Talk:Malay ghost myths

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Southeast Asia / Brunei  (Rated List-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Brunei.
WikiProject Death (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Move proposal[edit]

This page would be more suited as List of ghosts in Malay culture, because it's a list rather than an article. It's not really contorversial so I haven't set up a proper move proposal, I'll leave it to whoever's looking after this list. Croxley 19:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Alphabetical order[edit]

Is there some unexplained logic in the lack of an obvious alphabetical order? SatuSuro 12:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


You will seldom hear me say this..... but I recommend this article for deletion. It has no encyclopaedic merit and is really just an excuse for Indonesian and Malaysian Wikipedians to run jokes. If we are going to have an article like this it must be MUCH better referenced. I can for instance promise you that there is no such thing as Hantu Khairi. Ryan Albrey (talk) 11:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Move to Ghosts in AUSTRONESIAN culture[edit]

I am moving the article. Malay is an erroneous Colonial catch-all term. Austronesian is the correct genetic terminology for the people inhabitating this region of SE Asia. Furthermore it places undue emphasis on the achievements of the tiny nation of Malaysia- 30 million inhabitants as opposed to its' hereditary overlord Java (160 million inhabitants) of Indonesia's 235 million and Philippines' 80 million. Great cultures flow downhill, not up.Peeweebee (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment - that may seem a breezy and easy thing to do - the topic in fact is mainly relative to the malay peninsula - and hardly anything to do with great cultures or anything to do with population numbers - the lead paragraph and map are quite diversionary and unnecessary as the references and general drift are relative to the western end - also Austronesian might seem an attractive item relative to the lead - but the relative import of the original article before the rather gradniosed inflation of the lead paragraph and map (with no supporting WP:RS - the move is not encouraged - and some thought as to the import of the move might be relevant - the list of terms is neither in alpha order or linked to articles - a tendency found regularly in these parts.SatuSuro 14:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The current title is totally innapropiate - the use of capitals is not appropriate in the following words - and it is probably unintelligble to the average reader - a proper copy edit of the article would have been far more productive SatuSuro 14:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I have been tinkering with the article, trying to expand and make it a bit less list-like. Not sure about the move. Austronesian is a huge language group, with speakers from Madagascar to Hawaii. Malay (I think) is a common term for the people of Malaysia and Indonesia, maybe the Philippines. But I don't know the correct term? Aymatth2 (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I have moved it again, and made it the main article for Category:Malay ghost myth which seems reasonable. I am not particularly comfortable with the new name or with the article itself. It is a interesting but complex subject and the article is simplistic and quite likely misleading. Not sure if the scope should be Malaysia, Malaysia + Indonesia, or Malaysia + Indonesia + Philippines. Maybe someone who actually knows a bit about the subject (not me) could start a new section to discuss how it could be improved. One obvious way would be to more clearly identify the regions in which each belief is found. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


Some but not all

  • Lead para and map is brilliant if you really want to make those claims - but nothing in the article as it is supports them - almost like a separate article
  • Many malay/indonesian articles have lists of red links - there appears to be a particular enthusiasm in creating another red link out of alpha order
  • Pantheon of spirits/ghosts have regional variants - which is why it started ver specifically about the malay peninsula then by default into sumatra and java
  • Basic cleanup - article needs to be in english and make sense and WP:RS found for the various claims
  • I personally believe there is a wallace line for such beliefs which is why I would personally remove the austronesian issues in the lead para and the map - they would be great for a separate article if someone has the capacity to raise the WP:RS for the spirit families that actually cross the region :) SatuSuro 01:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
There is a line between the eastern and western regions, running through Borneo, but I don't think the language differences are all that big. A Filipino maid can get by in KL. But there are many groups that have similar language but have quite different belief systems. I suppose in a way this is like Welsh ghosts - British ghosts - European ghosts - Indo-European ghosts. How broad should the scope be made before it becomes a meaningless jumble? (The two cited examples of ghost types that are common to the entire region are backed up by the sources.) Aymatth2 (talk) 02:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe for the moment - the malay/indonesian sphere stay with the title - and the broader region examples with sources stay in, the larger region article - so two articles? one with the malay/indonesian examples , the other with the broader scope title and sources. I would say a well researched pair of stubs is much better than one article that tries to be too many things or that tries to ignore regional differences SatuSuro 02:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Another way would be to start "Filipino ghost myths", moving some material from this one, and cross-reference the two where there is overlap. "Malay Penanggalan is similar to Filipino Manananggal ... Pontianak appears in both Malay and Filipino ghost lore ..." Aymatth2 (talk) 12:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Just did Ghosts in Filipino culture, which I think is an improvement, making this article more focussed. I suppose there could be an umbrella Austronesian article summarizing this one, the Filipino one and Ghosts in Polynesian culture, comparing and contrasting. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


Yes- on reflection it seems a much better idea to separate the article at least into Filipino, Polynesian and Indonesian-Malaysian. However, one must bear in mind that Phillippines was colonised from Kalimantan- and there had been much ineraction between Phillippines and Java- most especially Mindanao and Sulu as dependencies of Java- similarly Malaysia colonised from Sumatra thus there will much overlap between Toraja-Javanese-"Malaysian"-(Minang and Padang) and Batak cultures. I suggest the cultural interplays be at all times noted.Peeweebee (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)