Talk:Malay race

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Remove this Article[edit]

To Caniago, this simply revolves around Blumenbach's outdated and racially offensive classification. I propose you remove this article completely. I believe you created this article as an over reaction to my simple arguments on the Malays (ethnic group) discussion. All I am after is an intelligent and modern classification that covers the biologically, racially, antrhopologically and linguistically related groups of people that live in the South East Asian Archipelago - the Malays, Indonesians and Filipinos.
As you yourself have pointed out, the term Malay Race is outdated and redundant, so why have you even bothered to create this article, except to rile and provoke people?
There is no need for promoting and highlighting this classification as it is adequately covered under the Blumenbach article. I am now endevouring to report you to the Administrators.FRM SYD 15:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

How is it different to Caucasian race. I'm tired of your threats. (Caniago 15:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC))
FRM SYD, how is this article any different to what you are proposing for Malays (ethnic group)? I can't see any difference. The lead sums up the intent of the article perfectly. Perhaps rather wokring yourself up into outrage and threatening editors, maybe you could provide us with your own references. The problem is no-one has offered a reliable source that supports intelligent and modern classification that covers the biologically, racially, antrhopologically and linguistically related groups of people that live in the South East Asian Archipelago - the Malays, Indonesians and Filipinos. regards Merbabu 01:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with what Merbabu had stated. So there is no need to threat Caniago for his contribution to the "Malays" articles - as we can see, he had clearly distinguish this article of what the great majority people in the past have considered as "Malay race", as written by theorists/academics, from Malays (ethnic group) using the disambiguation page and the best possible references and analysis to make the articles non-biased. --Fantastic4boy 07:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe there should be a reference name for racial stock of people that are the majority of Malaysia,Philippines and Indonesia. I dont know what word but the word that most people will go to, is Malay. Even though in these countrys, the word "Malay" may mean something different. It is obvious that these (Austronesian) people are very similar by blood, and i dont know why other Filipinos would rather be just classed as Asians alongside others (Chinese,Japanese,Indians) that have very little to no cultural or racial relation to us at all. There needs to be an official word/name or else Filipinos are gonna be called Malays, Malays from Malaysia are gonna be mistaken for Filipinos as they already are, and same goes for Indonesians.--Jandela 08:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

the article seems similar to the article Austronesian people. maybe merge? eg: "Austronesian people, or sometimes referred to informally (controversially?) as the Malay race...." i think the term has caused a lot of confusion especially in Malaysia and Indonesia. in M'sia theres the Malay ethnics, and Malay as defined by constitution. some malays wanting to preserve Malay ethnicity. some malays want to unite all "malays". some indonesians i come across dislike to be classified as part of the Malay race, but recognise existense of the ethnic group. while phils recognise most indigenous ppls as Malays. too much variations it seems. kawaputra 10:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be wrong to merge. The terms and concepts are distinct. (Caniago 14:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC))

FRM SYD said that people would be offended by this.... well i am certainly NOT offended by this because we can't like re- write history so the whole article is just here to inform people about old terms we used to catagorise people under, also he says there shouldn't be an article for an outdated and redundant thing or name... well then we would have to deleted lot of articles because alot of them are about outdated terms, and outdated names for countries etc.

Well personally, as a Filipino, I'm offended by the very notion that I am considered Malay (I'm not from Malaysia!). I'm also part white and I don't like to be refered to as "Caucasian" (I'm not from Caucasia!) But this is Wikipedia, and it doesn't matter what I feel. What matters is that this article is about a verifiable subject. And the Malay race (which is different than the Malay ethnic group) is a subject that deserves mention on Wikipedia. Not many people know how Malay came to be and this article does a good job in informing people of that. --Chris S. 02:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Not that I am recognizing you as a Malay but since when a Malay has to come from Malaysia? __earth (Talk) 03:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I also is a Filipino, I'm not offended by the notion because I know that I AM A MALAY! historicaly, Because we all live in a place called Malay Archipelago. Whatever the name of our ancestors was, we Malaysians, Indo, Fils are Malay! We are just Malay's that have been conquered by different colonizers that created divisions, Spain to Philippines, Britain to Malaysia, and Dutch to Indonesians. I understand that Chriss mistakenly not know the difference between Malaysian and Malay, just because their spellings are related, If I were called a Malay, it does not mean I'm a Malaysian, It means I belong to the Malay race as a whole. Malaysia just adopted it's name because of it's roots as it's geographic location suggests. - Twentius 12:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
You're replying to a post that is over three years old. ANd please give your rants a rest. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 10:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Then I wish I here three years ago. ......PacificWarrior101 (talk) 02:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101
I agree with Merbabu. You're becoming very tiresome, PacificWarrior. Why do you insist on calling yourself by another people's name? The really ironic thing about this is that "Malay" was a term first incorrectly applied to us Filipinos by the Americans.-- OBSIDIANSOUL 10:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Chris S., Malay =/= Malaysian. Read the article... Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 05:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

DNA evidence relating to the concept of a 'Malay' race[edit]

I have added in a section that may help clarify the issues, based on DNA evidence of modern human populations. DNA evidence is now generally accepted as a very important and reliable source of information on the history and classification of human populations. I have added in a relevant reference that will 'lead into' the literature:

"In the past two decades, DNA evidence - especially of the Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA - has transformed views of racial categorizations and the origins and migrations of peoples. "Malays" (by whatever definition one chooses to define them) have proven to be typical of the Austronesian-speaking peoples of South-East Asia and the Pacific in having a mixed ancestry of mongoloid peoples from the north (southern China) (Clifford et al 1998) who likely brought the ancestral Austronesian languages that ultimately gave rise to Bahasa. These in-migrating groups intermarried with an older set of indigenous peoples allied to the Orang Asli and 'negritos' found in parts of South-East Asia. [5]. Thus - according to this viewpoint - there can be no concept of a 'pure' Malay race, since it is a population and a linguistic grouping that was by its very nature borne of admixture." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I see no relationship between colonial era definitions of race and language based classifications such as Austronesian or DNA based population population groupings. As far as I can tell to link these concepts together is original research, and not something we can include in the article. (Caniago (talk) 15:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC))

The above statement is unreasonable. Cultural concepts aim to describe 'something'... DNA describes what that something actually 'is' and challenges the cultural definition. Clearly we need to bring in a firm and reasonable editor to this page. Anyone know where we can find a referee? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want to include anything a one sentence statement in the first paragraph, preferably cited, about how DNA evidence has shown "races", which is what this article is about, to be an invalid concept would be sufficient. I don't see any evidence or research to support the additional claims you are making. (Caniago (talk) 17:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC))

I have added a line into the intro as you suggest. Peace be on Earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I have now added the following lines into the opening section after the bit where Malays are described as tawny etc.: "In the past two decades, DNA evidence - especially of the Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA - has transformed views of racial categorizations and the origins and migrations of peoples. "Malays" (by whatever definition one chooses to define them) have proven to be typical of the Austronesian-speaking peoples of South-East Asia and the Pacific in having a mixed ancestry including mongoloid peoples from the north (southern China) (Clifford et al 1998), and are thus not an objectively distinct 'race'. Nevertheless, the cultural concept of a 'Malay Race' is still widely used."

Please don't remove this now. Wikipedia is meant to be a repository of information that merges scientific, cultural, historical and religous knowledge. To delete the reference to the scientific context - while leaving behind all the old quasi-scientific and quasi-racist stuff of the old authors would be simply unfair on our readers. And Caniago, having deleted my original citation to Clifford et al, perhaps you can find it amongst your edits and put it back? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's work through this one step at a time. Firstly, what is the citation (Clifford et al 1998)? My guess is that the source says nothing at all about the Malay race, yet you are using it to state the Malay race is not "objectively distinct", whatever that means. Even if southeast Asian populations are not "pure", it doesn't imply anything about how distinct they may be from other population groupings or "races". This merging of information you want included needs to come from a reliable source and not be the product of your own opinion, which is what is seems to be. (Caniago (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC))
Further, whose words are: "Malays (by what ever definition one choses to define them)"? What does it mean? It sounds way too loose - it means you could be defining few things. --Merbabu (talk) 22:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Race different from ethnicity?[edit]

Although it is perhaps unavoidable to call these articles the "Malay race" and the "Malay ethnic group", are racial concepts not ethnic groups? They are based on descent and physical appearance, and are often associated with religion (see Whites/Europeans and Christianity), language (Malay race and Austronesian languages), a particular region (the Malay Archipelago for Malays; Europe and the Western world for Europeans), and other attributes that would be considered "ethnic". Where is the distinction drawn? Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 09:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the article's (Malay race and Malay (ethnic group) are fairly clear on the differences and are both based on well referenced sources (as opposed to personal musings). Have you read them? Actually, you just need to read the two lead sections to understand the differences. --Merbabu (talk) 10:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

There should be a name for a dominant race on southeast asia.[edit]

Remove this article it's invalid, Austronesian language article only is ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)



I tend to agree with you except for your suggestion to remove the article. Note that the article discusses the *concept* of a Malay Race. It doesn't actually say it is correct - rather it discusses the various viewpoints (including that there isn't a Malay *race*). Have you seen Malay (ethnic group)? This is different to the concept of a race. Please don't use upper case - it's like you are shouting, and we won't listen if you continue to shout. thanks! --Merbabu (talk) 08:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This is article is like related to Aryan Race "a useless concept".[edit]

This article must be classified to fictional races created by knowledge of antiquity.-- (talk) 08:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The article refers to it as "a concept" and makes it clear it is a disputed concept. Even if we go as far as saying it is complete bs, it is still notable. --Merbabu (talk) 10:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
PS - oh, the same IP who made the comment in the section above. --Merbabu (talk) 10:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
That IP has been blocked for two weeks. [1] Dream Focus 16:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes[edit]

  • Rachman227, this is about a historical term distinct from the concept of ethnic Malays (for instance, the Maori of New Zealand would have been classified as Malay under this system, but they are not classified as ethnic Malays). Classifying living people under an antiquated notion of "race" is a violation of WP:BLP and should not be on Wikipedia. Furthermore, we should not be mixing geographic classifications (names of islands, like "the Lesser Sundas") with anachronistic geo-political classifications (names of countries). Please self revert, or at least discuss these changes. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Crisco 1492, I'm not talking about Ethnic Malay here. I understand there's difference from Ethnic Malays and Malay as a race. Here I want to give example what a Malay as a race would look like. Like the article itself said: Malay variety. Tawny-coloured; hair black, soft, curly, thick and plentiful; head moderately narrowed; forehead slightly swelling; nose full, rather wide, as it were diffuse, end thick; mouth large, upper jaw somewhat prominent with parts of the face when seen in profile, sufficiently prominent and distinct from each other. This last variety includes the islanders of the Pacific Ocean, together with the inhabitants of the Mariannas, the Philippine, the Molucca and the Sunda Islands, and of the Malayan peninsula. I wish to call it the Malay, because the majority of the men of this variety, especially those who inhabit the Indian islands close to the Malacca peninsula, as well as the Sandwich, the Society, and the Friendly Islanders, and also the Malambi of Madagascar down to the inhabitants of Easter Island, use the Malay idiom.[1]

Indonesian, Malaysian, Singaporean and Filipinos are of Malay Race. In melayu, we call it Ras Melayu or Bangsa Melayu. It's different from Ethnic Malay. One talks about ethnicities, one talks about a race. Regarding to Sundas, you can see here what Sundas countries divided to ---> Sunda Islands.

And don't just revert someone's work. You can read more here: Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus"

Rachman227 (talk) 23:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

  • You claim to not be conflating the two, but Malay Singaporean (linked in the first caption) refers to ethnic Malays, as does native Indonesians (well, the vast majority of them, see my next point). By including Anggun, Aaron Aziz, and Azizulhasni Awang as the first three examples, you are perpetuating the idea that ethnic Malays are what was called the Malay race in a historical context. Bruno Mars coming up later doesn't do much to discourage this impression, particularly as the Philippines are still within Southeast Asia. The inclusion of modern-day celebrities, meanwhile, is a considerable WP:BLP issue: the article is clear that the idea of a Malay race was a highly negative one in its context ("degenerative" races) and thus including living individuals in this article could be seen as applying these classifications to them.
My second point, regarding the addition of modern nation states, is that not all Indonesian would fall under the "Malay race" classifications. Native Papuans were classified as Melanesians in race systems which used the notion of a "Malay" race. Since Indonesia has administrative control of West Papua, not all of present-day Indonesia would have been considered "Malay". If you were to, say, include "Sumatra, Java, and the lesser Sundas (parts of modern-day Indonesia)", there would not be a factual or anachronism issue: you'd be instead indicating where these geographic features are located.
My revert was, as I pointed out in my first edit summary, not due to "no consensus". It was due to the addition of unnecessary and potentially BLP violating images which misrepresented the subject, as well as the introduction of anachronistic countries which also misrepresent the boundaries of what was historically termed "the Malay race". You have, furthermore, been warned about your addition of images at the Indonesia page (unlinkable as the revisions are deleted) and on your talk page. You need to understand that more images is not necessarily a good thing.
A last point: if you want to throw links around, try WP:VANDNOT (a policy, not an essay): calling an editor who disagrees with your position a vandal does not help your case. You could have tried discussion, as I tried after your second revert. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Satu poin terakhir: saudara jangan pernah coba menipu saya mengenai soal bahasa. "Bangsa Melayu" itu "Malay people" atau "Malay nation" (yang, dalam konteks Indonesia, tidak sering digunakan karena ada dua negara [yang kerap diartikan "nation" juga] yang mayoritas penduduknya Melayu). Seandainya "bangsa" itu "race", tidak mungkin muncul istilah "SARA" pada masa Orde Baru; yang muncul pasti "SABA". Bahwa istilah "ras" digunakan menunjukkan bahwa penguasa pada masa itu sudah mengerti ada perbedaan yang signifikan (1) antara suku dan ras dan (2) antara bangsa ("Satu Nusa, Satu Bangsa", yang tercermin dalam slogan "Bhinneka Tunggal Ika") dan ras. You may think English Wikipedians don't understand Indonesia, its language, or its politics, but you'll be surprised. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Crisco 1492, jadi saya harus bagaimana? Saya ingin memasukkan gambar bagaimana orang ras melayu. Bagaimana kalau saya masukkan satu gambar berikut:

Azizulhasni Awang.jpg

Saya ingin memasukkan gambar ini karena sangat mewakili ras melayu karena kebanyakan penampilannya seperti ini (tolong diperhatikan yang saya maksud BUKAN suku melayu). Rachman227 (talk) 02:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Rachman, I think you should not add too many images in some wikipedia articles, especially some irrelevant image. Remember adding too many images do not led into a better article. It is not necessary. Please learn on biography of living people, since it must be treated carefully. Plus, actually the concept of the soo called "Malay race" is a vague one, since actually they belongs within Mongoloid racial group. Please do not insist on including pictures of living celebrities and notable figures as the representation of certain race. Remember WP:BLP. Gunkarta  talk  06:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Gunkarta, so putting photo of living public figure is not allowed in Wikipedia? Okay I got it now.

Rachman227 (talk) 11:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Rachman227, that's not what Gunkarta has said. I have to agree that sometimes "less is more", and the impact from one image is lost in the clutter of two or three. - SchroCat (talk) 11:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
@Rachman, no.., I talk about relevancy of pictures and WP:BLP or living person biography also public figure should be treated carefully. The same case has been happened in ethnic infobox and resulted in WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES consensus. I found people tends to represents the best specimens of their race, probably for vanity and puffery purpose; such as featuring athletes, models, actors, national heroes, politicians, and other prominent figures. Your addition of images sometimes are over the top and not necessary. Gunkarta  talk  12:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

So... what should we do to at least insert ONE image in this article? Try to find at least one image for each article. Wikipedia:Image dos and don'ts Rachman227 (talk) 12:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

  • There is an image already: the map. Rachman227, you need to read, understand and abide by WP:BRD: to fail to do so is to edit war, which can lead to problems. You also need to read WP:STATUSQUO: where there is a dispute, leave the disputed area alone while the discussion comes to a consensus. Ignoring both BRD and STATUSQUO is not helpful to others, and will lead you into deep problems. – SchroCat (talk) 13:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
    • ^ Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, The anthropological treatises of Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, translated by Thomas Bendyshe. 1865. November 2, 2006. [2]