Talk:Malaysia: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Malaysia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Malaysia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

	Malaysia is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 18, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted October 13, 2009 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Malaysia was the Malaysian collaboration of the month for {{{month}}} {{{year}}}. For details on improvements made to the article, see history of past collaborations. Malaysian WikiProject

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Malaysia Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Malaysia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Malaysia and Malaysia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MalaysiaWikipedia:WikiProject MalaysiaTemplate:WikiProject MalaysiaMalaysia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Southeast Asia Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Southeast Asia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Southeast AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Southeast AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Southeast AsiaSoutheast Asia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry WikiProject Countries to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess. Template:WP1.0

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on 10 dates. [show] August 31, 2004, September 16, 2004, August 31, 2005, September 16, 2005, August 31, 2006, September 16, 2006, August 31, 2007, September 16, 2007, September 16, 2008, and September 16, 2009

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Malaysia received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Malaysian Wikipedians can be found here.

Malaysia have became a radical integrist muslim dictatorship. Country is under fierce coran law. Homosexuality is a crime. Having a simple kiss between two same sex ppl carries 20 year imprisonment. Non heterosexual sex act is punished with death penalty.

Any depict of homosexuality in books, radio shows, tv shows, cinema or any other media is a crime unless it consisting in a depiction of homosexuality as a undesirable sex behaviour. Human rights association have been consistently scared to refrain from doing any campaign in the country to change that hate against homosexuality.

Sharia radical integrist muslim courts are the only ones ruling the country. So even citizens not being muslim are punished if they do anything forbidden by islam.

Constitution falsely gives religion freedom, but building any building related to any religion different from islam is almost impossible as it is blocked by government and muslim colaborationists. Malaysia is by those and many other reasons not a safe country for any modern developed country citizen. Homosexual individuals are adviced to not travel to malaysia by any means.

Associations for developing countries have consistenly pushe for Malaysia to be economically sanctioned and their exports banned until those and other legal issues are overcome. Made in Malaysia products are called to be banned in any developed country, and manufacturers are advice to not produce in Malaysia as that may carry undesirable poor image to their products. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pekingu (talk • contribs) 02:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia has a bad rights record but the presentation above is maliciously misleading. While it is true that homosexuality is a crime, it is a crime under the secular Penal Code rather than Syariah law. Syariah law applies only to Muslims only and its jurisdiction is limited to family and inheritance law.

In practice, homosexuality is generally tolerated and homosexual people are rarely prosecuted. The most high profile case is arguably more a case of political prosecution rather than one of active persecution of people with alternative lifestyles.

I am not sure what the purpose of the comments above were. Legitimate human rights abuses already exist in Malaysia. We do not need exaggerated and fake ones to highlight them. In fact, by making such allegations do nothing to help raise awareness of the actual abuses of human rights that occur in this country. - Bob K | Talk 03:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

I just did a couple of edits to the lead section, and when I scrolled through the article to check I hadn't broken anything, I came across the enormous footnote which refers to the cite after the sentence "Anthropologists support the notion that the Proto-Malays originated from what is today Yunnan, China."

I didn't want to do anything to it without discussing it - it seems to have been there like that since this diff: [1] on September 19, 2009 !!!

There are 27 lines - including references to

• A design guide of public parks in Malaysia‎
• Thailand into the 80's‎

all referenced to the "Prehistory" section.

Surely it can't all be necessary as a citation of the text it is inline with ?

Are we able to get consensus on whether we:

• [a] leave it as it is for fear of removing valuable cites
• [b] copy it all to the talk page, replace it with a citation needed tag, and let editors re-add what is necessary according to knowledge
• [c] remove part of it for examination, leaving the "best" parts in (I have no access to a lot of the texts - so I would have no idea which parts)
• [d] something else...

- Begoon (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, it is long. Why not just remove the references not related to the sentence, like the design guide and Thailand in the 80's? BejinhanTalk 06:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We should do at least that. I'm concerned, though, that the fact that these references are in this huge list is indicative that many of the others could be irrelevant, too - but I don't have access to the texts to check. - Begoon (talk) 07:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's just the thing. I have the feeling that some of them might be in there because of a mention of the prehistory of Malaysia, something that still doesn't warrant it to be a reference. I guess we will just have to remove them based on their titles, at least the most obvious ones. BejinhanTalk 09:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - here's my first stab at it, then (although, as you say, it's based only on the title):

We could shuffle them around in those 2 collapsible sections, while it's under discussion, then collapse them for reference afterwards... The discussion will be here if anyone feels the need to re-add any of them.

- Begoon (talk) 10:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, seems fine. Are those refs for the 1st 2 paragraphs of the Prehistory section too? BejinhanTalk 11:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was my 'approach' - but since we're really taking an "educated guess" it seems impossible to put them inline in the right place - can we make them general references for the section (I don't know if that's permissible)

I guess we could put the ones we're "removing" in "Further Reading" instead of junking them - so as to avoid removing them altogether ?

- Begoon (talk) 11:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, it might not be really accurate. Has that been done before in any other articles? It might sound a little like a research paper or essay. BejinhanTalk 13:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've never seen it done, and I wouldn't know how to. As you say it sounds inaccurate (and wrong). Probably best thing to do is:

• Prune the list to what we have above
• Convert to a named reference
• Link it at the end of each paragraph (WP:REF says that's ok)

And on reflection, I don't think the further reading idea is good either - we should just be bold and remove them if we think they are there in error. If anyone wants to restore them, they can put them inline in the proper place, because they would need to know what they are to wish to restore them.

But I think, first, I'll leave this discussion here for a few days in case the activity spurs anyone else into commenting - after all, the problem has been there for over 9 months - so waiting a few days for valuable input can't hurt. - Begoon (talk) 15:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those suggestions sound good. I support it. Someone might come along with other suggestions and comments so best to put in on hold. BejinhanTalk 05:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there are any objections... so it should be quite ok to edit the refs. Also, the 2nd sentence in that section doesn't seem to have any connection with the previous. Any thoughts on that? BejinhanTalk 02:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say, just keep it as it is. It's not doing harm, and apparently that large reference does give verifiability to the section. If you actually want to fix the problem, then I suggest writing a new prehistory section based on reliable sources - but I don't see any merit in spending time 'sorting this out'.  Chzz  ►  07:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you say has merit. Since, in its current form, that giant ref purports to support just this sentence: "Anthropologists support the notion that the Proto-Malays originated from what is today Yunnan, China", the way to "fix it" would be to replace that sentence with a well sourced alternative. I'm not convinced that leaving it as it is is correct, simply for the reason that if I came here as a reader, clicked on the inline ref link for that sentence, and was presented with that giant list - I would be extremely confused by it, and by the number of items in it that seemed, from their titles, to be unrelated. Surely, as well as providing sources in the article, we should make an effort to make sure a reader is able to understand and easily follow those sources. As the hypothetical reader, I wouldn't know where to begin, presented with that list as the source for that sentence. It's surely better than it was before you altered it, and consolidated the inline link markers, because that change cleaned up the article body - my concern is assisting a reader who wishes to follow the source reasoning. - Begoon (talk) 10:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought I had. Perhaps there could be a "Bibliography" section? BejinhanTalk 05:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea - keeps all the book titles, which it would be a shame to lose - Begoon (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [2], so it could be a worthwhile redirect to avoid this confusion. - Begoon (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

If anyone would like to improve on what I did, please do - it's here: [3] - Begoon (talk) 06:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

If you get stuck you can email whatever format you've got to me [4], and I'll convert it for you - Begoon (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Shouldn't it be as per the article: "(Template:PronEng 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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 (/[invalid input: 'En-uk-Germany.ogg']ˈdʒɜːrməni/), officially the Federal Republic of Germany (Template:Lang-de, pronounced [ˈbʊndəsʁepuˌbliːk ˈdɔʏtʃlant] ^ⓘ)

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

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)[reply]

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

Indonesia, officially the Republic of Indonesia (Template:Pron-en or /ˌɪndəˈniːʒə/) (Template:Lang-id)

Another good example is:

France (Template:Pron-en 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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[reply]

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

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 : here - Begoon (talk) 05:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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 : here. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

And very well done for [5] - great digging :) - Begoon (talk) 12:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[reply]

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)[reply]

{{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)[reply]

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) [reply]