Talk:Malaysia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Malaysia has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Where's the coat of arms?[edit]

Why doesn't this country page have the coat of arms/Emblem of Malaysia on it? 203.106.220.77 (talk) 01:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Malaysian Wikipedians[edit]

Malaysian Wikipedians can be found here.

Image glut[edit]

Lately there've been numerous image changes and additions to this article. As it stands, in part they're overwhelming the text. The second image in history, of the marching parade, on my screen flows into the next section, and it doesn't really aid understanding of anything. Foreign relations and military currently has 4 images, none of which give any understanding that would be reached without them, and three of which are generic military images that have been shrunk to a point where little detail can be seen. The Geography section has 3 scrunched up images, two of which are simply pretty landscapes, the third of which is more infrastructure than anything geographical. Wildlife has gone so far that it has an oddly formatted gallery. Infrastructure has two small pictures squishing all the text between them. And so on through the article. The article as it stands doesn't comply with WP:MOSIMAGES at all. We should really be looking for one or two pictures per second, and ones that actually aid a reader's understanding. The pie charts and maps for example, seem helpful. On the other hand, the image of a sign in languages where the text can't even be seen is not. Are they any opinions on which images should be kept, or replacements suggestions? CMD (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Etymology[edit]

I have added below info in etymology section. The previous one is more into describing the origin of Melayu term, not the term 'Malaysia' itself specifically.

  • The name 'Malaysia' is a combination of the word Malay and the Latin/Greek suffix -sia/-σία.[1]
  • In modern terminology, "Malay" is the name of an ethnoreligious group of Austronesian people predominantly inhabiting the Malay peninsula and portions of adjacent islands of Southeast Asia, including the east coast of Sumatra, the coast of Borneo, and smaller islands that lie between these areas.[2]
  • The origins of the word Melayu ('Malay') itself are disputed. Among notable theories are, it is derived from the Sungai Melayu ('Melayu river') in Sumatra,[3] from the Melayu Kingdom, a classical kingdom that existed in the 7th century Sumatra.
  • In 19th century, the concept of "Malay race" was first propagated by European scholars, in referring to all natives of Maritime Southeast Asia or Austronesians as a whole. A number of derivations from this anachronistic concept was later introduced, among others were the terms "Malay Archipelago"[4] as well as "Malaysia" itself.

Ø:G (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The etymology section should at least addresses the following subjects which i have summarised. For those who have their own alternatives, including Mr. CMD, you are free to present your own understanding on this. Instead of messing the section with your own POV, lets us discuss it here to find solutions:
  • The etymological origin of the word Melayu:
Malay/Javanese words Melayu/Mlayu (to steadily accelerate or to run)-->Sungai Melayu (Melayu river) -->Kerajaan Melayu (7th century)-->Melayu (15th century) a.k.a "Malayos" or "Malay" by Europeans.
  • Etymological origin of Malaysia
Malay (Oxford Dict: Originates from Malay word "Malayu")(Merriam-Webster: Originates from obsolete Dutch Malayo, itself from Malay word "Melayu"), first known use 1598-->Malay race (1795 concept by Johann Friedrich Blumenbach)-->Malay+sia = Malaysia (1826 term coined by Jules Dumont d'Urville)
  • Toponym history of Malaysia
Tanah Melayu (15th century)-->Malaya (1906) (English rendition of "Tanah Melayu")-->Tanah Melayu/Malaya (1948)->Malaysia (1963)

Ø:G (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

This is very simple. The word "Melayu" is not an etymological origin for the word "Melayu". The word "Melayu" is the word "Melayu". The meaning of that word may change, but that does not explain the origin of the original word. CMD (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Melayu/Melaju is derived from the word "layu/laju". The "layu/laju" means "steadily accelerate or run", thus with the prefix "me" added to the words, it give the meaning "to steadily accelerate or to run". You don't provide the complete chronological order of its origin from the claimed "Malaiyur" here, because i believe it doesn't has one. The "Malaiyur" is stucked there, has no continuity and has no chronological link in history. Melayu from the Me+Laju/Me+Layu, on the other hand, has a complete chronological order in history:
Malay/Javanese words Melayu/Mlayu (to steadily accelerate or to run)-->Sungai Melayu (Melayu river) -->Kerajaan Melayu (7th century)-->Melayu (15th century) a.k.a "Malayos" or "Malay" by Europeans.Ø:G (talk) 01:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Hey look, information which you've never actually mentioned before. Why don't you provide a source that notes this? That is actually an etymological origin, rather than what you've already been postulating. As for the Malaiyur theory, presumably the chronological origin is that it became applied to the people of whatever land was being discussed. If you can present sources noting the layu/laju origin, then that can be added in. I tend to agree it's a very likely theory actually, so I'd have no objections to placing it first. Furthermore, if you can show an academic consensus that the Tamil/Indian theory is incorrect, then at that point it can be noted as so or removed. Do you have a source that backs this statement? CMD (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/HC24Ae01.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

References to press freedom[edit]

Malaysia's press freedom ranking has now dropped to 147, behind even the nanny-state of Singapore. I presume then that any reference to this in this article will be removed by those guilty of the same mealy-mouthed equivocation that has produced a mere two paragraphs in the whole article about the deplorable lack of press freedom within this country. Stephen A (talk) 06:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I've replaced the removed sentence with one based on Freedom House's 2013 report. What more do you think is needed? An expansion of Media of Malaysia would be more viable than an expasion on information here. CMD (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2014[edit]

Please change Malaysia's coat of arms picture to this https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jata_Negara_Malaysia.png because the current picture is not correct. Please refer to http://pmr.penerangan.gov.my/index.php/profil-malaysia/7955-jata-negara.html Mzahidi (talk) 09:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

We can't use a picture that does not have a discussed copyright status. What we need is someone to look into Malaysian copyright law and attach a fair use rationale to a full coat of arms. CMD (talk) 11:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
@Mzahidi: According to the Malaysian law, Malaysian copyright works would become a public domain after 50 years. Due to the last modified happens on 1965, so it would be free on 2015. The notice has been stated in here. Cheers! — "ʀᴜ" ɴᴏᴛ ʀᴜssɪᴀɴ ᴡʜᴜᴛ? 11:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Well that's a problem for the image currently in our article, which User:Ssolbergj has uploaded as cc3.0. A full coat should have the same status. CMD (talk) 11:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Yep, that's what I think too. Maybe the lesser arms should be deleted. I prefer like the Turkey article which didn't use any coat of arms at the moment. — "ʀᴜ" ɴᴏᴛ ʀᴜssɪᴀɴ ᴡʜᴜᴛ? 11:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 02:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

GA check[edit]

I am working my way through the Good articles listed at Places; having a quick look to see if they still meet the Good article criteria. I have landed on this article. After I've had a quick look, I'll leave a note here indicating if I have concerns or not.

In general, I see the process as this: 1) Give the article a quick look to see if there are obvious issues: maintenance tags, unsourced sections, excessive media, etc, resolving any minor issues as I do so; 2) If I have concerns, open a GAR to see how serious those concerns are, resolving them myself if they are not serious; 3) If during the GAR I feel that there is significant work to be done (more than I can or am willing to do myself), I will put the GAR on hold and notify the main contributors.

My aim and intention is to keep the article listed - I would rather the article was improved and kept listed than the article is delisted. Where a delisting seems likely due to the amount or nature of work needed being greater than I am able to do alone, and the main contributors are unavailable or unable for whatever reason to do the work, then appropriate WikiProjects will be notified at least seven days before a delisting would take place. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Green tickYArticle appears fine. It provides a good overview of the subject in a concise and readable form - it is 52 kB (8281 words) of readable prose, which for the range and depth of the subject is doing well. Areas that need thinking about for ongoing development are the amount and choice of images. This is a general article about the whole of the country, yet we have seven images for the Biodiversity section (awkward title, Wildlife is more reader friendly, and the title commonly used on Wikipedia), which seems disproportionate. See WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE which advises against using multiple similar images, I would suggest the national animal, and the national flower, and perhaps also the official mascot would be relevant, the rest are starting to swamp and domiante the article. The sub-sections in the Biodiversity section create a cluttered feel. MOS:BODY has this advice: "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose." The section can be formatted using ; instead of === to create softer headings, and ease flow when reading. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks User:SilkTork. I've been meaning to redo the Biodiversity section for awhile. CMD (talk) 11:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Related, but neglected topic[edit]

Can someone occasionally check here? I had at least to update three, up to one year obsolete entries. This list seems to have been neglected since 2010. 112.198.79.184 (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

culture section[edit]

88.170.102.174 (talk) 07:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

There are a couple of in the culture section.

Firstly, the references footnoted to 213 are void as it is a dead link.

Second, the first paragraph reference to 'the structure of government' and 'social contract theory' as reasons that minorities have not been assimilated seems preposterous (I'm a political philosopher with a graduate degree in this subject from Oxford).

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 14:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Coat of arms copyright period[edit]

I think the copyright period has ended now as the law stated on page 19:

Copyright in published editions of works

  1. Copyright shall subsist, subject to the provisions of this Act, in every published edition of any one or more literary, artistic or musical work in the case of which either—
the first publication of the edition took place in Malaysia;

or

the publisher of the edition was a qualified person at the date of the first publication thereof:

It means since the first version adopted/published on 1952, it is already 62 years now and doesn't include the 1963, 1965, 1982 and 1988 modification. — ᴀʟʀᴇᴀᴅʏ ʙᴏʀᴇᴅ ʜᴜʜ? 15:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Room, Adrian (2004). Placenames of the World: Origins and Meanings of the Names for Over 5000 Natural Features, Countries, Capitals, Territories, Cities and Historic Sites. McFarland & Company. p. 221. ISBN 978-078-6418-14-5. 
  2. ^ The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica (2013). "Malay". Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc. 
  3. ^ Milner, Anthony (2010), The Malays (The Peoples of South-East Asia and the Pacific), Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 18–19, ISBN 978-1-4443-3903-1 
  4. ^ "States of Malaysia". Statoids (Administrative Divisions of Countries). Retrieved 23 June 2010. 
  5. ^ Mohamed Anwar Omar Din (2012). "Legitimacy of the Malays as the Sons of the Soil". Canadian Center of Science and Education. pp. 80–81. ISSN 1911-2025. 
  6. ^ Reid, Anthony (2010). Imperial alchemy : nationalism and political identity in Southeast Asia. Cambridge University Press. p. 95. ISBN 978-052-1872-37-9.