states to 4 is just plain wrong, though - look at Annexe A of the 1963 agreement: Malaysia was formed as a 14 State federation:

4.---(1) The Federation shall be known, in Malay and in English, by the name Malaysia.

(2) The States of the Federation shall be—

(a) the States of Malaya, namely, Johore, Kedah, Kelantan, Malacca, Negri Sembilan, Pahang, Penang, Perak, Perlis, Selangor and Trengganu ; and

(b) the Borneo States, namely, Sabah and Sarawak ; and

(c) the State of Singapore.

I really am unsure what you are trying to achieve with these changes, but they are factually incorrect  Begoon^talk 12:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok - now that you've tagged the section for a POV check, hopefully you can explain why you wish to insert the factual error that Malaysia was formed as a 4 state Federation - as you've now done repeatedly, despite being reverted with explanations by myself and another editor. (I have posted messages inviting both yourself, and the other editor who reverted the change to this discussion). For the life of me I don't understand why you are insistent on introducing a clear factual error, but I'll assume good faith that you do have a reason, and wait for your explanation here, as explained at Wikipedia:POV_check#Usage.  Begoon^talk 23:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the POV tag because there really is no reason for it. The section is neutral and please do not put the tag in there just because you were not allowed to add in the wikisource link. Frankly, why are you doing this? What do you hope to get out of this? BejinhanTalk 04:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I've also removed it per Wikipedia:POV_check#Usage. You have not put forth your reasons on wanting the tag to be there. BejinhanTalk 04:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, I've corrected 4 states back to 14. I can't leave a clear factual error like that in the article any longer. There has not been a single attempt to justify that edit, despite requests.  Begoon^talk 05:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I've also asked the new IP editor who re-added the tag to add his reasons here, per Wikipedia:POV_check#Usage. If, of course, there was no need for me to leave that new message because it is the same editor on a dynamic IP (which may or may not be the case - I have no idea), then it would be very helpful to the discussion process IMO if that could be made clear here, too, at the time that he provides his reasoning. Thanks  Begoon^talk 06:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the motivation of the IP editor (and I am not saying that disagree totally with some of the sentiments), as far as the legal and constitutional records are concerned, Malaysia was founded as a federation of 14 states comprising of the 11 states of the independent Federation of Malaya, and the British Crown Colonies of North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore (note A of the Agreement relating to Malaysia between United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Federation of Malaya, North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore as well as the Malaysia Acts of the United Kingdom and Malaysia). The text of these documents are unambiguous and pretty clear. - Bob K | Talk 09:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree it's pretty unambiguous. That's an interesting comment, though - I am not saying that I disagree totally with some of the sentiments. Since the IP editor doesn't seem very keen to discuss it, and I'm at a bit of a loss, could you explain a bit what you think those sentiments are, because I truly don't understand, and I'm concerned we could even possibly be missing a point of view that should be at least explored, because nobody is explaining it well enough for it to be understood.  Begoon^talk 11:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Its a complicated issue to put it mildly. Technically, as the text of the Agreement points out, Malaysia was formed as a federation of the existing states of the independent Federation of Malaya and the British Crown Colonies of North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore in 1963. However, there has been a growing sentiment of discontent and open discussion among a significant number of people that the Borneo states were given the short end of the stick in the Federation agreement. This is not helped by the progressively encroaching centralisation of power by the Federal Government at the expense of State rights in Malaysia as well as the geographical, cultural and demographic difference between West Malaysia and East Malaysia. Personally, I sympathise with these sentiments (West Malaysian states have even less autonomy in comparison to East Malaysian states, at least IMHO) but to assert a partisan POV in a resource like Wikipedia without anything stronger than a grammatical misreading of the text of the Agreement can only be viewed as disruptive and not in line with Wikipedia's policies. I apologise for the mistake in the link to the Malaysia Act in my earlier comment. It has been corrected see here. - Bob K | Talk 19:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

- Begoon, you are wrong, the Agreement relating to Malaysia between United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Federation of Malaya, North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore in Article I clearly states the parties " The Colonies of North Borneo and Sarawak and the State of Singapore shall be federated with the existing States of the Federation of Malaya as the States of Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore in accordance with the constitutional instruments annexed to this Agreement and the Federation shall thereafter be called " Malaysia ". where is Johore, Kedah, Kelantan, Malacca, Negri Sembilan, Pahang, Penang, Perak, Perlis, Selangor and Trengganu entities is form part of Federation of Malaya. that is a fact, see reference Agreeement relating to the seperation of Singapore from Malaysia as an independent and souvereign state Malaysia was established on the 16th day of September, 1963, by a federation of the existing states of the Federation of Malaya and the States of Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore 125.163.38.239 (talk) 12:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Bob K this link Kingdom does not exist 125.163.38.239 (talk) 12:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I really am trying to understand you, but what you quote above really just confirms what I've pasted above from Annexe A. The new states of Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore were federated with the existing 11 states of the old Federation of Malaya, to a new Federation of 3 + 11 = 14 states, which was named Malaysia. I genuinely can't read that any other way. Are you trying to say that the existing 11 states should be counted as one? If you are, then I think that's clearly wrong, both from the text you've quoted, and the Annexe I've quoted. If you're trying to say something else, then I'm sorry - I genuinely don't understand what it is.  Begoon^talk 12:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

so the documents signed by the government of malaysia and singapore in Agreeement relating to the seperation of Singapore from Malaysia as an independent and souvereign state is wrong ? 125.163.38.239 (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. Which part are you referring to? Incidentally, have I ever had a discussion like this with you before? You remind me enormously of an editor who I discussed Sabah and Sarawak with in the past. He used to find it somewhat difficult sometimes to describe which part of large documents he was quoting from were the bits that supported his argument, and even sometimes exactly what the argument was. It was quite frustrating for both of us, I seem to recall. My sincere apologies if I'm wrong, but you seemed similar in some ways, and it's a related topic - maybe it's just a language thing. I was sorry we never reached an understanding on that discussion - I'd like to think we could here. Would it help you to discuss it in Malay/Indonesian or another language? User:Bejinhan has kindly indicated on my talk page that she might be able to do that with you if it helps.  Begoon^talk 13:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

once more, if malaysia formed a 14-state federation. see reference Agreeement relating to the seperation of Singapore from Malaysia as an independent and souvereign state Malaysia was established on the 16th day of September, 1963, by a federation of the existing states of the Federation of Malaya and the States of Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore so both of government malaysia and singapore is wrong ? 125.163.38.239 (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No - it's correct. Malaysia was established on that date, as a Federation of the existing (11) states plus Sabah (1) Sarawak (1) and Singapore (1), a total of 14 states. I have never argued with that. What I don't understand is the contention that there somehow were 4 states. I'm afraid I can't explain it any better than that. Perhaps you could consider the option of explaining it in another language from above - since I think this appears, like the older discussion I mentioned, to be locked in a circle. I have no real idea what your point is, and you don't seem able to explain it in a way I can understand. That's possibly not either of our faults. Frustrating for both of us - so I won't prolong it and repeat points I have made again. I'll just respond to anything new which I do understand.  Begoon^talk 13:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

we are talking about the fact, isn it ? if malaysia formed a 14-state federation. see reference Agreeement relating to the seperation of Singapore from Malaysia as an independent and souvereign state Malaysia was established on the 16th day of September, 1963, by a federation of the existing states of the Federation of Malaya and the States of Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore so both of government malaysia and singapore is wrong ? 125.163.38.239 (talk) 13:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I'm afraid I can't reply if you just keep posting the same thing. I've done my best, and I've asked you some questions, and offered a way forward. You haven't really answered the questions or explored the options, so I won't post here again unless I feel there is something new.  Begoon^talk 14:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Begoon, he's counting the Federatoion of Malaya as one state. He wants Sarawak to have the same status as the old Malaya, not one of the states in the old Malaya. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)Thanks Elen. :-) I assumed that he was arguing that math, and asked him if that was the case. I hadn't quite put together why (I'm dim sometimes) - and I thank you for the illumination :-) If there is such a strong wish for such a point of view, I don't understand why instead of silly games and edit warring, it can't just be stated up front and discussed properly. I know that this is all about Sarawak and Sabah because that's where this has come up before. I couldn't see the point, but now I see he'd rather be viewed as 1/4 of Malaysia than 1/14. He hasn't answered my question above , but he could easily be the same editor I discussed with in the past trying to argue that Sabah/Sarawak were dependencies, not states. I wish instead of all this nonsense it could just be discussed openly. There's quite possibly no reason the articles couldn't contain some sort of content mentioning this if it's a widespread feeling with some notability, but all the game playing just gets everyone's backs up. Seems to me that edit warring and posting from multiple accounts trying to avoid 3RR and all the associated fun games must be much harder than actually just talking about it honestly in the long run.  Begoon^talk 15:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah right, so it seems that the issue here is that the number of states referred to by the highlighted part in the statement below from ARTICLE I of the Agreement relating to Malaysia is 12 states, Johore, Kedah, Kelantan, Malacca, Negri Sembilan, Pahang, Penang, Perak, Perlis, Selangor and Trengganu as it says in Annex A of the Mayasia Bill...

• "The Colonies of North Borneo and Sarawak and the State of Singapore shall be federated with the existing States of the Federation of Malaya"

...but 125.166.187.43 thinks it should have said "the existing State(singular) of the Federation of Malaya". Well. there's not much we can do about that. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear Begoon, it's right, we can't discussion without any fact, my apologize for not being able to accept anything without a fact, whatever its name on the international scene malaysia formed by a 4-state federation. with regards 125.166.187.43 (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

125.166, I believe you are having a problem because the document is in English, and English is definitely not your first language. The document says very clearly "a federation of the existing STATES (plural) of the Federation of Malaya, and the states (plural) of Sabah, Sawarek and Singapore. "existing STATES" means Johore, Kedah, Kelantan, Malacca, Negri Sembilan, Pahang, Penang, Perak, Perlis, Selangor and Trengganu. This means that Malaysia is made up of Johore, Kedah, Kelantan, Malacca, Negri Sembilan, Pahang, Penang, Perak, Perlis, Selangor and Trengganu, and Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore. Which equals 14. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

please don't out of the issue, this is an international area which applicable are international law relations, thank you 125.166.187.43 (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No, this is an issue of accepted fact and standard English usage, and your bizarre approach to both is not acceptable. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I know I said I wouldn't comment again, but I must add this. I really think it's time you took a deep breath, read through all of this, and your previous contributions here, very slowly, and considered whether you could get a better result by just openly discussing the issue, or even conceding there is no real issue. I'm sure that would be better in the long run. Elen just tried to help you - and you and I both know you could have done better than that response. People will just lose interest if you don't learn how to engage them properly. I think I just joined that group. That was advice. You are free to listen, ignore, mock or pretend not to understand it. Others are equally free to do those things to you. Ultimately you control that. I'm done here, now. Enjoy yourself.  Begoon^talk 16:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Or you could simply provide one or more reliable sources that say Malaysia "formed by a 4-state federation" and people can discuss whether that view has enough weight to be included in the article. Without a source there is no issue and there is nothing to discuss. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I have done, would you please to give me a little fact that federation of malaysia formed by a 14-state federation, thank you 125.166.187.43 (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

we are what we say... in here we can be anyone 125.166.187.43 (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Try the Constitution of Malaysia and the Malaysia Act 1963 as well as Annex A of the Malaysia Agreement. This should be source enough to indicate that Malaysia was formed as a federation of 14 states comprising of the 11 states of the Federation of Malaya (collectively referred to as the States of the Federation of Malaya) and the States of Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore. The existing Federation of Malaya Agreement of 1948 was not annulled by the Malaysia Agreement. The text of the Agreement as well as the Malaysia Act of the UK and Malaysia imply that Malaysia is an expansion of the Federation and the new Federation would act as a successor state to the former Federation of Malaya. While everyone here has seen it fit to read the portion of the Malaysia Agreement as "The Colonies of North Borneo and Sarawak and the State of Singapore shall be federated with the existing States of the Federation of Malaya as the States of Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore in accordance with the constitutional instruments annexed to this Agreement and the Federation shall thereafter be called Malaysia" and made their conclusions from that reading, you seem to be adamant that your reading is the only valid and authoritative interpretation despite the obvious evidence of grammatical deficiency with such an interpretation. - Bob K | Talk 19:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's because the Malay document just says 'Persekutuan Tanah Melayu' (Federation of Malaya) and pluralization in Malay is entirely different from English. Or maybe he's just being difficult... Sean.hoyland - talk 20:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The pluralisation issue is a possibility, in that case, I suppose. That's why it was suggested above that a discussion in another language might help clear up anything like that. I think we've tried pretty hard to "listen", here.  Begoon^talk 00:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The Malay language text is even more unambiguous. It states that "Tanah2 Jajahan Borneo Utara dan Sarawak dan Negeri Smgapura hendak-lah di-sekutukan dengan Negeri2 Persekutuan Tanah Melayu yang ada sekarang sa-bagai Negeri Sabah, Negeri Sarawak dan Negeri Singapura mengikut surat2 perlembagaan yang di-kembarkan kapada Perjanjian ini dan Persekutuan itu kemudian daripada itu hendak-lah di-namakan « Malaysia »" and actually implies that the Borneo colonies and Singapore joined the Federation of Malaya with a consequent renaming of the federation as Malaysia. Another point to note is that Article 1 of the Agreement clearly states that the federation will be made in accordance with the constitutional instruments annexed to this Agreement (ie. Annex A) which states very clearly that the federation comprised of the States of Malaya (all individually named), the States of Borneo (all individually named) and the State of Singapore. I don't see how this would be ambiguous. - Bob K | Talk 05:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Which is why I started by quoting Annexe A (^_~ ). I honestly think we made every effort to understand what the point was, but it seems to have been simply "wish" based. If there was a real point to make, enough options/opportunities were offered to clarify it. I'll mark this resolved - if anyone feels it isn't, they can revert me freely.  Begoon^talk 06:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

according Trust and Non-self-governing Territories that's simply,

Malayan Union, Independence as Federation of Malaya (1957) Now Malaysia [3]

North Borneo [3] Change in status (1963)

Sarawak [3] Change in status (1963)

Singapore [3] Independence 1965

3. In 1963, the Federation of Malaya became Malaysia, following the admission to the new federation of Singapore, Sabah (North Borneo) and Sarawak. Singapore became independent (1965)

so this article not based on facts.... an accuracies can not be eliminated only by consensus without any facts 125.163.39.36 (talk) 05:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

please see Agreement relating to Malaysia between United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Federation of Malaya, North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore-- in Article XI, This Agreement shall be signed in the English and Malay languages except that the Annexes shall be in the English language only. In case of doubt the English text of the Agreement shall prevail. ........ 125.163.39.36 (talk) 05:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

an accuracy is my motivation, not others, thank you 125.163.39.36 (talk) 06:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Rest assuredly, that's what we want too. Hence, the discussion above. BejinhanTalk 06:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

...and, indeed, the one below. Any editor is more than welcome to make constructive contributions to that, or any other discussion. That's how we achieve better articles. What is pretty pointless, and wearing very thin IMO, is repeatedly posting bits of, and links to, documents that don't support an unclear point, and then not explaining that point. The odd thing is, I just explained that again, when you already know it to be the case... Ah, well...  Begoon^talk 06:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

125.163.39.36, to end this once and for all, please could you say, in one sentence, what the fact is that should be included in this article and provide the exact source and the exact quote from that source that supports that fact ?

For example, the article currently says the following

• The name Malaysia was adopted in 1963 when the existing states of the Federation of Malaya, plus Singapore, North Borneo and Sarawak formed a new federation

If that sentence is wrong please provide one replacement sentence together with the exact source and the exact quote from that source that supports the replacement sentence. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

125.163.39.36, also, if you can't explain it in English, feel free to use Indonesian or Malay. I will translate it for you. BejinhanTalk 06:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)