Talk:Malays (ethnic group)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Dayak

The picture shown are the people of Dayak origins (On Borneo island), not Malays as stated in the page.

1. It is interesting to note that the dress of the Dayak can look different from the picture of the article. For example, the Dayak can wear large elaborate feathered headdress protruding from an elaborately brocaded headband, earrings, etc. It would be good to get a picture of the Dayak in this type of feathered headdress for the encyclopedia.
2. I have seen pictures of a woman of Bali who was dressed in exactly the same fashion as the woman in the picture, except that her skirt drapes to the ground. The women of Bali, up to at least 1960 would dress this way (when there were no tourists around).
3. Antonio Pigafetta recounted in 1521 that the women of the Philippines dressed the same way (bare-breasted).
4. The Dayak article recounts that at least some of the Dayak came to Borneo from other islands in Indonesia, as recently as 1675.
5. There is other evidence that the peoples of the Malay archipelago have migrated from island to island in the archipelago, for example, the emigration of some Malay people to Antique on the island of Panay to escape from the influence of the Srivijayan kingdom on Borneo, for which they paid a gold headdress to the chief of the Negritos on Antique. It is safe to say that the Malay people live in the Malay archipelago (including Borneo). Ancheta Wis 10:32, 20 June 2005 (UTC)

Template

It would be nice if we could use template:ethnic group. For instance, see French people, English people etc. __earth 06:03, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

what about building it here? For example, population in US is at least 1 million (Filipino-American). Include Malay Peninsula as well as Malay Archipelago. etc Ancheta Wis 06:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Field museum images

The Field Museum has existed for over 110 years. It was an anthropology museum for many decades. The images and artifacts have been collected for over this period. Even the statues were by professionals who studied the peoples they modelled in their travels thoughout the world. The Batik details on the Balinese woman's skirt, the headdresses of the men, etc. are authentic as of the date of the statues in 1930. There are statues of many ethnic groups in the museum Hawaiian, Navajo, Belgian, etc. The people who were the models for the statues even have their names recorded in the files of the Museum.

The images themselves existed on the article a year before your contributions of record, with no objections. I am reverting to hear your reasoning. Ancheta Wis 12:04, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Human skin color

I modified the text of the last sentence in the intro to add a little more perspective. Malay people do not have to be dark brown; as the Human skin color article points out, skin color depends on sun exposure, which is latitude-dependent. For example, my cousins in California (latitude 33 degrees) have tans, but my cousins who grew up in the Toronto area do not; in the time since I moved to latitude 45 degrees, my tan has faded, especially from my legs and feet, although my face and hands are still brown. Additionally, the people of Canton are more tan than the people of, say, Beijing. --Ancheta Wis 15:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I started to develop polka dots on my skin living near this nuclear reactor. Just kidding, just kidding  :) --Jondel 02:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I lived for several years in a Malay village near the equator. People's skin color varied from light tan to milk chocolate brown, but was mostly fairly light. --Carol Laderman. 9:20 PM EST. 2/26/06

Change of Article name: from "Malay people" to "Malayan people"

I suggest the renaming of this article to Malayan people. This would get rid of any ambiguity that Malay currently holds, since Malay can be 1) the generic name for all the inhabitants of the Malay Archipelago, but not of older aboriginal stock, or 2) also function as the proper name of the subgroup which is native to the eastern part of Sumatra but migrated to the Malay Peninsula and the Riau Archipelago. The latter is actually the original and most proper use of the term.

I have listened to the complaints over using the term Malay (mostly by angry Filipinos, but a couple of Indonesians as well). They have correctly pointed out that it is misleading to use Malay because it suggests a route of population first proposed by H. Otley Beyer (which has since been debunked by academia).

My proposal of Malayan people comes after long research of other naming conventions used in various other reputable encyclopædias and frank chats with academics. The adoption of Malayan people should rid ourselves once and for all of the ambiguities that Malay carried as a name for all the inhabitants of the Malay Archipelago, and not only those to whom it originally and still designates, the "true" Malays.

Additionally, we can finally go and revert that ghastly expression "Austronesian-speaking migrants" that were edited into Wikipedia to placate the critics of "Malay". Malayan finally reflects the cultural, linguistic and consanguineous links of the people of the Malay Archipelago (without the ambiguities and heartache of "Malay") without extending (as the use of Austronesian did) too far to include people who are indeed basically unrelated ethnically or consanguineously (other than on a distant linguistic level). Al-Andalus 17:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. There is no difference between the word Malay and Malayan. And who are these "academics" that you have had "frank chats" with? --Chris S. 03:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. Malayan, which originates from the root word Malaya, refers to the 11 states on the Malay Peninsula. And, if you could cite your source, maybe we could try to verity your assertion. __earth 08:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. In English, Malayan seems to refer specifically to the [lower] Malay[an] Peninsula or to the former country called Malaya for short. Malay is a much broader term, meaning both the people(s) and the language(s) and several geographic features. It is not used interchangeably with Malayan, and certainly not Malaysian. --Big Adamsky 14:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm confused....this article is about malay ethnic or almost all people from Indonesia, Brunei, Malaysia, and Philippines? Batak people were different with malay speaking north sumatran(off course both speak standardized Indonesian), so does Aceh, Minang, and other ethnic group. You could find this kind of conversation;

Q:Are you really Batak?

A: No, I'm Melayu(MALAY).

Revision as of 02:34, 21 December 2005

by User:203.87.168.213 (User talk:203.87.168.213 | contribs) entry log december 21, 2005

please allow me correct your article. the Filipino word for "freedom" is "malaya" not "malayo", as stated in said article. "malayo" is the Filipino word for "far".

ken

entry log: december 20, 2005

the philippine malays have been know to be very individualistic and form their own regional characteristics (apart from the mother tribe or baranggay)in a matter of decades. under the philippine malay root, we have the tagalogs, bicolanos, kapangpangans, cebuanos, ilonggos, warays, maguindanaos, tausugs and so on. they have their own dialects and sub-cultures, but all are considered malay from a genetic point of view. are the dayaks malay in nature?

taga tandaya

1911 edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica

From http://54.1911encyclopedia.org/M/MA/MALAYS.htm (but cleaned-up from a print copy of the 1911 EB because of the numerous OCR typo's and a general failure to account for inset titles):

MALAYS, the name given by Europeans to the people calling themselves Orang Malayu, i.e. Malayan folk, who are the dominant race of the Malay Peninsula and of the Malay Archipelago. Broadly speaking, all the brown races which inhabit the portion of Asia south of Siam and Indo-China, and the islands from the Philippines to Java, and from Sumatra to Timor, may be described as belonging to the Malayan family, if the aboriginal tribes, such as the Sakai and Semang in the Malay Peninsula, the Bataks in Sumatra, and the Muruts in Borneo, be excepted. For the purposes of this article, however, only those among these races which bear the name of Orang Malayu, speak the Malayan language, and represent the dominant people of the land, can be included under the title of Malays. These people inhabit the whole of the Malayan Peninsula to the borders of lower Siam, the islands in the vicinity of the mainland, the shores of Sumatra and some portions of the interior of that island, Sarawak and Brunei in Borneo, and some parts of Dutch Borneo, Batavia and certain districts in Java, and some of the smaller islands of the archipelago. Though in these lands they have for not less than a thousand years enjoyed the position of the dominant race, they all possess a tradition that they are not indigenous, and that their first rulers came "out of the sea", with a large band of Malayan warriors in their train. In the peninsula especially, where the presence of the Malays is more recent than elsewhere, many traditions exist which point to a comparatively recent occupation of the country. It has been remarked that there is evidence that the Malays had attained to a certain stage of civilization before ever they set foot in Malaya. For instance, the names which they give to certain fruits, such as the duri-an, the rambut-an and the pulas-an, which are indigenous in the Malayan countries, and are not found elsewhere, are all compound words meaning respectively the thorny, the hairy and the twisted fruit. These words are formed by the addition of the substantial affix "-an", the use of which is one of the recognized methods by which the Malays turn primitive words into terms of more complex meaning. This may be taken to indicate that when first the Malays became acquainted with the fruits which are indigenous in Malayan lands they already possessed a language in which most primary words were represented, and also that their tongue had attained to a stage of development which provided for the formation of compound words by a system sanctioned by custom and the same linguistic instinct which causes a Malay to-day to form similar compounds from European and other foreign roots. For any aboriginal race inhabiting these countries, such important articles of diet as the duri-an, &c., could not fail to be among the first natural objects to receive a name, and thus we find primary terms in use among the Sakai and Semang, the aborigines of the Peninsula, to describe these fruits. The use by the Malays of artificially constructed terms to denote these things may certainly be taken to strengthen the opinion that the Malays arrived in the lands they now inhabit at a comparatively late period in their history, and at a time when they had developed considerably from the original state of primitive man.

In the Malay Peninsula itself there is abundant evidence, ethnological and philological, of at least two distinct immigrations of people of the Malayan stock, the earlier incursions, it is probable, taking place from the eastern archipelago to the south, the later invasion spreading across the Straits of Malacca from Sumatra at a comparatively recent date. The fact that the semi-wild tribes, which are ethnologically Malayan and distinct from the aboriginal Semang and Sakai, are met with almost invariably in the neighborhood of the coast would seem to indicate that they reached the peninsula by a sea, not by a land route, a supposition which is strengthened by their almost amphibious habits. Many of these tribes have retained their pristine paganism, but many others it is certain have adopted the Mahommedan religion and have been assimilated by the subsequent and stronger wave of Sumatran immigrants. A study of the local dialects to be met with in some of the districts of the far interior, e.g. the Tembeling valley in Pahang, whose people are now Mahommedans and in many respects indistinguishable from the ordinary Malays of the peninsula, reveals the fact that words, current in the archipelago to the south but incomprehensible to the average peninsula Malays, by whom these more ancient populations are now completely surrounded, have been preserved as local words, whereas they really belong to an older dialect once spoken widely in the peninsula, as to-day it is spoken in the Malayan islands. This would seem to show that in some instances the earlier Malay immigrants fell or were driven by the later invaders back from the coast and sought refuge in the far interior.

- Theories of Origin.

Until recently many eminent scientists held the theory that the Malayan peoples were merely an offspring of the Mongol stock, and that their advance into the lands they now inhabit had taken place from the cradle of the Mongolian race - that is to say, from the north. In the fifth edition of his Malay Archipelago, A. R. Wallace notes the resemblance which he traced between the Malays and the Mongolians, and others have recorded similar observations as to the physical appearance of the two races. To-day, however, fuller data are available than when Wallace wrote, and the more generally accepted theory is that the Malayan race is distinct, and came from the south, until it was stayed by the Mongolian races living on the mainland of southern Asia. The cranial measurements of the Malays and an examination of their hair sections seem to bear out the theory that they are distinct from the Mongolian races. Their language, which is neither monosyllabic nor tonic, has nothing in common with that of the Mon-Annam group. It has, moreover, been pointed out that had the Malays been driven southwards by the stronger races of the mainland of Asia, it might be expected that the people inhabiting the country nearest to the border between Siam and Malaya would belong to the Malayan and not to the Mon-Annam or Mon-Khmer stock. As a matter of fact the Skai of the interior of the peninsula belong to the latter race. It might also be anticipated, were the theory of a southward immigration to be sustained, that the Malays would be new-comers in the islands of the archipelago, and have their oldest settlements on the Malayan Peninsula. The facts, however, are in exact contradiction to this; and accordingly the theory now most generally held by those who have studied the question is that the Malays form a distinct race, and had their original home in the south. Where this home lay it is not easy to say, but the facts recorded by many writers as to the resemblance between the Polynesian and the Malayan races, and the strong Malayan element found in the languages of the former (see Tregear's Maori and Comparative Polynesian Dictionary, London, 1891), have led some students to think that the two races may have had a common origin. John Crawfurd, in the Dissertation to his Dictionary of the Malay Language, published in 1840, noted the prevalence of Malayan terms in the Polynesian languages, and attributed the fact to the casting away of ships manned by Malays upon the islands of the Polynesian Archipelago. The appearance of the same Malayan words in localities so widely separated from each other, however, cannot be satisfactorily accounted for by any such explanation, and the theory is now more generally held that the two races are probably allied and may at some remote period of history have shared a common home. It has been suggested that their separation did not take place until after the continent which once existed in the north Pacific had become submerged, and that the Malays wandered northward, while the Polynesian race spread itself over the islands of the southern archipelago. All this, however, must necessarily be of the nature of the purest speculation, and the only facts which we are able to deduce in the present state of our knowledge of the subject may be summed up as follows: (a) That the Malays ethnologically belong to a race which is allied to the Polynesians; (b) that the theory formerly current to the effect that the Sakai and other similar races of the peninsula and archipelago belonged to the Malayan stock cannot be maintained, since recent investigations tend to identify them with the Mon-Annam or Mon-Khmer family of races; (c) that the Malays are, comparatively speaking, newcomers in the lands which they now inhabit; (d) that it is almost certain that their emigration took place from the south; (e) and that, at some remote period of their history, they came into close contact with the Polynesian race, probably before its dispersion over the extensive area which it now occupies.

The Malays to-day are Sunni Mahommedans of the school of Shafi'i, and they habitually use the terms Orang Malayu, i.e. a Malay, and Orang Islam, i.e. a Mahommedan, as synonymous expressions. Their conversion from paganism took place during the 13th, 14th and 15th centuries of our era.

Religion and Superstitions.

The raja of Achin, in northern Sumatra, is said to have been converted as early as 1206, while the Bugis people in Celebes are supposed not to have become Mahommedans until 1495. Mahommedanism undoubtedly spread to the Malays of the peninsula from Sumatra, but their conversion was slow and gradual, and may even now in some respects be regarded as imperfect. Upon the bulk of the Malayan peoples their religion sits but lightly. Few are found to observe the law concerning the Five Hours of Prayer, and many fail to put in an appearance at the Friday congregational services in the mosques. The Fast of Ramadhan, however, is generally observed with some faithfulness. Compared with other Mahommedan peoples, the Malays are not fanatical, though occasionally an outbreak against those of a different creed is glorified by them into a holy war. The reason of such outbreaks, however, is usually to be found in political and social rather than in religious grievances. Prior to their conversion to Mahommedanism the Malays were subjected to a considerable Hindu influence, which reached them by means of the traders who visited the archipelago from India. In the islands of Bali and Lombok the people still profess a form of Hinduism, and Hindu remains are to be found in many other parts of the archipelago, though their traces do not extend to the peninsula. Throughout, however, the superstitions of the Malays show indications of this Hindu influence, and many of the demons whom their medicine-men invoke in their magic practices are clearly borrowed from the pantheon of India. For the rest, a substratum of superstitious beliefs, which survives from the days when the Malays professed only their natural religion, is to be found firmly rooted in the minds of the people, and the influence of Mahommedanism, which regards such things with horror, has been powerless to eradicate this. Mr W. W. Skeats Malay Magic (London, 1900) is a compilation of all the writings on the subject of Malay superstitions by the best authorities and contains considerable original matter.

Mode of Life, &c.

The Malays of the coast are a maritime people, and were long famous for the daring character of their acts of piracy. They are now peaceable fisher-folk, who show considerable ingenuity in their calling. Inland the Malays live by Mode of preference on the banks of rivers, building houses on piles some feet from the ground, and planting groves of coco-nut, betel-nut, sugar-palm and fruit-trees around their dwellings. Behind their villages the rice-fields usually spread, and rice, which is the staple food of the people, is the principal article of agriculture among them. Sugar-cane, maize, tapioca and other similar products are grown, however, in smaller quantities. In planting rice three methods are in use: the cultivation of swamp-rice in irrigated fields; the planting of ploughed areas; and the planting of hill-rice by sowing each grain separately in holes bored for the purpose. In the irrigated fields the rice plants are first grown in nurseries, and are subsequently transplanted when they have reached a certain stage of development. The Malays also work jungle produce, of which the most important are gutta, rattans, agila wood, camphor wood, and the beautiful kamuning wood which is used by the natives for the hilts of their weapons. The principal manufactures of the Malays are cotton and silk cloths, earthenware and silver vessels, mats and native weapons. The best cotton cloths are those manufactured by the Bugis people in Celebes, and the batek cloths which come from Java and are stamped with patterns. The best silks are produced by the natives of Pahang, Klantan and Johor in the Malay Peninsula. Lord Leighton pronounced the silver ware from Malaya to be the most artistic of any exhibited at the Colonial Exhibition held in London in 1886. The pottery of the Malays is rude but curious. When the first Europeans visited the Malay Archipelago the Malays had already acquired the art of manufacturing gunpowder and forging canon. The art of writing also appears to have been independently invented by the Malayan races, since numerous alphabets are in use among the peoples of the archipelago, although for the writing of Malay itself the Arabic character has been adopted for some hundreds of years. The Malays are excellent boat-builders.

Character, &c.

While the Malays were famous almost exclusively for their piratical expeditions they naturally bore an evil reputation among Europeans, but now that we have come into closer contact with them, and have learned to understand them better, the old opinions concerning them have been greatly modified. They used to be described, as the most cruel and treacherous people in the world, and they certainly are callous of the pain suffered by others, and regard any strategy of which their enemies are the victims with open admiration. In ordinary circumstances, however, the Malay is not treacherous, and there are many instances recorded in which men of this race have risked their own lives on behalf of Europeans who chanced to be their friends. As a race they are exceedingly courteous and self-respecting. Their own code of manners is minute and strict, and they observe its provisions faithfully. Unlike many Orientals, the Malays can be treated with a friendly familiarity without such treatment breeding lack of respect or leading to liberties being taken with the superior. The Malays are indolent, pleasure-loving, improvident beyond belief, fond of bright clothing, of comfort, of ease, and they dislike toil exceedingly. They have no idea of the value of money, and little notion of honesty where money is concerned. They would always borrow rather than earn money, and they feel no shame in adopting the former course. They will frequently refuse to work for a wage when they most stand in need of cash, and yet at the invitation of one who is their friend they will toil unremittingly without any thought of reward. They are much addicted to gambling, and formerly were much given to fighting, though they never display that passion for war in the abstract which is characteristic of some of the white races, and their courage on the whole is not high if judged by European standards. It is notorious, however, on the coasts that a Malay gang on board a ship invariably gets the better of any fight which may arise between it and the Chinese crew. The sexual morality of the Malays is very lax, but prostitution is not common in consequence. Polygamy, though allowed by their religion, is practised for the most part among the wealthy classes only. The Malays are an intensely aristocratic people, and show a marvellous loyalty to their rajas and chiefs. Their respect for rank is not marred by any vulgarity or snobbery. The ruling classes among them display all the vices of the lower classes, and few of the virtues except that of courtesy. They are for the most part, when left to their own resources, cruel, unjust, selfish and improvident.

Much has been written concerning the acts of homicidal mania called amuck (amok), which word in the vernacular means to attack. It was formerly believed that these outbursts were to be attributed to madness pur et simple, and some cases of amok can certainly be traced to this source. These are not, however, in any sense typical, and might equally have been perpetrated by men of another race. The typical amok is usually the result of circumstances which render a Malay desperate. The motive is often inadequate from the point of view of a European, but to the Malay it is sufficient to make him weary of life and anxious to court death. Briefly, where a man of another race might not improbably commit suicide, a Malay runs amok, killing all whom he may meat until he himself is slain.

The nervous affliction called latah, to which many Malays are subject, is also a curious trait of the people. The victims of this affliction lose for the time all self-control and all sense of their own identity, imitating the actions of any person who chances to rivet their attention. Accounts of these manifestations will be found in Swettenhams Malay Sketches (London, 1895) and Cliffords Studies in Brown Humanity (London, 1897).

Costume, Weapons, &c.

The Malays wear a loose coat and trousers, and a cap or headkerchief, but the characteristic item of their costume is the sarong, a silk or cotton cloth about two yards long by a yard and a quarter wide, the ends of which are sewn together, forming a kind of skirt. This is worn round the waist folded in a knot, the women allowing it to fall to the ankle, the men, when properly dressed in accordance with ancient custom, folding it over the hilt of their waist-weapon, and draping it around them so that it reaches nearly to the knee. In the hall of a raja on state occasions a head-kerchief twisted into a peak is worn, and the coat is furnished with a high collar extending round the back of the neck only. This coat is open in front, leaving the chest bare. The trousers are short and of a peculiar cut and material, being colored many hues in parallel horizontal lines. The sarong is of Celebes manufacture and made of cotton, to the surface of which a high polish is imparted by friction with a shell. The typical fighting costume of the Malay is a sleeveless jacket with texts from the Koran written upon it, short tight drawers reaching to the middle of the thigh, and the sarong is then bound tightly around the waist, leaving the hilt of the dagger worn in the girdle exposed to view. The principal weapon of the Malays is the kris, a short dagger with a small wooden or ivory handle, of which there are many varieties. The blade of a kris may either be wavy or straight, but if wavy the number of waves must always be uneven in number. The kris most prized by the Malays are those of Bugis (Celebes) manufacture, and of these the kind called tuasek are of the greatest value. Besides the short kris, the Malays use long straight kris with very narrow blades, shorter straight krzs of the same form, short broad swords called sundang, long swords of ordinary pattern called pedang, somewhat shorter swords curved like scimitars with curiously carved handles called chenangkas, and short stabbing daggers called tumbok lade. The principal tools of the Malays are the parang or glok, a heavy knife used in the jungle, without which no peasant ever stirs abroad from his house, the beliong or native axe, and the pisau raut, which is used for scraping rattan. Their implements are very primitive, consisting of a plough fashioned from a fork of a tree, and a rude harrow. Reaping is usually performed by the aid of a curious little knife which severs each ear of grain separately. The fisherfolk use many kinds of nets, which they manufacture themselves. Sails, paddles, oars and punting-poles are all in use.

MALAY LANGUAGE. AND LITERATURE

The Malay language is a member of the Malayan section of the Malayo-Polynesian class of languages, but it is by no means a representative type of the section which has taken its name from it. The area over which it is spoken comprises the peninsula of Malacca with the adjacent islands (the Rhio-Lingga Archipelago), the greater part of the coast districts of Sumatra and Borneo, the seaports of Java, the Sunda and Banda Islands. It is the general medium of communication throughout the archipelago from Sumatra to the Philippine Islands, and it was so upwards of three hundred and fifty years ago when the Portuguese first appeared in those parts.

There are no Malay manuscripts extant, no monumental records with inscriptions in Malay, dating from before the spreading of Islam in the archipelago, about the end of the 13th century. By some it has been argued from this fact that the Malays possessed no kind of writing prior to the introduction of the Arabic alphabet (W. Robinson, J. J. de Hollander); whereas others have maintained, with greater show of probability, that the Malays were in possession of an ancient alphabet, and that it was the same as the Rechang (Marsden, Friederich), as the Kawi (Van der Tuuk), or most like the Lampong (Kern)all of which alphabets, with the Battak, Bugi and Macassar, are ultimately traceable to the ancient Cambojan characters. With the Mahommedan conquest the Perso-Arabic alphabet was introduced among the Malays; it has continued ever since to be in use for literary, religious and business purposes. Where Javanese is the principal language, Malay is sometimes found written with Javanese characters; and in Palembang, in the Mhnangkabo country of Middle Sumatra, the Rechang or Renchong characters are in general use, so called from the sharp and pointed knife with which they are cut on the smooth side of bamboo staves. Itis only since the Dutch have established their supremacy in the archipelago that the Roman character has come to be largely used in writing and printing Malay. This is also the case in the Straits Settlements.

By the simplicity of its phonetic elements, the regularity of its grammatical structure, and the copiousness of its nautical vocabulary, the Malay language is singularly well fitted to be the lingua franca throughout the Indian archipelago. It possesses the five vowels a, i, u, e, o, both short and long, and one pure diphthong, au. Its consonants are k, g, ng, ch, j, n, t, d, n, p, b, m, y, r, I, w, s, h. Long vowels can only occur in open syllables. The only possible consonantal nexus in purely Malay words is that of a nasal and mute, a liquid and mute and vice versa, and a liquid and nasal. Final k and h are all but suppressed in the utterance. Purely Arabic letters are only used in Arabic words, a great number of which have been received into the Malay vocabulary. But the Arabic character is even less suited to Malay than to the other Eastern languages on which it has been foisted. As the short vowels are not marked, one would, in seeing, e.g. the word bntng, think first of bintang, a star; but the word might also mean a large scar, to throw down, to spread, rigid, mutilated, enceinte, a kind of cucumber, a redoubt, according as it is pronounced, bantang, banting, bentang, buntan~, buntung, bunting, bonteng, benteng.

Malay is essentially, with few exceptions, a dissyllabic language, and the syllabic accent rests on the penultimate unless that syllable is open and short; e.g. datang, namaa, bhsr, diumpatkanflalah. Nothing in the form of a root word indicates the grammatical category to which it belongs; thus, kasih, kindness, affectionate, to love; ganti, a proxy, to exchange, instead of. It is only in derivative words that this vagueness is avoided. Derivation is effected by infixes, prefixes, affixes and reduplication. Infixes occur more rarely in Malay than in the cognate tongues. Examples are guruh, a rumbling noise, gumuruh, to make such a noise; tunjuli, to point, telunjuk, the forefinger; chuchuk, to pierce, cheruchuk, a stockade. The import of the prefixes me (mbng, mhfl, men, mhm), ph (peng, pen, pen, pCm), bbr (bel), per, phl, ka, di, thr,and affixes -- an, kan, i, lah -- will best appear from the following examples root word ajar, to teach, to learn; mengajar, to instruct (expresses an action); belajar, to study (state or condition); mengajari, to instruct (some one, trans.); mengajarkan, to instruct (in something, causative); pengajar, the instructor; pelajar, the learner; pkngajara n, the lesson taught, also the school; pelajaran, the lesson learnt; diajar, to be learnt; terajari, learnt; terajarkan, taught; thrajdri, instructed; [peraja (from raja, prince), to recognize as prince; perajakan, to crown as prince; karajaan, royalty]; ajarkanlah, teach! Examples of reduplication are ajar-ajar, a sainted person; ajar-bk rajar (or bkldjar), to be learning and teaching by turns; similarly there are forms like ajar-mkngajar, bkrajar-ajarqn, ajar-ajari, mkmpkrjar, mkmpirajarkan, mkmpkrajari, tkrbhljarkan, pirbkljarkan, &c. Altogether there are upwards of a hundred possible derivative forms, in the idiomatic use of which the Malays exhibit much skill. See especially H. von Dewall, De vormveranderingen der Maleische taal (Batavia, 1864) and J. Pijnappel, Maleisch-Ilollandsch Woordenboek (Amsterdam, 1875), Inleiding. In every other respect the language is characterized by great simplicity and indefiniteness. There is no inflexion to distinguish number, gender or case. Number is never indicated when the sense is obvious or can be gathered from the context; otherwise plurality is expressed by adjectives such as sagala, all, and bak, many; more rarely by the repetition of the noun, and the indefinite singular by sa or stu, one, with a class-word. Gender may, if necessary, be distinguished by the words laki-laki, male, and pkrampilan, female, in the case of persons, and of jantan and bitina in the case of animals. The genitive case is generally indicated by the position of the word after its governing noun. Also adjectives and demonstrative pronouns have their places after the noun. Comparison is effected by the use of particles. Instead of the personal pronouns, both in their full and abbreviated forms, conventional nouns are in frequent use to indicate the social position or relation of the respective interlocutors, as, e.g. hamba tuan, the masters slave, i.e. I. These nouns vary according to the different localities. Another peculiarity of Malay (and likewise of Chinese, Shan, Talaing, Burmese and Siamese) is the use of certain classwords or coefficients with numerals, such as orang (man),when speaking of persons, ekor (tail) of animals, keping (piece) of flat things, biji (seed) of roundish things; e.g. lima biji, tilor, five eggs. The number of these class-words is considerable. Malay verbs have neither person or number nor mood or tense. The last two are sometimes indicated by particles or auxiliary verbs; but these are generally dispensed with if the meaning is sufficiently plain without them. The Malays avoid the building up of long sentences. The two main rules by which the order of the words in a sentence is regulated are subject, verb, object; and qualifying words follow those which they qualify. This is quite the reverse of what is the rule in Burmese.

The history of the Malays amply accounts for the number and variety of foreign ingredients in their language. Hindus appear to have settled in Sumatra and Java as early as the 4th century of our era, and to have continued to exercise sway over the native populations for many centuries. These received from them into their language a very large number of Sanskrit terms, from which we can infer the nature of the civilizing influence imparted by the Hindu rulers. Not only in words concerning commerce and agriculture, but also in terms connected with social, religious and administrative matters that influence is traceable in Malay. See W. E. Maxwell, Manual of the Malay Language (1882), pp. 534, where this subject is treated more fully than by previous writers. This Sanskrit element forms such an integral part of the Malay vocabulary that in spite of the subsequent infusion of Arabic and Persian words adopted in the usual course of Mahommedan conquest it has retained its ancient citizenship in the language. The number of Portuguese, English, Dutch and Chinese words in Malay is not considerable; their presence is easily accounted for by political or commercial contact.

The Malay language abounds in idiomatic expressions, which constitute the chief difficulty in its acquisition. It is sparing in the use of personal pronouns, and prefers impersonal and elliptical diction. As it is rich in specific expressions for the various aspects of certain ideas, it is requisite to employ always the most appropriate term suited to the particular aspect. In Maxwells Manual, pp 120 seq., no less than sixteen terms are given to express the different kinds of striking, as many for the different kinds of speaking, eighteen for the various modes of carrying, &c. An unnecessary distinction has been made between High Malay and Low Malay. The latter is no separate dialect at all, but a mere brogue or jargon, the medium of intercourse between illiterate natives and Europeans too indolent to apply themselves to the acquisition of the language of the people; its vocabulary is made up of Malay words, with a conventional admixture of words from other languages; and it varies, not only in different localities, but also in proportion to the individual speakers acquaintance with Malay proper. A few words are used, however, only in speaking with persons of royal ranke.g. santap, to eat (of a raja) instead of makan; beradu, to sleep, instead of tidor: gring, unwell, instead of sakit; mangkat, to die, instead of mati, &c. The use is different as regards the term Jawi as applied to the Malay language. This has its origin in the names Great Java and Lesser Java, by which the medieval Java and Sumatra were called, and it accordingly means the language spoken along the coasts of the two great islands.

Literature

The Malays cannot, strictly speaking, be said to possess a literature, for none of their writings can boast any literary beauty or value.

Their most characteristic literature is to be found, not in their writings, but in the folk-tales which are transmitted orally from generation to generation, and repeated by the wandering minstrels called by the people Peng-lipor Lara, i.e. Soothers of Care. Some specimens of these are to be found in the Journal of the Straits Branch of the Asiatic Society (Singapore). The collections of Malay Proberbs made by Klinkert, Maxwell and Clifford also give a good idea of the literary methods of the Malays. Their verse is of a very primitive description, and is chiefly used for purposes of love-making. There are numerous rhymed fairy tales, which are much liked by the people, but they are of no literary merit. The best Malay books are the Hikayat Hang Tuak, Bestamam and the Hikayat Abdullah. The latter is a diary of events kept during Sir Stamford Raffles administration by his Malay scribe.

AUTHORITIES.

Hugh Clifford, In Court and Kampong (London, 1897);

Studies in Brown Humanity (London, 1898);

In a Corner of Asia (London, 1899);

Bush-whacking (London 1901);

Clifford and Swettenham, Dictionary of the Malay Language, parts i. to v. AG. Taiping (Perak, 1894-1898);

John Crawfurd, History of the Indian Archipelago (3 vols., Edinburgh, 1820); Grammar and Dictionary of the Malay Language (2 vols., London, 1852);

A Descriptive Dictionary of the Indian Islands and Adjacent Countries (London, 1856);

Journal of the Indian Archipelago (12 vols., Singapore, I8471862);

Journal of the Straits Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 33 Nos. (Singapore, 1878-1900);

H. C. Klinkert, Nieuw Maleisch-Nederlandisch Woorden boek (Leiden, 1893);

John Leyden, Malay Annals (London, 1821);

William Marsden, The History of Sumatra (London, 1811);

Malay Dictionary (London, 1824);

Sir William Maxwell, A Manual of the Malay Language (London, 1888);

T. j. Newbold, Political and Statistical Account of the British Settlements in the Straits of Malacca;

W. W. Skeat, Malay Magic (London, 900);

Skeat and Blagden, Pagan Races of the Malay Peninsula (London, 1906);

Sir Frank Swettenham, Malay Sketches (London, 1895);

The Real Malay (London, 1899);

British Malaya (London, I906);

H. von de Wall, edited by H. N. van der Tuuk, Maleisch-Nederlandisch Woordenboek (Batavia, 1877-1880);

Malay Dictionary (Singapore, 1903),

Wilkinson. (H. CL.) -- article author, "Malays" 1911 EB

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Earth (talk • contribs) 03:28, 10 March 2006‎ (UTC)

No merger of Malayan race page with Malayan people

Malayans come from the Southeast Asian nation of Malaysia. On the other hand, the Malayan race defined by Blumenbach is all of Southeast Asia, so they are different. The Malayan race is a historical definition of race by a race scientist. -- Dark Tichondrias 05:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. According to this article, the Malay people inhabit "Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, the Philippines, and East Timor," not just Malaysia. --Lukobe 23:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, it's a bit dubious to relate a Malay race as opposed to a Malay people which is easier to define in terms of many common origins, cultural similarities and of course related languages. I say merge the articles definitely. Tombseye 18:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

DO YOU KNOW

do you now

Do you know what? Your question is unclear to the readers and we're missing the point of your directed enquiry. Please elaborate your question for our understanding. What is it that you want to ask? --203.206.130.133 (talk) 09:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Malays in Malaysia

As discussed in the Islam in Malaysia article, legally there is no such thing as non-Muslim Malays. This isn't particularly clear at the moment and needs to be mentioned with a reference to the Islam in Malaysia page Nil Einne 19:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Picture of a malaysian

I come to this article and see a carving of a malay? Can sum1 put a real pic of a malay soi can see wut they rlly look like...im mostly interested in how the eyes and skin color r......

I removed a pic of a woman in "traditional" clothing. Not all malays have that as their traditional clothing. Perhaps the pic would be better if it said what malay group wore that clothing. Merbabu 08:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The picture doesn't need to have a Malay wearing traditional dress. What if the Malay was wearing a Thai tie? Does that make the Malay any less Malay? The dressing in the picture is a subset of Malay culture anyway. __earth ^(Talk) 10:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Earth, because of the picture switch, I moved your image into the info box. Then I noticed it was in the article already, so I moved the Field Museum image into the former slot. --Ancheta Wis 10:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Earth, sorry i didn't quite understand your comment, and maybe you misunderstood mine. The picture should identify a malay - which it did. My concern was that it was also, incorrectly, suggesting that all malays have the traditional dress depicted in that image. I don't know what culture that women is from, but if someone can state where she is from, why not reinstate the picture, but provide the caption A malay in the traditional costume of "XXXXX region"? Merbabu 10:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that it'll be best if there's a coloured pic of a Malay man and woman - a man wearing Baju Melayu and a lady wearing Baju Kebaya or Baju Kurung. They can be Zapin or Joget dancers, or even Malay bride & groom. You can also add a pic of a beautiful Malay stilt house. At least the richness in the Malay culture can be seen with the vibrant traditional attire and detailed architecture. Since that the Malays have a rich civilisation like the Thais, Chinese and Indians, might as well show the best of it. Fantastic4boy 17:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is a link to a Filipina and her baby in a political rally. --72.128.107.62 17:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I've just added a series of pics of Malay leaders and actress (like what you've seen on Turkish people) so that people would recognise how the Malays look like. --Fantastic4boy 10:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Its unfortunate that all the Malays in your picture are from the country Malaysia. Would you be able to include a few famous Malays from other countries so people understand the wider scope of this ethnic group? (Caniago 16:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC))

Eh... Raden Ayu Kartini is a Malay? Isn't she a Javanese people? — Indon (reply) —

Well, according to this article, it refers the Malay race as Austronesian natives from "Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Brunei, Singapore and southern Thailand", and this doesn't necessarily include cultural traits. Similarly to the Filipinos, the Javanese are Malays because of their physique and language. Even on the article "Indonesia" here on Wikipedia defines that Indonesia is predominantly ethnic Malays (that is for the Austronesian natives, such as the Balinese, Minangkabaus, Acehnese etc.). Surely, they're including Javanese people, since that they are the majority Austronenesian natives. It seems to me that the definitions from the available resources refer the Javanese as a clan of the Malay race. I respect your views Indon and I notice that some people might disagree with this (especially the Javanese) but this is what many of the cited facts have mentioned, whether they be book or internet research. --138.130.75.215 11:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The Indonesian article now refers to Austronesians instead of Malays. The term Malay in the strict sense, as defined by Encyclopaedia Britannica, is an "ethnic group of 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.". It is not as broad as some people have defined in this article. (Caniago 02:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC))

Minor remark about User:138.130.75.215's comment: The Malay ethnicity of native Filipinos in their article appears to be questioned. I do know that the Thai —Thailand's large majority ethnicity that can most easily recognize the distinc ethnical Malay minority of southern Thailand— look identical with most natives from the Philippines. Especially abroad where women married with westerners have created notable communities from both countries, when meeting a new face on the street or in shops, they themselves need to ask about the country of origin. — SomeHuman 19 Jan2007 03:36 (UTC)

Looks are irrelevant. This article is about an ethnic group rather than a genetic or "racial" group. (Caniago 04:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC))

My remark explicitly commented on "the Filipinos, ... are Malays because of their physique and language". Racial characteristics (physique, looks) are determined by ancestry, one of the major elements that may bring peoples in a same ethnic group, and the wide area's religions and (hence) cultures are very different. — SomeHuman 20 Jan2007 07:48 (UTC)

The title of this section should be changed to "Malays"

The title of this section should be changed to "Malays". This is because "Malaysians" refer to people who are of Malaysian citizenship (regardless of their race e.g. Malaysian Chinese) but "Malays" refer to the Austronesian natives of the Malay World. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.130.75.215 (talk) 11:33, 12 anuary 2007 (UTC).

It's interesting that both of the younger people in the picture representing Malays in the infobox are eurasians. It's not that there's a problem with that considering in the Malaysian constitution the term Malay means "a person who practices Islam and Malay Cultures, speaks Malay Language, and whose ancestors are Malays (quoted from the Malay wikipage)", which without a doubt, they did meet these requirement. But wouldnt it be better to use a picture that represent majority of the Malays in the region, whose having both parents of Asian origin (genetically)from the Southeast Asia region?

Malaysian

Malay people in Myanmar

There are also malay people in Myanmar (Burma) called Rakhine or Moken. They should be added as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kampilan24 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

There is not a significant malay presence in Myanmar, the Rakhine are not malays. They are actually related to the Bamars and Tibetans. (CanCanDuo 05:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC))

Rakhine and Moken are NOT the same people. Like CanCanDuo said, the Rakhine people are not Malay. The Moken, however, might be considered Malay (at least linguistically). --Melanochromis 09:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Problem at Malaysian

There is currently a buildup of over 750 ambiguous links at the Malaysian disambiguation page. This is an extremely large number - actually, it is roughly double the largest number of ambiguous links of any other page on the English Wikipedia. Fixing the links requires the editor to distinguish between links that are intended to refer to Malay people from links that are intended to refer to the person's nationality or an aspect of the Malaysian nation (which should like to Malaysia. Can some editors who have a good understanding of the human geography of the region volunteer to correct the links? Dekimasu 12:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Global Malay Population

Where did all the statistics on the worldwide Malay population go to? Why was it deleted? --Fantastic4boy 08:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the source was poor. Also, I'd have to add that it wasn't placed in the article very well.

[1]Merbabu 08:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

East Timorese as Malays?

Despite the fact that the great majority of East Timorese still speak Malay, I find it quite difficult to believe that the East Timorese are Malays. Surely, some of them look Malay and I accept that, but how about those who are Negritos? I'm not being a "Malay Nazi" but it's just strange to refer them as Malays as much as those of the indigenous Irian Jayans. --Fantastic4boy 05:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree. The term Malay in this article is too broad and not accurate anymore. — Indon (reply) — 10:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. To quote Britannica ([2]): "Malay Orang Melayu (“Malay People”) - any member of an ethnic group of 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. The Malay speak various dialects belonging to the Austronesian (Malayo-Polynesian) family of languages. The Malay were once probably a people of coastal Borneo who expanded into Sumatra and the Malay Peninsula as a result of their trading and seafaring way of life. That this expansion occurred only in the last 1,500 years or so is indicated by the fact that the languages of the Malay group are all still very much alike, though very divergent from the languages of other peoples of Sumatra, Borneo, and other neighbouring lands. In the late 20th century the Malay constituted more than half of the population of Peninsular Malaysia (West Malaysia) and more than one-eighth of the population of East Malaysia (Sarawak and Sabah)......". (Caniago 13:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC))

The fundamental problem with this article - please read

quoted from: [3]

It's instructive to contrast the very different usages of the term Malay
(actually Melayu) in Indonesia and Malaysia.

In Indonesia, the term refers to a particular ethnic group found
primarily in Sumatra and neighboring peninsular Malaysia; in this usage,
Bugis, Javanese, Sundanese, Lampungese, Minangkabau, Acehnese, and so on
and so forth are most emphatically not Malay.  On the fringes, some
indeterminacy can be found with respect to the application of the term
to speakers of Malayic languages such as Palembang, Seraway, Bengkulu
and others: some would characterize them as Malay while others would
not.  The Indonesian use of the term thus correponds more or less to
that of most western ethnographers and anthropologists, with the
possible exception of various small non-Muslim Malayic-speaking "Orang
Asli" populations, who might be considered Malay by ethnographers, but
aren't considered Malay by most Indonesians, on religious grounds.

in contrast, in Malaysia, the term Malay has a much broader usage, which
seems to correspond roughly to Muslim Austronesian.  (So this would
include also those Filipinos who are Muslim.)  To a certain extent, this
usage reflects current realities within Malaysia, where Javanese,
Minangkabau and other Muslim Austronesian migrants assimilate rapidly
into the dominant Malay cultural mold.  However, it is totally
inappropriate in the Indonesian context, where Malay (as opposed to
Indonesian) language and Malay culture are recognized as being just one
albeit major element in a multi-lingual and multi-cultural mosaic.

From the above, it should be obvious that for linguistic and
ethnographic discourse, the more limited Indonesian usage is more
precise and hence more appropriate than the broader Malaysian one.  And
it would also seem to be preferable on ethical grounds.  Maybe Filipinos
don't mind being called Malays, but many Indonesians of other
ethnicities would find this very strange.  Using Malay as a cover terms
for Minangkabau, Javanese, Bugis and so forth is a bit like using German
as a cover term for Swedish, Dutch, English and so on.

--
David Gil

Department of Linguistics
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
Deutscher Platz 6, D-04103 Leipzig, Germany

Looking at the content of this article, it has been written according to the Malaysian usage of the term Malay, rather than the Indonesian and academic definition of Malay. (Caniago 09:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC))

The Malay article takes the position that 'Malay' is a group defined in a similar way as caucasion. Ie, 1 group, but many cultures. We now have to work out the validity of that. Is the definition that has been used invalid simply because it is not (apparently) the Indonesian definition or the definition of some academics? I don't have an answer, just asking questions, and asking that all opinions be thoroughly backed up. Merbabu 10:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

To quote from [4] "19th century use of the word 'Malay' - Another factor in the Malaysian tendency to use a broad meaning of the word 'Malay', has been the habit of English speakers to use that word in a very broad sense too. Malaysia was once ruled over by the British and no doubt, the broad meaning of 'Malay' became established. In fact, in the early days, English-speakers used the term to mean any medium-to- dark-skinned person in Southeast Asia.". I've seen the term Malay used for the broader sense in some English language travel books and such, but the term Malay is too ambiguous to be used by academics without at least defining the context and scope in which it is used. (Caniago 20:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC))

I think the easiest way to maintain POV is to mention both interpretations. Both interpretations are probably the most widely known definitions of the noun Malay. __earth ^(Talk) 12:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe you meant maintaining NPOV, right? As long as reliable sources are given, then it's always okay with any definitions. — Indon (reply) — 13:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. NPOV. =) __earth ^(Talk) 13:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

How about the East Timorese? They can't be considered Malays. Although they have dark skinned, they don't have the cranialogical features of the Malays but rather with the Negritos (Negroid cranialogy). Their language is somewhat different. --Fantastic4boy 23:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Which definition of Malay do you refer to? They are certainly not part of the Indonesian or academic use of Malay ethnic group. Also, they are not Muslims, so they don't fit the Malaysian definition of Malay. (Caniago 23:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC))

Caniago, I think you've missed the point of this article. The topic that the article is focusing is about the Malay racial stock consisting of different ethnic groups, NOT ethnic Malays. It's only in a country like Malaysia that defines Malay (i.e. ethnic Malays) as being Muslim and practising Malay culture at the same time. --Fantastic4boy 00:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't miss the point of the article, I disagree with it's content. So does Encyclopedia Britannica. There is no "Malay racial stock", it's a colonial misnomer revived in modern times for political reasons. The modern term for the people across the region is Austronesian. (Caniago 00:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC))

Okay, but Austronesians would include people from the Pacific Islanders - the Polynesians. That's be a wider It's not only the people from maritime Southeast Asia, Malay Peninsula and south Thailand. So, would you like us to call the people of the Malay World - Asian Austronesians or just Austronesians? --Fantastic4boy 00:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Javanese, Minangkabau, Batak, etc. They are each distinct ethnic groups, even though they do share some common characteristics. Calling them all Malays only confuses the fact that there is a distinct Malay ethnic group which is separate. I agree with __earth and Indon - it is valid to list the various uses of the term Malay, even if there has to be separate articles to explain each of them, but as it stands there is no balance at all in this article since it only explains one particular usage of the term (and not very well since none of the material is cited from reliable sources). (Caniago 00:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC))

You're right, Caniago. You have made some good points. After doing some thinking, looking at all the Austronesian groups in Southeast Asia, I'd have to agree with you on this. Whoever type on the article stating that non ethnic-Malays to be included as Malays did not reference their statements well with credile source citations - authors with the book or their document titles. Yes, this causes more confusion and make people doubt whether or not the typers are telling the truth with no solid evidence. Furthermore, various sources have stated that the ethnic groups mentioned in this article are of separate ethnic groups and to say that they're all the same as Malays would make people confused to know what being Malay and what not is really like. It's like labelling English, Swedish, Norwegians, Dutch and Danish people all as Germans just because their languages are similar (the many similar words used) to German and possibly share certain common cultural traits. As you've stated, unless someone can state various uses under the name Malay, that is, perhaps under the term "Malays" there are other names (disambiguation usage) used to associate with it to refer and include the Austronesian ethnic groups of the Malay World. I think certain sections of this article, if not for all, needs to be revised and clarified. --Fantastic4boy 06:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I remember reading from this page a long time ago that there are usage of Malay as a specific term as well as a generic term. That explanation is now gone but is retrievable from history [5]

“ Generally, the name "Malay" is used to describe all the numerous related groups inhabiting the Malay Archipelago, and which are not of older aboriginal stock. These include the Aceh, Minangkabaus, Bataks and Mandailings who live in Sumatra ; Java and Sunda in Java ; Banjars, Ibans, Kadazans and Melanaus in Borneo ; Bugis and Torajas in Sulawesi ; the various dominant ethnic groups in the Philippines such as the Tagalogs, Ilocanos and Ifugao of Luzon island, the Visayans of the central Philippines, the Maguindanao, Tausug and Bajau of Mindanao and the Sulu Archipelago ; and the people of East Timor (again, excluding those of older Papuan stock).

Specifically, this name is also the proper name of the subgroup which is native to the eastern part of Sumatra but migrated to the Malay Peninsula and the Riau Archipelago over the past thousand years or so. Sometimes, but very rarely, this subgroup is called "Riau Malays" to distinguish it as a specific group.

”

Perhaps, re-mentioning that would avoid the confusion? __earth ^(Talk) 15:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I started a cleanup - my edits were a bit rough but it's a start. Also, people may interested in this Malay World and [6] Merbabu 15:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

What if an ethic Malay person converts to Christianity or any other religion? Would he or she still be considered Malay? --Fantastic4boy 06:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Using Malay as a cover terms
for Minangkabau, Javanese, Bugis and so forth is a bit like using German
as a cover term for Swedish, Dutch, English and so on.

I think they call them the germanic people, the same way the forer group is called the "malay people" informally.--Chicbicyclist 02:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

New title

"Malay Austronesians"??? what is that? We can't just make up articles to fit an article that is factually dubious. Do you have references for Malay Austronesians.

I think it is almost about time that everything that has no RELIABLE sources gets removed. Although i note there is not one reference in the article. depsite repeated requests. Merbabu 11:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Moving this article into another name is somewhat diverting the problem we are still discussing on. Why did this aticle rename without consensus? Is the term Malay-Austronesian valid? Have you checked with reliable sources? Have you read ethnologists/antrophologists articles? I am still doubting also some of the editor's contributions by creating/mantaining invalid ethnic-Malay-related articles: European Malay-Austronesian? Turkish Malay? Austrian Malay? Serbian Malay? and other kind of Malay thingy. Are you going to create the Whole-world-of-people-combined Malay article also?? — Indon (reply) — 12:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Turkish Malays, Austrian Malays and Serbian Malays are basically just terms used for people of mixed Malay and other races (like Anglo-Indians) to separate them from other Eurasians or people with partially Turkish origins. They're just people of mixed race of certain origins. Do not confuse it with "Malay-Austronesians" which is totally a made up term for describe Malay and other Austronesian people in the Malay World since that as far as we know these people are called just Austronesian for. Furthermore, they're not a neologies or racial slur like Chindians. At first I wanted to use the term "Malay-Austronesians" because I thought this would avoid confusion with ethnic Malays. Though, I now do disagree with the usage "Malay-Austronesians" since that it sounds aweful (as Chris S. described it). --Fantastic4boy 02:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I truly believe that the title should be Malay people, in line with French people, Chinese people, Indian people, etc. The description of what a Malay is, inclusive of the "outdated" definition could be discussed in the article's subsection. __earth ^(Talk) 04:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do agree with you, __earth. I think the term "Malays" should be used exclusively for ethnic Malays to avoid confusion with the use of this outdated term for other Austronesians who have cultural and/or linguistic relations to the Malays. --Fantastic4boy 05:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it should have been left the way it was. The previous version specifically made the distinction between the capital M Malay and small m malay(as a bigger umbrella term to refer to people in Maritime Southeast Asia of Austronesian stock. Now, if Caniago still have an issue with the use of the term between Indonesia and Malaysia, then it should be added in the article as well, or at least a link to Malay(Indonesia) the same way there was a link to Malay(Malaysia).--Chicbicyclist 21:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid Chicbicyclist, that the big M defintion of Malay as you put it is a historical term which is mostly irrelevant, but in the old article it was used as the definition of Malays. The article has been corrected and brought into the line with the currently accepted definition of Malays. I know that is probably hard for you to accept. If so, I suggest you start researching and reading some WP:reliable sources to improve your understanding. (Caniago 22:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC))

For what it's worth, students in the Philippines have been taught in the past decades or so that the country was populated by the negritos first, then the indones(proto-austronesians?) second and finally, by the malays(malayos), arriving by sea. That fits inline with the current Malay definition that you insist (as viewed in Indonesia and Malaysia) on as viewed by Filipinos.

Again, the article made it clear the distinction between the current definition of the Malays(big M) and the "irrelevant" historical definition (small m) malay could have been added as a section. I don't see why outdated historical terms cannot be present on Wikipedia so long as it is made abundantly clear that it is in, fact outdated.--Chicbicyclist 02:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Chicbicyclist, from memory, the previous and now modified definition in the article included essentially ALL (or the vast majorirty) of Filipinos (and Indonesians) as Malays. Clearly, then there are some Malays (a significant minority?) in the Philippines (as there is in Indonesia) and this should be expressed. but it is not the dominant group. I also agree with you comment that previous definitions (ie, the very broad one) SHOULD be mentioned as an earlier or alternative definition and with some context provided - the problem was that this article offered that definition as the only definition. Merbabu 03:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Revert move and proposal

Malay Austronesians is an awful awful name. It is not used anywhere in academia. I have reverted the move until a consensus has been reached concerning the proper name of this article. My suggesting is to split the article. One article would be "Malay (ethnic group)" or just plain Malays and the other would be over the term, the so-called "Malay race" so that it would be in line with Caucasian race (note that there is also a Caucasian peoples article) and Mongoloid race (and note there is a separate article called Mongols). --Chris S. 19:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Malays (ethnic group) sounds like a logical to academics, Chris S.. However, would the term Malay race be valid as a collective racial term for a group of people that include the Chams, Minangkabau, Javanese etc.? --Fantastic4boy 02:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic4boy, why did you move the page again after you have been warned by multiple people not to do so? Do you not understand "Why did this aticle rename without consensus?" or "I have reverted the move until a consensus has been reached concerning the proper name of this article.". Your continuing actions may lead to you being blocked from Wikipedia. (Caniago 02:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC))

I'm sorry if it upsets you all that I move the article names to what I think would be suitable and lessen confusion as a trial and error thing . So I can't move articles to another name without discussing it here first and getting approval from the users here. Is that what you're saying that I must do, Caniago? --Fantastic4boy 02:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we are first discussing what the article should be called before renaming it. Consensus means "a general agreement among the members of a given group or community". (Caniago 02:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC))

Since that ethnic Malays are not natives to Philippines and that no credible source of information with authors and Philippines consensus that mention about the existence of Malays, should we delete the part on the Philippines? --Fantastic4boy 03:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, anything about Filipinos should be moved to Malay race. --Chris S. 06:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Based upon my brief readings into this topic, my preference would be to have an article Malay (ethnic group) (as you suggested), and another Malay (identity) or Malay identity. The term "Malay race" is outdated and factually inaccurate, and seems to have been superseded by Austronesian. The Malay (identity) article can cover the various historical, political, social, and linguistic affinities within Malaysia and across the so called Malay world. This opinion is based upon two articles: [7] and [8] (Caniago 03:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC))

Well, identity is basically the foundation of an ethnic group. For this reason, it would be preferable to simply be in line with other ethnic groups (re: the Caucasian & Mongol(oid)s examples I gave above.). Now that I think of it, the name should simply be Malays whose article contents would deal with the specific ethnic group in Malaysia. Now, there should be a disambiguation statement that goes something like "This article is about an ethnic group in Malaysia. For the race, see Malay race."

I didn't know that Caucasians were an ethnic group. Don't you mean a (broad) racial group (in some definitions)? --Merbabu 07:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I do strongly agree with you that Malay race is outdated and factually inaccurrate; on a personal note, as a Filipino I vehemently reject being categorized as "Malay." Anyway, the separate article should address not only that but also talk about how Filipinos use the term and how academia has traditionally use it. I should also note that race is also considered a term that is considered inaccurate by anthropologists, something worth mentioning. --Chris S. 06:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I've read (if I'm not mistaken historical books on Sukarno and his political role in Indonesia) about wanting to create "Melayu Raya" or "Greater Malay" - suggesting that to his definition, includes the whole of Indonesia and Malaysia (since that he laid claims on Sarawak and Sabah to be part of Malaysia). Furthermore, there's a Filipino professor (I just can't point out his name - I've forgotten about what his exact name is) that wanted to combine the terms "Malay" and "Asia" to be "Malaysia" to refer to the Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia and southern Thailand (if I'm not mistaken). However, this is what I had heard and may not be a credible reference, Tunku Abdul Rahman used the term "Malaysia" for the new formed nation in 1963 consisting of Malaya, Sarawak, Sabah and Singapore (2 years before its separation from Malaysia). Does anyone know the name of the Filipino professor? --Fantastic4boy 06:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

"Melayu Raya" - direct translation is "Greater Malay", but in English, as demonstrated in Wikipedia, it is known as Greater_Indonesia. Does anyone know more about Sukarno's connection to the concept of Greater Indonesia? --Fantastic4boy 06:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, God forbid. --Chris S. 06:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

would the term Malay race be valid as a collective racial term for a group of people that include the Chams, Minangkabau, Javanese etc.? Having not been involved in this ongoing discussion I find this question disturbing - no Javanese person ever considers themselves to be Malay - in any way - even the academic journal RIMA and its recent new title separates the Indonesian from the Malay world. The standard acceptance in the academic realms of anthropology and history is to separate the groups. I agree with Chris's comments despair at any idea of ever bothering about some of the hypothetical constructs that occured in the more stranger of Sukarno's ideas - is agreed - that is not a road that we need to travel in this discussion at all. It is surely irrelevent! SatuSuro 07:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read South_East_Asia#Ethnic_groups, a good detail of ethnic groups in SE Asian countries. To Fantastic4boy, mixture of European and Asian has been described in Eurasian (mixed ancestry). You should not create each ethnic mixture with one article: X Malay, Y Malay, Z Malay, etc. How many articles are you going to create for that? What if X Malay mixes with Z Malay? Would you want to create X Z Malay article? Please be reasonable and please please please use reliable sources (academic papers, etc.) to name an article. You just can't create an ethnic group name. — Indon (reply) — 09:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I respect your views on the X & Y Malay mix theory, but for the Malays mixed and European parentage, that'll be a different matter - it's not related to this article and so it's irrelevant since they are clearly mixed race but some racial stock or ethnic group. We're focusing our discussions on the Malay people for this article. --Fantastic4boy 13:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

No, that article is based on the exact same fundamental error of this article. So it's perfectly relevant. Merbabu 13:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

So what are you guys going to do with the article? Delete them all? --203.15.122.35 00:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the European-Malays etc. articles that Fantastic4boy had created is clearly not an ethnic group but people of non-Malay and Malay races. The definition of an ethnic group is clearly being that of Han Chinese, Malays, Javanese etc. So, European-Malays, Turkish Malays are not ethnic groups and are separate topics to this since they are not ethnic groups. --203.15.122.35 00:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I may need to rename the articles then. I'll think about them. --Fantastic4boy 00:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC) You guys are really harsh on my articles. I guess you guys just want to threat me and think everything I do is of no good. You just want to delete everything I do. It's not I don't reference them or anything. Okay, just go ahead and delete all my racial/ethnic articles if you want. I don't care anymore. --Fantastic4boy 00:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic4boy, we value your contributions to wikipedia, but you need to learn how to improve the quality of your contributions. Please read Wikipedia:No original research. (Caniago 01:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC))

I've put Arab Malays, European Malays, and Turkish Malays up for deletion. Please vote here, here, and here (Caniago 00:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC))

You might like to also vote for the deletion of IMSCF Syndrome - here (Caniago 02:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC))

Well, let's ask the opinions of the Malays themselves. Being a non-Malay myself, I think it is the best that such issues are up to the Malays to decide. After all, there are categories such as Category:Eurasians and so on. Malays with Arab, European and other racial blood lines are abundant throughout Malaysia and Singapore (check articles' references). Mr Tan 06:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr Tan, who exactly are the Malay? As you can see on this talk page there are a multitude of varying definitions ranging from everyone in South East Asia (the definition used by these articles and categories more or less), to more precise and academically correct definitions. As others have mentioned above, any ethnic groups articles or categories which are created need to be supported by reliable sources. The term Malay is so ambiguous that any use of it needs to qualify the intended scope. (Caniago 07:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC))

Mr Tan, where is the validity of asking malays if they think Indonesians, for example, are malays? Why not ask Indonesians if they think they are Malay? --Merbabu 07:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Then how about asking the Malaysian, Singaporean, Pattani Thai and Breuneians if they think they are Malay? Apparently you lacked the understanding of Malay supremacy. Let's see what they say first before you express out. I believe that only Malays themselves know best, and here there are a number of them, on english wikipedia. Give it a day or two. I have asked for their opinions already. Mr Tan 15:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr Tan, the issue here is this article had described the people of Indonesia and the Philippines as Malays. That is incorrect and it is not up to Malaysian Malays to define Filipinos or Indonesians as Malays.

Also, i actually do know a fair bit about the racialist Malaysian Malay view of their supremacy, but I fail to understand how it means Indonesians and Fillopinos are Malays. Can you please clarify why you brought it up?

As for your suggestion to ask "Malaysian, Singaporean, Pattani Thai and Breuneians if they think they are Malay?", this as far as I'm aware has not been challenged, particularly from myself. I would suggest though that it needs to be properly referenced. Merbabu 02:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, some Filipinos think they're Malay, like the ones involved in Maphilindo.23prootie 05:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

MAybe but the article you cite has no citations or references - only links SatuSuro 05:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

..and 'some' is not enough. THe point was this article used to say the dominant group in the Philippines was Malay. of course, if there are Malay minority groups (ie, with links to Malaysia) then that should be mentioned and referenced. Merbabu 05:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Merbabu is correct. There are sources which indicate a minority population of Malays in the Philippines, but not that all the population is Malay. (Caniago 07:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC))

Actually, the Philippine government believes that majority of the population is Malay as seen in these sites [9] [10].23prootie 09:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

By definition, if some says to ask Malays what Malays are you should ask all people who consider themselves Malay. Any Indonesians who consider themselves Malay should be ask. So IMHO there is no need to say you should ask Indonesians since by definition, if they consider themselves Malays then you should be asking them. Of course you end up with a bit of a chicken and egg situation here and I'm not saying this is the best way to resolve the debate. I'm just pointing out there is no need to say you should ask Indonesians what Malays are since by definition you are including all people who consider themselves Malays whether Indonesian, Malaysian, Thai Pattani or whatever 203.109.240.93 11:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, while I'm not saying the European Malays etc article were a good idea or shouldn't have been deleted, I wanted to point out the fact we have a Eurasian (mixed ancestory) is not necessarily any justification to remove them. If there is a distinct subgroup as described by reliable sources, then we need seperate articles. We have, Mestiços (Sri Lanka) and Burgher people for example and should have Serani 203.109.240.93 11:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I am going to second what User Merbabu has underlined. And furthermore, Brunei or Bruni as I understand it, was a term used to described most who lived in that given coast. I can't described them as "Malay" owing to the fact that a large rump of their populace are Kadayan, Bisayah or sea going Melayus, added with the local Dayak.

Tuai 22:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

New article

Hello. Um. While I'm fine with the idea of making this article about a more narrow interpretaton of the word Malay, I still believe that there should also be an article for the more broader definition similar to the articles Germanic peoples, Latin peoples, Iranian peoples, Berber peoples, Semitic peoples, Tai peoples, etc. So I propose in making a less controversial articele called "Malayic peoples" 23prootie 09:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no scope on Wikipedia for inventing new terms. Malayic, as best I can tell refers to a language group - see [[11]]. Even it does not include Filipinos, or their languages. If you want to create an article, please provide WP:reliable sources to support its meaning. (Caniago 10:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC))

Malayic sounds awful and I have never heard of it, as a layman. Malay people is still the most common and easily recognizable, per WP:NAME. __earth ^(Talk) 10:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

One article might mention both definitions —and clearly differentiate these— in its intro section and handle these one by one in large sections, themselves having subsections instead of currently sections. Since there do not appear two distinct terms for related topics, the distinction has not been widely noticed in English language texts and thus better remain in one article. The distinction is however all too clear and has been sufficiently noticed to make that distinction in the article. — SomeHuman 20 Jan2007 11:03 (UTC)

Believe me, there are dozens of definitions and uses of hte term Malay. Maybe some could tell me why Filipinos consider themselves Malays. My understanding is that Indonesia and Malaysia was populated by people from the Philippines, not the other way around - see Austronesian people. I'm leaning toward having the following articles: Malaysian Malays (definition of Malays according to Malaysian constitution), Malays or Malay people (this article, the Malay ethnic group as defined academically), Malay race or [Malay peoples] (as proposed by Chris S - an indeterminate group of people in which Filipinos can be lumped in) (Caniago 11:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC))

You don't want to go to Malaysian Malays. There would be debate on whether it should Malaysian Malays or Malay Malaysians later. __earth ^(Talk) 11:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Now you mention it, Malay Malaysian is probably better. I think it meets the president set by other similar articles (Caniago 11:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC))

Malay population in Indonesia is NOT 6.9 million

If you take a look at Indonesia's statistics, the number of Malays are not. Perhaps someone is playing around with the statistics and trying to lessen the number of Malays than it actually is. According to statistics from various statistics websites and books that involve Indonesia's demographics (ethnicities), you'd notice that "Coastal Malays" is 7.5%. There are more than 200 million people living in Indonesia, so I don't think the ethnic Malays should number around 6.9 million - should be more than that. --203.15.122.35 01:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Why would anyone place a website that doesn't work well for the "References"? --> https://www.pcgn.org.uk/Indonesia-%20Population&AdminDivs-%202003.pdf. I've changed the website link to a more reliable source since that everyone can access to it. --203.15.122.35 01:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The year 2000 Indonesian census lists Malays as 3.4%. The website this is sourced from is [[12]]. The CIA figures you are quoting from are just guesses, whereas the census figure is the actual number. Please don't revert again. (Caniago 01:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC))

Here are the multiple list of sites to support my statistics for "Coastal Malays" just to prove my point:

• http://www.intute.ac.uk/sciences/worldguide/html/914_people.html
• http://learningpartnership.org/partners/indonesia
• http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107634.html
• http://www.nationmaster.com/country/id-indonesia/peo-people
• https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/id.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.15.122.35 (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

I've seen those percentages everywhere, in most websites (Javanese 45%, Sundanese 14%, Madurese 7,5%, coastal Malays 7,5%, other 26%). However, I think they're just parroting each other. I agree with Caniago that we should rely on the census and not on estimates. In fact, I was thinking of adding the Malay percentages in Indonesian provinces which I obtained from the Wikipedia pages of each of those provinces. The numbers surprisingly low percentages for Malays in their own land (Riau, Riau Islands, Jambi, South Sumatra) seemed to be caused by the numbers of outsiders who have migrated to those provinces such as the Javanese, Batak, etc. The source of reference of the percentages in each page is from "Indonesia's Population: Ethnicity and Religion in a Changing Political Landscape. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. 2003." and the figures seem to be identical to the ones I saw in the 2000 Indonesian census site which Caniago gave. Here are the Malay percentages of each province (I don't know if this should be included in the article):

• North Sumatra 4.92%
• Riau 38%
• Riau Islands 35.6% (Riau Islands doesn't have its own percentage in the census, because the census includes the population of Riau Islands as part of the Riau province. The source for Riau Islands is from "Kepulauan Riau, Keberagaman Identitas dalam Kesatuan Kultur. http://epaper.kompas.com. February 6th.")
• Jambi 38%
• South Sumatra 31%
• Bangka Belitung 72%
• Lampung 4%
• West Borneo 8%Senantiasa (talk) 13:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I notice that the statistics you've made on Indonesia was back then in 2000 and you've made your point well - as shown in that pdf file. I'm just wondering, do you have statistics that are more recent for the percentage of Indonesia's ethnic groups Caniago?

Any other figures besides the census figures are just guesses - the census figure is the only reliable number. Since the Indonesian census is conducted every 10 years, it won't be until 2010 before a new figure is available. If you want a 2006 estimate, I suggest you multiply 3.4% by whatever the current total Indonesian population estimate is. (Caniago 02:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC))

Religion with Respect to Malay Ethnic Group

I think we can improve the section under religion by looking at the religions practiced by the whole Malay Ethnic group, which should include the Filipinos and East Timorese and not just those who have embraced Islam.

It is a fact that the Philippines is 81% Roman Catholic out of a population of 89.5 Million. They are the second largest Roman Catholic country in the world after Brazil. This is a significant fact regarding the Malay ethnic group that live in the Philippines and should be mentioned in this article.

FRM SYD 05:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

As you can see from the discussions above, Filipinos, East Timorese, Javanese, etc are not considered by academics to be part of the Malay ethnic group (although there is a minority Malay population in the southern Philippines). The proposal is to create a new Malay race article to encapsulate the outdated idea of a greater Malay race. (Caniago 06:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC))

Well, I think it really depends on your definition of an 'Ethnic Group'. Also, is there an academic term for the 'Greater Malay Race' to cover all the biologically related peoples who cover the South East Asian Islands as a whole (not including the Negritos or mixed Chinese)?

I would liken the differences between an ethnic Malay (from Malaysia), a Filipino and Indonesian (non-negrito or Chinese mixed) to be of one biological grouping. Not unlike the closeness of an Englishman(of AngloSaxon descent), German and Dutchman. Do you agree?

FRM SYD 01:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

As has been said all through this talk page, your so-called 'biological' group is an out of date academic viewpoint. Although it certainly deserves a small but definitive mention, it is not what this page is about; the page is about the ethnic group. To use your example, it would be pointless to discuss the culture of caucasians (itself only a definition subject to opposing views). That is, German and English cultures are as distinct as Malay, Javanese and various Filipino cultures. Merbabu 01:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Austronesian is the term you are looking for. (Caniago 04:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC))

'Austronesian' is too large a classification as it covers any group that speaks an Austronesian language which includes Polynesian Islanders along with the South East Asian Island indigenous populations. The Polynesian biological type is different to the biological type of the Western Indonesians, Malaysians and Filipinos. Hence, there must be a classification for these closely related groups, which I have understood to be 'Malay'.FRM SYD 04:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Why 'must' there be classification of an alleged group? On what are you basing this grouping? Simply because you think they look the same? Sources? The use of the word "Malay" has been commented on ad nauseum here over the last two weeks, as has suggestions for the way it is used in the article. please read it before repeating old ground any further. once again, this has nothing to do with the cultural grouping which this article is about. If you have sources then mention can be made of it as another previous definition (similar to caucasian).Merbabu 04:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

PS, look at the very 1st two sentences of this article. That provides a clear reference point for further assessment, comment and editing of the article, or editing of the lead itself. Merbabu 04:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well unfortunately the English language does not provide an appropriate term for every concept you might like to express. In this case the "Malay race" is an outdated idea since it does not express the fact the the so called Malay race are genetically related to people from Formosa. Also, some definitions of "Malay race" does not even include Filipino people - the Filipinos seem the most keen to include themselves in this group, whereas other people may not. The Polynesian people share the same language group as the Austronesians from SE asia, and they do share some of the same DNA since there was an outward migration from Formosa to SE asia and the pacific islands.

Also, here is the distinction between ethnic group and race from ethnic group: While ethnicity and race are related concepts (Abizadeh 2001), the concept of ethnicity is rooted in the idea of social groups, marked especially by shared nationality, tribal affiliation, genealogy, religious faith, language, or cultural and traditional origins, whereas race is rooted in the idea of a biological classification: “[Races] are populations that may be distinguished phenotypically (i.e. by appearance). Races are not species; they are able to interbreed, and are fertile when they do.” (Eysenck, 1971) (Caniago 04:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC))

Could everyone please calm down! Relax! I only asked a few questions which I believed were valid and would improve this article, as it sounded like it covered the whole South East Asian Archipelago. Thanks for your corrections. However, I think you should be more explicit in your article around the exclusivity of the term 'Malay'. What I am still confused about is the proper term or classification for the group of people who live on the South East Asian Archipelago, (and east of the Wallace Line). I believe it is important to have this classification, whether it be called 'Malay Race' or something more appropriate, whatever it is, the CONCEPT of it remains true, that there is a strong biological, racial, anthropological and linguistic bond between these peoples. To Caniago, I don't think simply starting a new article called 'Malay Race' will achieve anything constructive until you do further research on devising the most appropriate name for this classification due to the obvious controversy of using the term 'Malay'. Furthermore, I object to your statement that Filipinos 'seem the most keen to include themselves in this group' as I am only saying that they belong to a larger racial group that includes ethnic Malays and Indonesians - which as you point out is incorrectly named the 'Malay Race'. And please don't continue to add further sarcastic personal comments or I will report you to the administrators.FRM SYD 14:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

"or I will report you to the administrators" you are most welcome, go ahead. Nothing I have said contains any sarcasm, I am simply pointing out what I have read. Instead of reporting your own personal believes and experiences on this topic, it would be great if you could invest the time to do some research and contribute by citing WP:reliable sources. If you want to spend time improving the article based on reliable information, I have a collection of relevant academic papers I can provide. (Caniago 15:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC))

um.... to FRM SYD..... isn't the wallace line about plants and vegetation not people??Australian Jezza 02:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Regions with significant population

What is your definition of "Regions with significant population", Caniago? How many numbers of a certain group of people must there be to with qualify this definition? --60.229.129.245 02:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe we already have the regions with significant populations already listed. If you look at Minangkabau, you'll see nothing less than 500,000 is listed. Please state which "significant" regions are missing, along with a reliable source for population statistics, and we can discuss. (Caniago 03:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC))

Malayan redirects to here?

I don't think the term Malayan should redirect here. There term Malayan is similar to the noun Malaysian; it does not necessarily describe the Malay people. Not since British Malaya was established or at the latest, since Federation of Malaya. __earth ^(Talk) 07:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree that Malayan does not necessarily refer to the Malay ethnic group. However, based upon my limited research, I think its another one of those ambiguous terms like Malay. It can refer to people of the Malaya peninsula, but it can also be used as the Malayan language (as in William Marsden, A Dictionary and Grammar of the Malayan Language (London: Longman, 1812)), or the Malayan race, etc. If you take a look at the pages referring to Malayan, I think there are a variety of usages. Maybe it would be best to redirect it to Malay, or create a separate DAB page? (Caniago 10:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC))

What about redirecting it to Malaysian? Johnleemk | Talk 12:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that is what Earth was suggesting, but I'm saying its not that simple - the term can have a broader meaning than Malaysian. For example, here is the definition from the Columbia encyclopedia : "Malayan (məlā'ən) or Malay (mā'lā) , general term for one of a population of persons inhabiting SE Asia and the adjacent islands. The Malays vary greatly in physical appearance. The term Indonesian, used as an alternative for Malayan, is sometimes applied to the people of interior districts, who are thought to be related to the Pygmies or Negritos (probably the earlier inhabitants of the region). In the coastal districts there has been intermixture with the Arabs, the Chinese, the Indians, and the Thais. Scores of languages or dialects are spoken; they form a group of the Malayo-Polynesian languages. Among anthropologists the term Malayan is used exclusively to describe an inhabitant of the Malayan Peninsula." (Caniago 14:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC))

It should probably redirect to Malay, considering that that page also has broader links to things associated with that definition. Dekimasuが... 11:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_Malay <--- won't that be a better name for this article? What do you guys think?

Redirect from Malay people

I think Malay people should redirect here (since there's a Malay race article anyway), with a note in italics on top pointing to a disambiguation page.

No, bad choice. You just need to look the all the articles currently linking to Malay people to see that the term is no more specific than Malay or Malays. We need to ensure these articles link to the correct page. (Caniago 23:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC))

Infobox

An infobox is a summary, it doesn't need to contain every minutia about an article. The percentage of non-Muslim Malays is <1%, which is insignificant enough that it doesn't need to be mentioned in the Infobox. Are we going to list all the other minority religions practiced by Malays, such as Taoism, Hari Krishner, Scientologists, etc? It is mentioned in the article about minority religions, so if you want to provide additional detail, please do it here. What other ethnic group articles do in their infoboxes is irrelevant here, we need to do what's right. By your argument we should also be listing every single country which contains a Malay person, which I'm sure is probably most countries on earth. (Caniago 11:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC))

Sghan is disputing the % of Malay Muslims in Singapore and Malaysia. Well, here is a good resource for you - http://www.singstat.gov.sg/keystats/c2000/religion.pdf . According to the Singapore 2000 census, Malays in Singapore are 99.55% Muslim. The stats I've seen for Indonesia are similar. Maybe someone else can dig up the Malaysia census stats, but I don't see any reason why it would be different. The Joshua project quotes similar stats for all Malay countries I believe. (Caniago 11:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC))

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left here. Ling.Nut 22:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted the Image:Malays.JPG

I have deleted the Image:Malays.JPG I've created. You guys are making so much fuss on image downloads here. It's not that I'm putting one whole photo from someone else and claiming it to my my own. Lots of other ethnic groups on Wikipedia are downloading images with copyright status GDFL like I did. --Fantastic4boy 11:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has very strict copyright policies, which it seems you don't understand. I suggest reading Wikipedia:Image use_ policy. You can't take copyrighted images owned by someone else, paste them together and then claim they have been freely licensed under GDFL. (Caniago 11:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC))

Fantastic4boy, please give your comments why you can claim both images as free (GFDL) here: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 August 8. Otherwise, admins will anyway delete your images. — Indon (reply) — 11:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic4boy, could you please advise which 'other ethnic groups on wikipedia' you are talking about? thanks --Merbabu 13:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Im surprised there are so many Indons making so much fuss here.(203.82.80.107 (talk) 05:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC))

Recent changes and CIA world fact book

I've reverted a set of changes by User:Djoehana since they were almost entirely unreferenced. The one reference I saw was to the Malay population figures for Indonesia provided by the World Fact book. Given these figures are more than twice as large as the figures provided by the year 2000 Indonesian census they don't seem credible. I suggest we stick to the census figures alone - any other more recent figures are just guesses. (Caniago 04:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC))

Hello Caniago, fair enough as far as official census are concerned. However, if you look at another source, for instance 'ethnologue.com' 's article regarding "Local Malay", and add up the numbers of speakers for its diverse forms, you will find much more than 6.9 million. "Malay" is a cultural and linguistic concept, not a political and statistical one, :-) Djoehana 03:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

What constitutes a Malay can be a subject of endless debate, as you can see in the discussion on this page. Your opinion seems to be anyone who speaks some variant of the Malay language is a Malay. My understanding is that its far from being that simple - there are multiple ethnic groups who make use of the Malay language, the Malay ethnic group being just one. For example, the Indonesian language is considered a local Malay language, but you can't consider all Indonesians to be Malays. Since on your user page you say your are a PhD candidate, I highly recommend reading the following papers which provide a detailed background of the complexities of the subject:

• Reid, Anthony (2001). "Understanding Melayu (Malay) as a Source of Diverse Modern Identities". Journal of Southeast Asian Studies. 32 (3): 295–313. doi:10.1017/S0022463401000157.
• Andaya, Leonard Y. (2001). "The Search for the 'Origins' of Melayu". Journal of Southeast Asian Studies. 32 (3): 315–330. doi:10.1017/S0022463401000169.

(Caniago 03:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

It's very kind of you to suggest me these readings. I have no opinion on what an "ethnic Malay" is. All I know is that there is a language called Malay. But if you do, I would in turn suggest that you indicate a definition of ethnic Malays so as to clarify this debate. As for Indonesians, of course they are not all Malays but people living within the boundaries of the former Netherlands Indies who decided to adopt Malay as the language of their nation and call it "Indonesian". By the same token, I would certainly not dare call "Malay" those Chinese and Indian Malaysians who speak the national language of their country... :-) Anda Djoehana 06:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Malays: indigenous Indonesia?

Are the ethnic Malays considered indigenous to Indonesia? Surely, they are native to Sumatra. since that the known Malay civilisation flourished there ('Melayu' believed to be a name taken from the 'Melayu River' in Jambi). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.228.125.69 (talk • contribs)

sumatra is in indonesia, and just because a civilisation flourish in a particular part of the world it doesn't mean thats where they originiated!Australian Jezza 10:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem in this argument is that it seems to link language, culture and physical anthropology. The oldest documents written in Malay found so far are one inscription found on Bangka island (dated 682 AD) and two in Palembang (684 and 686 respectively). The origin of people is another issue. The Austronesian migrations out of Taiwan to the Philippines are estimated to have taken place around 4000 before present or 2000 BC. Around 3500 BP or 1500 BC, new migrations started from the Philippines southwards to Sulawesi and the rest of the Indonesian archipelago. It is not easy to determine whether these Austronesian-speaking people already spoke differentiated (though of course still related) languages at that time. It is neither easy to determine whether those speaking any sort of proto-Malay first lived on Sumatra or on the Malay peninsula. But the fact is that the oldest identified Malay documents were found in Bangka and Sumatra. As for the name "Malayu", it is also a fact that it refered to a 13th century kingdom centered in the Jambi area, also in Sumatra. I agree that the fundamental problem of this article is the widespread confusion within the public between an outdated concept of "Malay" as a "race" and the currently universal use of "Malay" in the scientific world as refering to a language and the people who speak it. If Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it must be used to diffuse knowledge, not ideology, Anda Djoehana 03:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

"Malay race"

Al-Andalus's article posted on 8 December 2005 under the above "Change of article name" section reflects this common confusion regarding language and culture on the one hand, and genetics on the other hand. Austronesian is a linguistic reality, and genetical linguistics have identified Taiwan as the most probable source of all Austronesian languages. As for what Al-Andalus calls "consanguineous links", genetics seem to confirm that all Austronesian people do share genes and that a significant part of it seems to originate from Taiwan, as can be seen in "Genetic Evidence for the Proto-Austronesian Homeland in Asia: mtDNA and Nuclear DNA Variation in Taiwanese Aboriginal Tribes " and "A Predominantly Indigenous Paternal Heritage for the Austronesian-Speaking Peoples of Insular Southeast Asia and Oceania", both articles from The American Journal of Human Genetics. As for the fact that "Filipinos consider themselves Malays" and the argument that "it's more offensive to ignore a concept which a significant number of people apparently embrace", again, I think a difference should be made between scientific facts and ideological beliefs. What Filipinos need is to know that they speak Austronesian languages because their ancestors came from Taiwan some 4,000 years ago, not to believe that they are part of a "Malay race" that has no scientific basis, :-) Anda Djoehana 04:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This article I thought had the correct mix of interpretations. It is predominantly about the Malay ethnic group centred on Malaysia and to some extend Sumatra. But, it also acknowledges other interpretations that have or continue to consider a much wider group that includes the Philippines and Indonesia. Is that not appropriate? --Merbabu 05:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is appropriate to use the same word for different notions with different statuses. "Malay" is a language. If people want to name something that would include the Philippines and Indonesia, "Malay" would certainly not be appropriate since there are no Malay-speaking people in the Philippines, even in Sulu, whose sultanate had links with Malay Brunei. Besides, these people must define this "something" that would include the Philippines and Indonesia and the criteria on which they would base it. In the early 1960's there were talks between Tunku Abdul Rahman, Magsaysay and Soekarno of a Maphilindo confederation, but this was a political gimmick, not a concept based on cultural and historical considerations! :-) Anda Djoehana 06:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we both agree that this article is about the Malay ethnic group and this is its predominant focus. agreed, right?

On the other hand, it think it is also important to acknowledge that there are other interpretations of the word Malay - ie, broader geographically, and more racially based. The fact that these might be controversial, or even discredited can also be mentioned (most preferably with reliable references!). That something is invalid is no reason not to include it if (a) it is not the main focus of the article (it's not) and (b) it is stated here as being discredited. Remember, our job as wikipedia editors is not so much to work out what is correct, or true - rather what is notable and verifiable. For example, people once believed the earth was flat. Like the Malays racial definition - it may not be correct/valid, but it certainly is notable. But in wikipedia we don't decide if it is or isn't valid, rather we report that (a) it was once believed to be so and (b) it is now discredited because of research XYZ. --Merbabu 06:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, but then I think we should emphasise in some way that the concept of "Malay race" is of the same substance as that of "Aryan race", Djoehana 07:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

If that is verifiable thru reliable sources then that is fine. In fact, this article could do with a whole lot more RS's. --Merbabu 08:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Origin of the word Melayu

Map of Malaiyur, Malayadvipa and Malaya.

Although Parameswara brought Melayu Kingdom to Melaka around 1400 but the name came from a small town in India, called Melaiyur (see Tamil place names in Malaysia) 219.95.212.93 (talk) 16:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed and verification needed

Hey guys, I have been following articles relating to Malays, Melayu, Malayu or whatever for years, you know what, I noticed, so obviously, that there are always an anonymous or a known Wikipedian from Malaysia, these people came in proudly hang up a HUGE banner This article needs additional citations for verification. Hey come on cool down, we know what they up to, you know, they are people of the NEP or more popularly known as Clucth Community. Malaysia really pity these people, they are so incompetetant, relying on getting rich policies, shameless using the tax payer's money to study in University abroad, they are insecure of their identity, they think by hanging up a HUGE banner so that viewers from all over the world will start to think "Hey, this article is not reliable, let's move on to another article." Haha....

(BTW, my name is Bumiputra, Earth. I'm proud to be a Malaysian)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.133.77.90 (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2009‎ (UTC)

Article is bland, put a picture in it??

Some pictures of famous Malays (im sure there are some!) would be nice, atleast pictures in an at the beginning of the article in an infobox like most other ethnic group articles have (Ex: Khmer people. If there arent any famous Malays or the rights to the photos are hard to obtain, maybe someone who lives in Malaysia can just snap some nice pictures of Malays like the the people did in the Khmer people article. I think it would be preferable to put famous Malays in there though, at least for one.

134.121.247.116 (talk) 02:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The word "Melayu" was not derived from Sanskrit

In this article mentions that the word "Melayu" came from Sanskrit of Malai Ur.

I believe, it derived from the name of the river in Sumatra. The river name is Melayu, that believes it is the same to "Melayu" meaning in Javanese language. In Javanese, it means "run".

To note, Malay and Javanese people are brothers (Austronesian) and they live near each other. So, sharing or owning words are the common matters in their life. So, the river name of Melayu implied that it is a river that flow swiftly or quickly as "running" in its way.

Then, "Melayu" was probably given to the clan (Melayu - which dwell around the river) by themselves since they are the residents who occupied the surrounding area of the swift and quick river.

This is my theory. Plus, the Sejarah Melayu had mentioned about the river name of "Melayu" in Sumatra that tells the origin of Melayu.

Everyone may develope any theory, but are the theories are just the theories (opinions)? Are the theory-makers look at Malay cultures, beliefs, folk stories, and most important the history records? In Sejarah Melayu, it exactly mentioned the river name of Melayu, even Malays always give names to any things based on its nature. In this context, the river was given the name "Melayu" because it flows quick/swift as the river is running.

That's all. Thanks.

Master of Books (talk) 04:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

"Racial" concepts

My main problem with the article in its current state is that while it attempts to distance its subject from the "Malay race", it continues to lend credence to outdated "racial" concepts such as this. Additionally, it does not offer a clear progression of how the ancestors of today's Orang Asli or "Proto-Malay" were replaced by "Malays" today; nor does it draw a line between them. In short, it does not define what a "Malay" is, i.e. the majority of people that live in, say, Kuala Lumpur, and essentially states that there is nothing that defines Malays as different from Orang Asli. The concept of a "Malay race", like all "racial" categorizations (including the embarrassing "mongoloid", which is also mentioned), is unscientific and should not even be lent credence to. In the section about it on this article, the term "older Aboriginal stock" is introduced but earlier the article states this:

"The present day Malays of the peninsular and coasts of Malay Archipelago are described anthropologically as Deutero Malays; a combination of Proto Malays with...the aborigine Negrito Orang Asli" (emphasis mine)

This is rather confusing to say the least. 68.227.56.16 (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Diaspora

The Malay International Secretariat says there are 350 million Malays in the world. See http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=1qIhB0I3Pq0C&printsec=frontcover&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false for proof. The Malay diaspora of 20 million had spread to Suriname, South Africa, Madagascar, Sri Lanka and Australasias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quixodon (talk • contribs) 19:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Malay.girls.playing.congkak.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Malay.girls.playing.congkak.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Nasi.Lemak.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Nasi.Lemak.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Ayam Percik & Nasi Kerabu.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ayam Percik & Nasi Kerabu.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)